|
Post by knightrider01 on Aug 29, 2015 23:32:17 GMT -5
My enjoyment of this really ends with laughing at or being made uncomfortable by the more zealous people on either side. The issue/cause is so nebulous and pointless, but goddamn Brianna and Milo are some ridiculous people. "Ah hates SJWS!/GAMERGA8RS SPILLED COFFEE ON MY LAPTOP SHITLORDS!" Eh, I'll give Wu a lot more leeway given how rough this stuff has made her life, both professional and personal. I can't imagine somebody sending me messages that include not only threats, but my address. I did think it was pretty funny when Quinn went undercover on one of the message boards where a lot of the GG "ringleaders" would meet and discuss strategies, took screen caps, and then published everything. Kind of killed the whole "ethics" part of it; a real issue that warrants addressing, but GG was never the "movement" meant to make a dent in it. Except that log has like thirty people in out of thousands. Some idiots on a chat log, which by the way could very well be anybody doesn't prove that this wasn't about ethics. Seeing how, and again this will be ignored, the SPJ and event it held with people from the hashtag shows that this is clearly on the minds of the majority of people. Hell I could find a board right now that has more people than this being bigger idiots but it doesn't detract from the work that everyone else has made.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2015 23:53:49 GMT -5
Actually that was a 4chan chatlog and she nitpick through a couple week worth of chatlog for "proof" and when I mean "proof" she actually edit and took stuff out if context to suit her. m.imgur.com/a/Mfh61Here a imgur album showing the difference between the actually chatlog and the screencaps that quinn posted as "proof" Ok, so what exactly is the repulsive chatlog meant to prove wrong about the excerpts she posted? There's no context that makes it sound better. I'm going to use the Adam Baldwin one as example. In order to "prove" that there was some giant conspiracy to get Adam Baldwin in on gamergate, she ctrl+F Adam on the chatlog and uses the first thing that came up as "proof". "Someone on 4chan say there was plan to get Adam Baldwin on gamergate so it must be true!" Remember there about a million people who uses 4 chan and just because one person says something on internet shouldn't automatic consider to be fact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 0:17:19 GMT -5
Ok, so what exactly is the repulsive chatlog meant to prove wrong about the excerpts she posted? There's no context that makes it sound better. I'm going to use the Alec Baldwin one as example. In order to "prove" that there was some giant conspiracy to get Alec Baldwin in on gamergate, she ctrl+F Alec on the chatlog and uses the first thing that came up as "proof". "Someone on 4chan say there was plan to get Alec Baldwin on gamergate so it must be true!" Remember there about a million people who uses 4 chan and just because one person says something on internet shouldn't automatic consider to be fact. Adam Baldwin, you mean? Two totally different people. They're both massive pricks, but they're different people who aren't even related.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 0:18:56 GMT -5
Only one person who runs Wikipedia are anti-GG, Jimmy Wales. He told GG to f*** off and I agree with him there. Even then the Wikipedia article is far more fair and balanced than KYM or the GG wiki will ever be. The only thing the GG wiki is good for is seeing which sites and people support GG so I know to avoid them like the plague. That maybe true except for the fact that an editor on the page was caught being paid to edit. That's fact. Proof?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 0:28:45 GMT -5
I still don't know what the f*** GamerGate is/was.
|
|
|
Post by knightrider01 on Aug 30, 2015 1:15:06 GMT -5
That maybe true except for the fact that an editor on the page was caught being paid to edit. That's fact. Proof? That is the entire reason Ryulong's arbitration committee started. To be fair the only reason he was actually banned for was because he pissed everyone in the committee off. Edit: Actually I was wrong and I am willing to admit it. It looks like Ryulong instead actively posted at GamerGhazi and even started a GoFundMe at their behest to help out with bills. That being said what actually got him in trouble was that he actively editing the Wikipedia page so frequently, sometimes hundreds of times, that it was thought best by Wikipedia admin to give him a topic ban. But as I said before Ryulong went into a sort of attack mode and started to act unprofessional toward any one even Jimmy Wales and this led to his site wide ban. Add this editing pages to the behest of people to make them look better, and his over abusive stance toward David Auerbach and everyone else, that is the reason he was banned. But still how can Wiki be trustworthy if some idiot can go onto various pages and edit it to his own discretion, in an even obsessive manner.
|
|
LuciCypher
Don Corleone
"She Read About People She Could Never Be On Adventures She Would Never Have"
Posts: 1,326
|
Post by LuciCypher on Aug 30, 2015 2:47:48 GMT -5
That is the entire reason Ryulong's arbitration committee started. To be fair the only reason he was actually banned for was because he pissed everyone in the committee off. Edit: Actually I was wrong and I am willing to admit it. It looks like Ryulong instead actively posted at GamerGhazi and even started a GoFundMe at their behest to help out with bills. That being said what actually got him in trouble was that he actively editing the Wikipedia page so frequently, sometimes hundreds of times, that it was thought best by Wikipedia admin to give him a topic ban. But as I said before Ryulong went into a sort of attack mode and started to act unprofessional toward any one even Jimmy Wales and this led to his site wide ban. Add this editing pages to the behest of people to make them look better, and his over abusive stance toward David Auerbach and everyone else, that is the reason he was banned. But still how can Wiki be trustworthy if some idiot can go onto various pages and edit it to his own discretion, in an even obsessive manner. I stopped using Wikipedia long before any internet happenings. The whole structure is too political and cliquish. It's impossible for new users to edit. And it's too easy to be labeled a single purpose account and be stopped from editing. Then Ruylongs own talk page makes a point on the nature of the whole thing. I watched it and had serious problems with it with most of it being built around a strawman character. Onto the fact that it dismissed those that have legitimate criticism of Anita and again made the comment that her critics were these "White straight cis males" and that those that were mad at the whole thing were mad cause she was going to shatter their innocence. Plus the whole "Angry Jack" character didn't sit well with me. I'm not part of those demographics that make up this "angry jack" but the whole thing just made me uneasy. Plus people were mad at Tim Schaffer for the sockpuppet thing cause it was boiling things down again to the aforementioned "straight cis white" males. I think where it was right on was that "Angry Jack", while clearly a stand-in, was meant to represent the group that was undoubtedly the majority of GamerGate - in this case, yes, young, straight, cis men. There were certainly other people involved, of course, but I think it'd be misleading to pretend that wasn't the clear majority. All we have to do is go back to the early 90s and the marketing push by Sega and Nintendo during the 16-bit era; it was abundantly clear here in the States that their target demographic was young, white men. Again, does that mean other people didn't play games? Of course it doesn't, but it was the audience the industry was clearly going after, and the audience that was most clearly catered to from around 1990 and for at least the next 20 years afterward. And think about the sources of anger - a text-based game about human emotion, articles about the death of the "lonely basement dweller" stereotype, a video series that gave what amounted to university-101 level feminist analysis of the platform...all things that ran counter to the marketing and narrative that had been pushed since the early 90s (games are for boys, games need violence, there are people out there who want to take your games away (justified, given some of the "GAMES MAKE KIDS INTO KILLERS!" idiots out there), etc.). There are claims to be made about wanting the video game journalism industry to "grow up" and to take itself seriously, but in a world where even the political media is accused of much more serious things, it's hard to believe that gaming journalism alone could be the source of the level of vitriol, harassment, and pure 'net-fueled anger was saw last year. Again, it's just something that happens over and over again throughout history: take a group that has been catered to for a long time, begin practices that seem to erode some of their long-time benefits in order to integrate another group that has spent time being underrepresented/not catered to, and there will inevitably be a backlash. It's a cycle as old as society. It doesn't mean that all members of the hegemonic group are evil, doesn't mean they all intend for others to be underrepresented, but it's human nature to see things like one's privileges (yes, there's that word) being chipped away at and not feel resentment, particularly when the group seeking equality might use language that puts you in a defensive position ("Hey, I'm not a racist/sexist/homophobe/etc.!"). I think it's perfectly fair to use "Angry Jack" as a representation of that, given how often we, as humans, go through cycles like that - its preponderance makes Jack an archetype, in a way. As for Anita, not to jump down that rabbit hole, but based on nothing besides watching her videos, again, they're essentially Feminist Theory 101; not much in the way of revolutionary thinking, not much that really pushes the envelope, not much that you wouldn't hear in a typical undergraduate college class room any day of the week. That isn't to belittle her work (it's a pretty solid breakthrough to apply even basic feminist theory to a young artistic platform like video games), and it also isn't to belittle any criticisms anybody might have of her work: the point of academic criticism is that your own critiques can be discussed back at you as part of an ongoing conversation (though I can fully understand why she'd shut off comment sections on her videos, given the level of everything from bitter arguments to threats that get thrown around whenever she pops up). But unfortunately, those who want to criticize her work also have to understand that there's a very, VERY loud vocal minority that have made her life pretty nightmarish for a few years now, and that "there's a time and place" kind of applies when it comes to wanting to have those constructive criticism conversations in the face of a snarling rage dragon that threatens people with doxxing and rape threats. I think part of the issue with the Gamers are dead pieces was there released in the same time frame all spouting off the same opinion narrative. I think that was the main and primary dislike for those articles how they struck out at the same time. I think also part of it is and was that people felt that even before those articles came out that those stereotypes didn't have much merit. The main thing I saw is people upset that it erases the diversity already there. I'd say sure there are those with an unfounded range,but in my experience those are the minority rather than the majority. The most outspoken of the group. I think the following sums it pretty well On the whole I think it's all pretty silly. I think there are well meaning people on it that are drowned out unfortunately by a louder vocal minority. I don't think the majority of people are against diversity etc. There are those that are of course but those are the loudest voices that tend to drown everyone else out.
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Aug 30, 2015 9:40:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 30, 2015 9:43:32 GMT -5
GamerGate is about Games Journalism: the problem... A)What games journalism needs: Actual critics. B)What gamers appear to want: Someone who gives their favourite game series 10 out of 10. C)What games journalism actually is: A device to sell games to people. You're never going to get A for as long as people go crazy when you give Call of Duty 12 a roasting for being lazy and derivative... or give games they don't like a good review. You're not going to get B because gamers are too fickle and you'll get a backlash when a game series falls out of favour. That leaves C, which at least pleases the publisher. Games are also such a difficult medium to critique due to their changing natures. There was in interesting story from a game reviewer about some of the difficulties with them finding bugs in the unfinished builds they had to review, and developers saying they'd fix them and not. Also included was an example where a developer did include it, then the developer updated teh game to fix it. Games are being worked on until the last possible minute, and thanks to the internet, afterwards. It's not like reviewing a book or movie, where the version the critics see is usually the finished product with any signficant changes. Developers can make big changes right up to production date and after. So if a reviewer sees a build and is told that the big is being fixed as they play it, then the reviewer has to choose between reviewing the unfinished product and possibly criticizing things that are fixed by ship date, or trusting the developer and reviewing a product that may not be fixed. They already in a uniquely hard situatoin even without advertisement pressure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 9:48:04 GMT -5
I didn't even realize GamerGate was still a thing.
I was going to post a big screed about my thoughts on the matter but I see others have taken care of over the past 16 pages. But suffice it to say, to me GG is an embarrassment that almost makes me ashamed to be a gamer.
The only good thing to come from it was that it prompted me to get the "SJW to skeleton" add-on for Chrome. Seeing shit like "the hordes of skeletons trying to destroy gaming" never gets old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 9:58:53 GMT -5
Ha-ha, that study was pretty poorly done in terms of discerning GG harassment Less than 1k sample size from a 3 week period? WAM! didn't do any investigative research, they just crunched the numbers on what was submitted to them by a VERY miniscule sample size by the relative few who even knew about the study. Lol. This wasn't even a study about gaming, gamers or GG. It was a general twitter harassment study hahahaha! When you combine ALL the harassment women receive about various subjects (movies, music, writing, cooking, cleaning, smiling too much, smiling not enough, etc etc) gaming is a small part of it. Wow. Ha-ha! Either this is the poorest example of grasping at straws or a very unfortunate example of completely misunderstanding a study. If I were proGG, I'd be embarrassed to use this study to support my side of the discussion.
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Aug 30, 2015 10:07:33 GMT -5
Ha-ha, that study was pretty poorly done in terms of discerning GG harassment Less than 1k sample size from a 3 week period? WAM! didn't do any investigative research, they just crunched the numbers on what was submitted to them by a VERY miniscule sample size by the relative few who even knew about the study. Lol. This wasn't even a study about gaming, gamers or GG. It was a general twitter harassment study hahahaha! When you combine ALL the harassment women receive about various subjects (movies, music, writing, cooking, cleaning, smiling too much, smiling not enough, etc etc) gaming is a small part of it. Wow. Ha-ha! Either this is the poorest example of grasping at straws or a very unfortunate example of completely misunderstanding a study. If I were proGG, I'd be embarrassed to use this study to support my side of the discussion.
Your argument would be stronger if this was a group within GG, but nope! It was a feminist site that pulled a study from right when most of the harassment was reported. The main point was that Gamer Gate was blamed for the harassment and this article shows otherwise. Nice try!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 10:08:11 GMT -5
Ha-ha, that study was pretty poorly done in terms of discerning GG harassment Less than 1k sample size from a 3 week period? WAM! didn't do any investigative research, they just crunched the numbers on what was submitted to them by a VERY miniscule sample size by the relative few who even knew about the study. Lol. This wasn't even a study about gaming, gamers or GG. It was a general twitter harassment study hahahaha! When you combine ALL the harassment women receive about various subjects (movies, music, writing, cooking, cleaning, smiling too much, smiling not enough, etc etc) gaming is a small part of it. Wow. Ha-ha! Either this is the poorest example of grasping at straws or a very unfortunate example of completely misunderstanding a study. If I were proGG, I'd be embarrassed to use this study to support my side of the discussion. Actually I think if you were proGG, you'd run with it because you were right and they were wrong and blah blah blah blah blah cycle begins again blah blah blah good guys blah games game blah.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 10:11:15 GMT -5
Ha-ha, that study was pretty poorly done in terms of discerning GG harassment Less than 1k sample size from a 3 week period? WAM! didn't do any investigative research, they just crunched the numbers on what was submitted to them by a VERY miniscule sample size by the relative few who even knew about the study. Lol. This wasn't even a study about gaming, gamers or GG. It was a general twitter harassment study hahahaha! When you combine ALL the harassment women receive about various subjects (movies, music, writing, cooking, cleaning, smiling too much, smiling not enough, etc etc) gaming is a small part of it. Wow. Ha-ha! Either this is the poorest example of grasping at straws or a very unfortunate example of completely misunderstanding a study. If I were proGG, I'd be embarrassed to use this study to support my side of the discussion.
Your argument would be stronger if this was a group within GG, but nope! It was a feminist site that pulled a study from right when most of the harassment was reported. The main point was that Gamer Gate was blamed for the harassment and this article shows otherwise. Nice try!
he's still right, regardless, you're grasping at straws. the study has nothing to do with GG at all
|
|
|
Post by ShaolinHandLock on Aug 30, 2015 10:14:56 GMT -5
As I said in my earlier post in this thread, I don't care what side people are on as long as they're not acting like terrible people, and I tried my best to my ability to avoid GamerGate.
That being said, this thread reminded me of the video that NerdCubed did about GamerGate earlier in the year, and I thought it was interesting at the time, so I guess I'll post it here.
(language warning)
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Aug 30, 2015 10:15:23 GMT -5
This thread illustrates the absurdity of the exercise. You have two diametrically opposed sides, squabbling forever, because "THEY'RE THE PROBLEM!". This whole thing is so the internet. No one who's not in some way like blood-oathed to the cause is even engaging in this 'debate'. Which, I mean, "ethics in VIDEO GAME journalism" is probably the most frivolous battleground in the history of disagreements. It's like kids arguing over who's got cooties.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Aug 30, 2015 10:17:33 GMT -5
Ha-ha, that study was pretty poorly done in terms of discerning GG harassment Less than 1k sample size from a 3 week period? WAM! didn't do any investigative research, they just crunched the numbers on what was submitted to them by a VERY miniscule sample size by the relative few who even knew about the study. Lol. This wasn't even a study about gaming, gamers or GG. It was a general twitter harassment study hahahaha! When you combine ALL the harassment women receive about various subjects (movies, music, writing, cooking, cleaning, smiling too much, smiling not enough, etc etc) gaming is a small part of it. Wow. Ha-ha! Either this is the poorest example of grasping at straws or a very unfortunate example of completely misunderstanding a study. If I were proGG, I'd be embarrassed to use this study to support my side of the discussion.
Your argument would be stronger if this was a group within GG, but nope! It was a feminist site that pulled a study from right when most of the harassment was reported. The main point was that Gamer Gate was blamed for the harassment and this article shows otherwise. Nice try!
He's not wrong to question whether the study was effective or whether or not your conclusions are valid. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the study methods would produce comprehensive results on one subject when an obscure organization was asking for self reports on a broad subject. All the study shows was that, of the 800 or so people who knew about this site and have claimed to see harassment on one specific social media platform, only a small portion were related to gaming and gamer gate. It doesn't prove that people using the GG hashtag did or didn't do anything, just that their small sample had a small number of people report GG as the cause. This would be a weak study if analyzed academically. A study is only as good as its limitations, otherwise you can get a study that proves anything. It doesn't say what you're claiming it does. To put it into numbers, at last count, there were 304 million active twitter users and, according to reports, about 64% are women. That's about 195 million women. If 0.1% experienced harassment, that's 195,000 women. This study captured 811 users, or 0.4% of those experiencing any harassment. You're using this as "proof" that people using the GG tag didn't harass anyone, and then being snarky when someone pointed out that that's not even what it said and that it's a small sample size. I mean, good on you for trying to find a source, , nice try, but to use a source well you have to look at the limitations of it, not be smarmy and automatically discount anyone who does so. That just weakens your argument.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2015 10:19:13 GMT -5
Ha-ha, that study was pretty poorly done in terms of discerning GG harassment Less than 1k sample size from a 3 week period? WAM! didn't do any investigative research, they just crunched the numbers on what was submitted to them by a VERY miniscule sample size by the relative few who even knew about the study. Lol. This wasn't even a study about gaming, gamers or GG. It was a general twitter harassment study hahahaha! When you combine ALL the harassment women receive about various subjects (movies, music, writing, cooking, cleaning, smiling too much, smiling not enough, etc etc) gaming is a small part of it. Wow. Ha-ha! Either this is the poorest example of grasping at straws or a very unfortunate example of completely misunderstanding a study. If I were proGG, I'd be embarrassed to use this study to support my side of the discussion.
Your argument would be stronger if this was a group within GG, but nope! It was a feminist site that pulled a study from right when most of the harassment was reported. The main point was that Gamer Gate was blamed for the harassment and this article shows otherwise. Nice try!
I think you're misunderstanding how to read how this study was conducted. It's too broad to accurately judge any one category. You couldn't use this survey to make any definitive statement about harassment in gaming or in sports or any one particular thing.
|
|
|
Post by Jacy Jayne Atomic Dog AMV on Aug 30, 2015 10:20:54 GMT -5
I didn't even realize GamerGate was still a thing. I was going to post a big screed about my thoughts on the matter but I see others have taken care of over the past 16 pages. But suffice it to say, to me GG is an embarrassment that almost makes me ashamed to be a gamer. The only good thing to come from it was that it prompted me to get the "SJW to skeleton" add-on for Chrome. Seeing shit like "the hordes of skeletons trying to destroy gaming" never gets old. I tried to play some Hatred the other day and a skeleton walked in and CENSORED me. Gaming is dead.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Aug 30, 2015 10:20:59 GMT -5
Can you exchange sexual favors for likes on this board?
I'm asking for a friend.
|
|