|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
GamerGate Explained!!! [locked]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09/13/14, 05:42 Locked 01/04/16, 01:39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NinSage said:You never even gave me a chance, Gui. That's not true. I read what you write. Based on that, I don't feel like a one on one debate with you would be productive or entertaining. Before I can ever think it would be worthwhile, you'd have to show more good faith than you usually do on the forum. Again, let's look at what your first, big post here was when you decided to enter the discussion. But the fact remains OUTSIDE of GG that there are important parts of gaming journalism that we shouldn't have to put up with and that folks like Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn don't necessarily have the best interests of others at heart and that awful online harassment is not just a woman's problem. The parts of gaming journalism that are a problem are never explained, and clearly not the focal point. Comes more across as conceding "there's something to GG" and then immediately questioning the motives of their targets. Followed up by a strawman: no one ever said men don't get harassed online. No one said it doesn't matter when men get harassed. This is just a diversion from you. Part of the problem people have with Zoe and Anita is that they seem to thrive on and encourage controversy and being antagonistic because each death threat they receive gets them that much more good will from the rest of the world. Downplaying the harassment these women get, again questioning their motives, as if fearing for one's safety constantly online and off was a good trade off for some patreon money and an appearance on Colbert. There's no evidence provided of them encouraging controversy and being antagonistic, other than to their harassers, whom we kind of completely forget about, here. The thread of your argument is these women did it to themselves The people chasing them out of their homes aren't even secondary: they're not in the picture. So, why would casually labeling entire groups of people as sexist and racist based on obviously flawed methods not draw the ire of those same people? Baseless claim. Then in your follow-up: Purposefully deceiving people about her history with video games.Again, baseless claim, offered as little more than justification for the abuse she got. Yeah, yeah, I saw the video. "I'm not a fan of video games." Present tense. Sounds like something I'd say: I'm not a fan of Star Wars. It's a true statement. Then, when it becomes convenient to be perceived as a long-time gamer lest her credibility be questioned, she changes her story and trots out the one picture she has where she is holding a SNES controller as a youngster. Why lie?Yeah, when people like you accuse her of not knowing anything about video games, she'll defend herself. Makes sense to me. If I were to voice an unpopular opinion about Star Wars and someone shoved my previous "I'm not a fan" statement in my face, you bet I'd contextualize. Haven't been a fan in a decade, but I used to be and read probably 30 SW books until my early 20s. Where is the lie here? Where is the lie in what she said? BTW, there are NO pictures anywhere of me with a controller in my hand as a kid, not a single picture of me unboxing a Game Boy at Christmas, nothing. Implying that she's grasping at straws showing the "only" picture of her as a kid with a SNES controller in her hands really shows bad faith. It's ridiculous she should show proof of any history with video games at all. This history is not a requirement for her to be able to talk about sexist tropes. Anyway, that's enough. I hope I made my point: you had your chance, in your first posts here, to show you were ready to have a conversation in good faith about Anita's video game critique. You didn't take it, instead setting up a few strawmen, making a few baseless accusations, implying a whole lot about her motives, and generally focusing on the same points (she's not a gamer, she's not one of us; she's doing this for personal gain) that GGers do. If you don't want to be lumped in with them, it's not enough to just say you don't care about them. Show how your position differs, show you can build better arguments than them, and certainly don't harp on the same imaginary transgressions they do. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@DapperDave I think you are confusing what I am saying. I'm not talking about whether any individual Gamergater has anything worth listening to. I am saying when you are talking about whether a MOVEMENT that demands to be part of a wider conversation about ethics with say... industry professionals, reviewers, etc. should be given any time or energy, that they actually have to show that as a MOVEMENT they have ideas worth spending time on. And Gamergate has not done this. They have actually done the opposite with pretty much every one of their major initiatives. We seem to be butting heads about what their actual views are as a movement but I don't think it is very complicated. A site like Deep Freeze, for instance, has pretty much near unanimous support from every GGer I have spoken to. Things like that are the generally accepted face of the ethics of Gamergate. To invite them to the table is to discuss those type of "ethics" is, frankly, a waste of time for everyone involved. I see no point in capitulating to the demands that the industry give them that time and energy. It's noise, and can be ignored. Actually it's worse than noise, it's attacks on their ideological opponents, which is the exact opposite of what you invite to your ethics discussions. I don't think this is a radical notion either, that a movement has to earn a spot at the table to talk. Do you think panels on climate change have to let in every crackpot science denial movement? And if most of their "science" is just attacking scientists they don't like? No, you have to show your movement deserves its spot in the wider conversation. As for individuals, yeah, judge them as individuals. But honestly, part of how I judge whether individuals deserve my (actually very limited) time and energy to talk about ethics is whether they look at the mess that is Gamergate "ethics" and say yeah, that deserves my support. This isn't some random bias, it's a judgment of whether someone has things to say about ethics based on a movement they support that has really shit ideas on ethics and is perfectly fine with just targeting all of their ideological foes and calling that ethics. What do I actually gain from wasting my time on this? My opinions are always open to change. I just haven't seen any evidence that demands me to rethink my views on what is clearly a movement invented to target ideological opponents, and I've been observing this mess for a year now. They couldn't make this more clear if they tried. Many of them (Milo, who is a WIDELY accepted face of the movement, for instance) are actually open about this. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zero said:@DapperDave a movement has to earn a spot at the table to talk. This is what bugs me. You act like you are the one who gets to decide who gets to have a spot at the table. I get it, why let crackpots contribute? Isn't that just a waste of time? But they don't think they're crackpots. They might even think you are the crackpot. So both of you think the same thing of each other. So you're the same. Except you're the one who thinks it's okay to have authority over the discussion. I know you feel you're right about your opinions. So do they. Spider-man's clone felt he was the real Spider-man. So why does one person or side get authority? I see people do awful things to each other every day because they feel that they're right. What makes you any different? Because you really are right, right? They thought the same thing. What happens if you hit your head and go insane? You start thinking that you have to slaughter kangaroo. People tell you you're wrong, but no, they're wrong. Those anti-kangaroo butchers have to earn a seat at your table. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|