|
|
|
A Nintendo community by the fans!
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|
GamerGate Explained!!! [locked]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
09/13/14, 05:42 Locked 01/04/16, 01:39
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@DapperDave That "adults" table was more meant in regards to the type of people and organizations Gamergate demands time and energy and formal responses from (and often a platform to push their views) like professional journalists (often the very ones they attacked), academics (the same), the SJP, anti-harassment organizations, the UN, developers who support their enemies, celebrities who support their enemies, etc. But it CAN apply to individuals are well, if they are engaged in discussions about ethics and harassment and such and Gamergate is demanding their time and energy too. Basically, if we remember wayyyyyy back, a large part of this whole thing was that A. Gamergate made a list of demands for the game media (actually multiple lists, they never quite organized officially) and B. they demanded people listen to them OR ELSE be deemed corrupt. Being deemed corrupt usually meant ending up on their hit lists, if you're a professional it often meant having them contact your bosses and advertisers to try to get you reprimanded and / or fired, etc. My only real point there is they never demonstrated that anyone should actually give their views attention to begin with. How do you demonstrate this? In the case of journalistic ethics, by presenting logical, consistent, unbiased, professional views on game journalism ethics that could enrich our understanding of ethics. And NOT threatening anyone who doesn't listen to you with negative repercussions. Instead they just started targeting "SJWs" and called it ethics in game journalism. And then they demanded those very "SJW" journalists give them platforms to speak. Ok... why exactly would anyone do this? Sometimes I see some people argue something like "yeah their message was weak but maybe if the game journalists would have given them more attention and a platform to have their say they would have gone away". But I have a few problems with that logic too: A1. It is just speculation, they might have gone away, or they might have become more emboldened and gotten worse, or the same thing might have happened. It's asking people to do something that they feel uncomfortable with, and cater to a group that they do not feel has done much besides attack them, for questionable results. A2. And it ignores what Gamergate themselves have repeatedly stated... that they won't go away until they "win". Is this true or not? Who knows. They have definitely stuck around for a lot longer than I expected though, so maybe they really will never go away. The idea that giving them platforms on the major sites to have their say early on could have ended this is just a theory, and honestly, not one that I personally believe in. They showed no signs of leaving until they got what they wanted. B. It puts the onus on people Gamergate is targeting to spend their own time and energy and give their platforms to Gamergate just to stop the bad things from happening. Maybe that works sometimes, maybe it doesn't, either way it's not really their obligation, and if they perceive it as a risk or something that might just make things worse, then why do it? I guess that is what it comes down to in the end. I don't see why anyone, from the largest industry organizations to us lowly individuals, should pay any attention to Gamergate unless they personally feel that there is something they can get out of it. Gamergate does not have strong enough claims to demand that attention by default (the way say... black lives matter does), and doing it just to appease them and make them feel like they have a voice is no one's obligation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've got an issue I've wanted to address in this thread for a while now, but this is like the worlds worst game of double dutch jump rope. Finding a spot to jump in is more than likely going to get everything tangled. Maybe in a bit. In the meantime though, there's another angle: @GuillaumeWho decides what beliefs have 'validity' though? Here's a case to consider (I may have brought this up here a long time ago, I can't remember): A number of years ago we had an ad for KFC that ran during one of the cricket seasons. Either our team was touring the West Indies, or thWest Indies team was touring us. Can't remember. Point is it was a series of games against the Windies. (I can't view the video here at work, but I've got a link from Google that should work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaIhf41ctkM ) If I remember correctly, it depicts an Australian cricket fan sitting in a sea of West Indies fans, and realising he might be in a precarious position, shares his KFC meal with those around him as an act of goodwill. On the surface, nothing more than a humerous portrayal of the rivalry between different fanbases in sports, used to sell chicken. It's certainly how it was taken here where the ad aired. But then of course it ended up on the internet, and the Americans got wind of it. It took about 0.83 seconds for the screams of "RACISM" to begin. And why? Because of *America's* issues with it's past in slavery, and an *American* sterotype about black people and fried chicken The fact that the people in the ad were West Indian and not Afrrican American didn't matter. The fact that the point of the ad was simply about a nice gesture between opposing fans was lost. Suddenly the narrative was an arrogant whitey placating angry black people with a sterotypical meal of fried chicken. Because a bunch of Americans came in and imposed *their* standards and interpretations on an ad that had nothing to do with them, and was never aimed at their market. Is their any doubt that those Americans thought their views are valid? Is there any doubt that many Australians who heard about the American reaction considered those views to be invalid? Who's right? Who's wrong? How do you decide? (All that said, I think we can all agree that over-the-top harrassment is wrong, yes?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guillaume said:
I lack empathy for racists. Guilty as charged.
And that's why the cycle of hate will never end. Fighting lack of empathy with more lack of empathy. Toss another gas can on the fire, old bean. @ZeroFair enough, but didn't you link to a bunch of random GG stuff to try and prove points? Thereby making more avenues for people to give them attention via our views and such? This is what I was talking about on the last page RE: Anita's methods. If you perpetuate what trolls say, it's doing exactly what they want, INCLUDING if you preface it with "I don't agree with this." You are giving them the attention they want. And you think you aren't giving them their "demands?" They'd be laughing at you, fighting "their demands" and playing right into their hands! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
∧ |
Forum main |
|
|