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
 
   
 
Jargon said:

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.

I understand and have empathy for her, but I fully admit I also still believe that feeding the trolls as she does is indeed a terrible thing that she does. I think it hurts people that she does it. I mean, I'm just being honest here. I do not mean to come across as harsh, though. I think you can be critical and still kind, and I want (desperately) to do it that way in whatever I post that is critical. I just, as I said both in post and PM, often fail badly at it. I appreciate your understanding.
11/10/15, 21:44   
@DapperDave

Yes, I have. For instance here, where GGers see racist pictures and defend them, and everyone else.

Different conclusions drawn. Do you think the GGers have as much ground to stand on as everyone else who recognizes the racism in these images?
11/10/15, 21:44   
@DapperDave No, I presented evidence that what GG calls "ethics in game journalism" are disconnected from actual ethical codes of journalism that have been put together over the years through research, etc. When you add in the fact that what they DO call ethics is actually harmful targeting of ideological opponents. Because of this, I think inviting them to discuss ethics can actually be a net negative for ethics.

But I think there is a piece of this puzzle that is missing. Because, when it comes down to it, I don't think anyone has the right to demand the time or attention of anyone else by default. Like, when Jehova's Witnesses go around door to door do we have any obligation to open the door and listen? Nope.

I think they always need to make the case for taking our time and attention. And when it comes to ethics Gamergate clearly failed at making the case to the ones they demanded listen.
11/10/15, 21:53   
Guillaume said:
@DapperDave

Yes, I have. For instance here, where GGers see racist pictures and defend them, and everyone else.

Different conclusions drawn. Do you think the GGers have as much ground to stand on as everyone else who recognizes the racism in these images?

Just curious. Do you get all your news about GG from people who don't like GG?
11/10/15, 22:02   
Zero said:
@DapperDave
But I think there is a piece of this puzzle that is missing. Because, when it comes down to it, I don't think anyone has the right to demand the time or attention of anyone else by default. Like, when Jehova's Witnesses go around door to door do we have any obligation to open the door and listen? Nope. .

That's fair. You can personally decide not to engage with people you don't want to. But you word things like 'the adults table' rather than 'my table' and it to me it implies you are king of THE table.
11/10/15, 22:05   
DapperDave said:
Guillaume said:
@DapperDave

Yes, I have. For instance here, where GGers see racist pictures and defend them, and everyone else.

Different conclusions drawn. Do you think the GGers have as much ground to stand on as everyone else who recognizes the racism in these images?

Just curious. Do you get all your news about GG from people who don't like GG?
Answer my question first. Even if you don't like the source, it shows two "sides" looking at the same pictures and coming to different conclusions, like you asked. Would you say both "sides" are the same?
11/10/15, 22:08   
Edited: 11/10/15, 22:12
Guillaume said:
DapperDave said:
Guillaume said:
@DapperDave

Yes, I have. For instance here, where GGers see racist pictures and defend them, and everyone else.

Different conclusions drawn. Do you think the GGers have as much ground to stand on as everyone else who recognizes the racism in these images?

Just curious. Do you get all your news about GG from people who don't like GG?
Answer my question first.

Okay.

I don't know what you mean by "ground to stand on" but someone who is unaware an image is recognized as racist is an uninformed person. So, yes?
11/10/15, 22:14   
@DapperDave

They were informed of the racist character, and persisted, though. Their claim of ignorance doesn't get them very far. Also there are quite a few examples in there of GGers that don't claim ignorance: they're just plain racist.

So, once informed, they double down on their racism. The people who find them appalling, still find them appalling.

Are they still "the same" because both think they're right?
11/10/15, 22:17   
Edited: 11/10/15, 22:18
Guillaume said:
@DapperDave

They were informed of the racist character, and persisted, though. Their claim of ignorance doesn't get them very far. Also there are quite a few examples in there of GGers that don't claim ignorance: they're just plain racist.

So, once informed, they double down on their racism. The people who find them appalling, still find them appalling.

Are they still "the same" because both think they're right?

That's what it sure looks like according to the article. Now will you answer my question?
11/10/15, 22:21   
@DapperDave

Can we first get to the bottom of your argument, please? Because earlier you were unsure if we understood your meta argument about arguments. Let's make sure it's clear.

What you're saying is that if one side believes what they believe with conviction, and their opponent believe what they believe with conviction, then they're the same. Right? And outside factors, such as the validity of their beliefs, literally doesn't enter the equation.

So you asked earlier: "I see people do awful things to each other every day because they feel that they're right. What makes you any different?"
If someone were to answer with the facts of the situation, that would not be an acceptable answer?

And before we forget, in this specific case, "awful things" puts "Zero not wanting GG to enter a discussion about ethics" and "GG's targeting people for harassment" on the same footing.
11/10/15, 22:33   
Guillaume said:
@DapperDave

Can we first get to the bottom of your argument, please? .

No
11/10/15, 22:38   
@DapperDave

Well then.

You're being an ass, but I'll still answer your question: I don't "get news" on GG in general. I avoid digging into the topic, usually. The website I linked to was simply the work-safe one. The pro-GG ones were too racist.



This probably doesn't surprise you. You researched GG extensively, after all.
11/10/15, 22:46   
@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.
11/10/15, 22:49   
Edited: 11/10/15, 22:57
@Zero

Super confused. Haven't you been giving them that attention this whole thread?
11/10/15, 22:57   
Guillaume said:
@DapperDave

Well then.

You're being an ass, but I'll still answer your question: I don't "get news" on GG in general. I avoid digging into the topic, usually. The website I linked to was simply the work-safe one. The pro-GG ones were too racist.



This probably doesn't surprise you. You researched GG extensively, after all.


If your diet consists of nothing but people explaining to you how bad GG is then I'm not surprised you feel so strongly against it and lack so much empathy for another point of view. You should try getting someone else's side of the story. Even if you don't agree with it, maybe you'll at least gain insight into why people are the way they are.
11/10/15, 22:58   
@J.K. Riki Are they here reading this? I doubt it. I guess it is a public thread, but it doesn't seem like the type of thread too many randoms would stumble upon.

But I more meant giving them the type of attention that they demanded. I'm definitely not doing that. I'm choosing to converse with my friends, not capitulating to demands to give random people who attack me a voice on my site.

Although really, if some open Gamergater came here I wouldn't ban him. I mean, we had one guy earlier in this thread that was super pro-Gamergate, and he wasn't banned. "Unplugged" whatever. No idea where he went, but his last post on here was the big Gamergate rant that didn't go over very well. Seems he left after that. Still technically a member.

But I wouldn't give him a platform on my site to do pro-Gamergate editorials or anything either.
11/10/15, 22:58   
Edited: 11/10/15, 23:05
@DapperDave

You want to visit White Supremacy website while at work, be my guest.

I did get the other side of the story, from GGers and from googling what they're about. My insight about why they are the way they are: racism and sexism.

I lack empathy for racists. Guilty as charged.
11/10/15, 23:01   
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:

@Guillaume

Who 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?)
11/10/15, 23:03   
Edited: 11/10/15, 23:10
Guillaume said:
@DapperDave

You want to visit White Supremacy website while at work, be my guest.

I did get the other side of the story, from GGers and from googling what they're about. My insight about why they are the way they are: racism and sexism.

I lack empathy for racists. Guilty as charged.

What do you think makes people racist or sexist?
11/10/15, 23:10   
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.

@Zero

Fair 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!
11/10/15, 23:13   
  Forum main
 +