A Nintendo community
by the fans!
           
  Forum main
 + 
GamerGate Explained!!! [locked]
 
It's this thing on the Internet.

URL to share (right click and copy)
09/13/14, 05:42    Locked 01/04/16, 01:39
 
   
 
@DapperDave

How is Zero's statement there different from this one you made:

"An artist includes some kind of diversity and one side is upset because, while not being against diversity, they are against the idea that an artist is willing to compromise the integrity of their vision because of a mob of SJWs that want to bring about change. Then their opposition believes that the reason they are against the inclusion of diversity is because they are white male entitled gamers who are simply against diversity."

You don't seem to have any problem generalizing about the opposition.

@J.K. Riki

See, there's the understanding I was talking about. A far cry from your previous post saying that Anita is insane and does terrible things.
11/10/15, 18:57   
Edited: 11/10/15, 19:00
Jargon said:
@DapperDave

How is Zero's statement there different from this one you made:

"An artist includes some kind of diversity and one side is upset because, while not being against diversity, they are against the idea that an artist is willing to compromise the integrity of their vision because of a mob of SJWs that want to bring about change. Then their opposition believes that the reason they are against the inclusion of diversity is because they are white male entitled gamers who are simply against diversity."

You don't seem to have any problem generalizing about the opposition.

Nothing wrong with making a generalization or an observation. Something maybe wrong when you're generalizations become so steadfast that they blind you to anything contrary.
11/10/15, 19:12   
@DapperDave

So basically the difference with Zero's "they" and DapperDave's "they" is that Zero's generalization is wrong and yours is right?
11/10/15, 19:15   
Jargon said:
@DapperDave

So basically the difference with Zero's "they" and DapperDave's "they" is that Zero's generalization is wrong and yours is right?

No. Try again. This time read what I write.

Nothing wrong with making a generalization or an observation. Something maybe wrong when you're generalizations become so steadfast that they blind you to anything contrary.
11/10/15, 19:17   
Edited: 11/10/15, 19:18
@DapperDave

I honestly can't see any difference between your behavior in characterizing "SJWs" and Zero's behavior in characterizing GG. You're both decrying general behavior and applying it to a large group of people who may or may not all fit into the terms. The only difference is that GamerGate does purport to have some kind of unified message and methods that people choose to identify themselves with, so I find Zero's generalization to have more weight. I guess that's what you consider him being blind.

As far as I see, no one here has said they are a GamerGater, so Zero hasn't generalized about anyone in this thread. He's clearly said there's a difference between what he's referring to as GamerGaters and people who simply disagree with the opinion that games should have better representation. On the other hand, Zero and I want better representation in games, so I see no reason why we wouldn't fall under your generalizations about "SJW"s regardless of your refusal to specify who those people are.
11/10/15, 19:30   
Edited: 11/10/15, 19:31
Jargon said:
@DapperDave

I honestly can't see any difference between your behavior in characterizing "SJWs" and Zero's behavior in characterizing GG. .

My characterizations are malleable, open to new information and able to be reshaped. I find his to be too steely. That's the difference. Clear yet?
11/10/15, 19:34   
@DapperDave

Seems to me that Zero has thoroughly researched GamerGate and his opinion was being informed by new information throughout that process. And I'm sure if those affiliated with GamerGate changed their behavior, he would be willing to reshape his opinion. Just because you haven't managed to change his opinion doesn't mean it's not malleable.

My opinion is that Nintendo makes good games and it's been that way for 20 years. That doesn't mean it couldn't change if something happened to change it (Miyamoto fired and replaced by the guy who made Flappy Bird).
11/10/15, 19:44   
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.
11/10/15, 19:46   
Edited: 11/10/15, 19:48
@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.
11/10/15, 19:50   
Edited: 11/10/15, 20:03
Jargon said:
@DapperDave
Seems to me that Zero has thoroughly researched GamerGate and his opinion was being informed by new information throughout that process.

I've also "thoroughly researched GamerGate" and formed an opinion with the new information in the process. My opinion does not match up exactly with his. How do you explain that?

And I'm sure if those affiliated with GamerGate changed their behavior, he would be willing to reshape his opinion.

I'm not as convinced.

Just because you haven't managed to change his opinion doesn't mean it's not malleable.

I haven't tried to change his mind by showing him evidence of GG acting in ways that do not match his resolute generalizations based on his experiences. He's shown me some evidence of GG acting in ways that support his generalizations (which I'm not sure why because I had no doubt that these things existed). I'm convinced it would be a futile effort and an exercise in frustration due to the resolute opinions of my audience. If I believed you were more open minded we could go down that road.

I mean if there's this much opposition to "hey maybe things are not exactly as you see them." If such a neutral statement is not our common ground. Then I don't think I want to dig into this much deeper.
11/10/15, 20:01   
@DapperDave

How do I explain two people interpreting the same information differently? The nigh infinite variables in the composition and process of the human brain. Every day I deal with arguments over multiple ways in which the same evidence, the same cases, the same contracts can be interpreted.

Meanwhile, your opinion that there may be more to GamerGate than Zero is willing to let on doesn't seem to have changed much over the course of this conversation. Why isn't that evidence that you're overly steadfast? Maybe your opinions are not as malleable as you claim.
11/10/15, 20:11   
Edited: 11/10/15, 20:12
DapperDave said:
I've also "thoroughly researched GamerGate" and formed an opinion with the new information in the process. My opinion does not match up exactly with his. How do you explain that?
It could be the quality of the information, or the quality of the research. I mean, you did miss the "possible corruption" icons on Deep Freeze while you were trying to argue that the site wasn't flagging game journalists with a progressive slant in their articles.

This resistance leads me to believe maybe your opinion isn't as malleable as you think it is. If you give the arguments of the person you're debating with only the most cursory of looks, that's not open-mindedness.
11/10/15, 20:17   
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.
11/10/15, 20:37   
@DapperDave
Spider-Man's clone actually WAS supposed to be revealed to have been the genuine Spider-Man all along, in a shocking twist that would conveniently eliminate thirty years of baggage. But then they nixed it, due to fan outrage. And then they killed him off in a crappy way.

I actually liked the idea, though, since the feel of the comic and character had moved so far from where it started.
11/10/15, 20:42   
Edited: 11/10/15, 20:43
Guillaume said:
DapperDave said:
I've also "thoroughly researched GamerGate" and formed an opinion with the new information in the process. My opinion does not match up exactly with his. How do you explain that?
It could be the quality of the information, or the quality of the research. I mean, you did miss the "possible corruption" icons on Deep Freeze while you were trying to argue that the site wasn't flagging game journalists with a progressive slant in their articles.

This resistance leads me to believe maybe your opinion isn't as malleable as you think it is. If you give the arguments of the person you're debating with only the most cursory of looks, that's not open-mindedness.

Yeah I should take a closer look at things before responding.
11/10/15, 20:52   
Anand said:
@DapperDave
Spider-Man's clone actually WAS supposed to be revealed to have been the genuine Spider-Man all along, in a shocking twist that would conveniently eliminate thirty years of baggage. But then they nixed it, due to fan outrage. And then they killed him off in a crappy way.

I actually liked the idea, though, since the feel of the comic and character had moved so far from where it started.

Yeah I actually bought all those comics when that was going on. What a mess.
11/10/15, 20:55   
@DapperDave I don't think I have anything to do with that decision, as I'm not really a game journalist. I mean, I wanted to be at some point but this site never really took off. The people having those larger conversations about journalistic ethics and how websites should utilize them are the ones deciding who to listen to. And I think they are perfectly fine in ignoring Gamergate.

And to just say "they think they have good ethics so it's the same" well, no... it's not. You need consistent, realistic ethical standards that are applied without ideological slants to be able to have serious conversations about what the industry should do as a whole. They do not have this. Not the same at all.

Here is a good place Gamergate could have started if they wanted to build a realistic journalist ethics code for video gaming.

Instead they made shit like Deep Freeze. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.
11/10/15, 21:13   
Zero said:
@DapperDave I don't think I have anything to do with that decision, as I'm not really a game journalist. I mean, I wanted to be at some point but this site never really took off. The people having those larger conversations about journalistic ethics and how websites should utilize them are the ones deciding who to listen to. And I think they are perfectly fine in ignoring Gamergate.

And to just say "they think they have good ethics so it's the same" well, no... it's not. You need consistent, realistic ethical standards that are applied without ideological slants to be able to have serious conversations about what the industry should do as a whole. They do not have this. Not the same at all.

Here is a good place Gamergate could have started if they wanted to build a realistic journalist ethics code for video gaming.

Instead they made shit like Deep Freeze. Sorry, that doesn't cut it.


I'm not sure if you got the meta argument I was making about arguments because you presenting more opinions and evidence that you have a bad opinion of GG isn't relevant to that. But thanks for sharing anyway. I'll take a look at your link.
11/10/15, 21:25   
@DapperDave

Your "Both think they're right, both are the same" argument doesn't hold up. It doesn't take into account the fact that on some issues, one group has the facts or data on their side (Holocaust survivors vs Holocaust deniers), or one group has the moral high ground (Black people vs White supremacists).
11/10/15, 21:37   
Guillaume said:
@DapperDave

Your "Both think they're right, both are the same" argument doesn't hold up. It doesn't take into account the fact that on some issues, one group has the facts or data on their side (Holocaust survivors vs Holocaust deniers), or one group has the moral high ground (Black people vs White supremacists).

Have you ever seen people look at the same facts and draw different conclusions?
11/10/15, 21:38   
  Forum main
 +