14 ms·

So some research and it is easy to see the beginning of the GG movement was mainly a force to harass people like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.

by comrh 11y ago

Karunamon 11y ago
The start of it, sure. This is all public record at this point. Judging what exists now by what existed over a year ago is hardly fair. People who actually harass people are now loudly shouted down wherever they're seen doing it.
- mintplant 11y ago
  GamerGate was sharing photos of Zoe Quinn from her old modeling profile as recently as a month ago. This is a continuous problem.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    Citation needed, and even if true, posting pictures of someone that they made public years ago is not "harassment".
- icebraining 11y ago
  Frankly, and this is not specific to GG, but I don't get why would one join a movement if one disapproves of how it got started. If one doesn’t want to be associated with assholes, maybe one shouldn't associate themselves with asshole-created groups.
  - exstudent2 11y ago
    A lot of people joined GG because there is/was no alternative for people who held views opposed to those in the mainstream. It's one of the only groups fighting for unmitigated free speech on the internet. It's made for some strange bedfellows but in the end it's an anti-censorship campaign (that happens to have identified the group pushing for censorship).
    - mintplant 11y ago
      From what I've seen, they only seem to be fighting for free speech that agrees with their perspective. See, for example, the campaigns to convince advertisers to pull their ads from sites that publish articles they don't like.
      - exstudent2 11y ago
        The campaigns themselves are the free speech. Free speech != profitable speech. The journalists can say whatever they want. If they want to make a profit doing it selling to an audience they're simultaneously beating up, they'll have to deal with the antagonistic relationship they created.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  > People who actually harass people are now loudly shouted down wherever they're seen doing it. This is frequently claimed but there's little evidence of it. If you even dare to talk about gamergate publicly, you will be dogpiled. If you criticise them, you will receive rape and death threats.
  - Karunamon 11y ago
    If by "dogpiled", you mean "having your public communication using a hashtag responded to in public by lots of people". Volume of replies does not harassment make. >If you criticise them, you will receive rape and death threats. This is frequently claimed but there's little evidence of it.
    - comrh 11y ago
      This whole thread is just a great example of this comic: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
      - 13thLetter 11y ago
        That comic, in turn, is just another efficient mechanism for evading criticism instead of answering it: as if the number of people making a criticism, whether large or small, has any connection to how valid the critique is. If someone was making racist remarks in a public venue and got a lot of angry pushback, would you dismiss that as "sealioning" too?
        Karunamon 11y ago
        A fun exercise: Compare the definition of "sea lioning" with basic conflict resolution tactics. Then, try to explain how they're substantively different.
      - EdiX 11y ago
        :%s/sealion/black people/
    - deleted 11y ago
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
This reminds me of attempts to discredit planned parenthood by pointing out the views of some of the founders. Even if it is true, should something be judged based on where it came from instead of what it currently is?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- JohnBooty 11y ago
  Planned Parenthood is close to 100 years old so in that sense it's not comparable to something like GamerGate that's barely a year old.
  - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
    Either origin matters more than current composition or it doesn't.
    - JohnBooty 11y ago
      That's just silly. Of course 100 years of action matter more than 1 year of action.
      - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
        It gives further evidence to any claim they have changed, but that is only relevant if you are doubting their claim to not be what they were accused of being (if they ever even were that to begin with).
dvdcxn 11y ago
Calling it harassment is a huge discredit to a movement that holds very valid criticisms of both these people. Edit: I should qualify this. Both sides of the issue have their shitshows distorting the debate with harassment and dirty tactics. At its core gamergate is a conflict between cultural authoritarians and libertarians. It is just the beginning of a wider issue, the old guard of the internet, those that believe in freedom of expression without repurcussion vs those who believe that speech on the internet should involve more social responsibility. There is really no reason why they should not co exist. Gamergate is one of the examples however of what happens when both occupy the same space. Those who are afraid of their space changing vs those who refuse to occupy such spaces. There's nothing stopping either ideals staying within their own space or creating their own, however the internet is a pressure cooker that inevitavly leads to a game of escalation and one up mansship where no compromise is accepted.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  Death and rape threats are not 'valid criticism'.
  - dvdcxn 11y ago
    You have fallen into the same trap as both sides in taking the radicals behaviour as typical of the movement as a whole. Well done, you are why we cant have nice things.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
      > You have fallen into the same trap as both sides in taking the radicals behaviour as typical of the movement as a whole. That would require the radicals to not be the entire movement.
    - comrh 11y ago
      Except for a long time it was the movement as a whole. The is why people don't take it seriously, because last year the group stood for picking apart of game dev's sex life.
wisty 11y ago
Yes, it was probably partly backlash against the way skepticism of feminism is treated by much of the media as either heresy or misogyny. And with everything that happens online, there's thousands of people on either side, throwing mud at a small number of targets. An internet famous person gets treated like a politician or celebrity, without the benefits (and without necessarily having signed up to it). And as with anything 4chan gets involved in, there was some pretty nasty trolling.

So some research and it is easy to see the beginning of the GG movement was mainly a force to harass people like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.

by comrh 11y ago

So some research and it is easy to see the beginning of the GG movement was mainly a force to harass people like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian.

Karunamon 11y ago

The start of it, sure. This is all public record at this point. Judging what exists now by what existed over a year ago is hardly fair. People who actually harass people are now loudly shouted down wherever they're seen doing it.

mintplant 11y ago
GamerGate was sharing photos of Zoe Quinn from her old modeling profile as recently as a month ago. This is a continuous problem.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  Citation needed, and even if true, posting pictures of someone that they made public years ago is not "harassment".
icebraining 11y ago
Frankly, and this is not specific to GG, but I don't get why would one join a movement if one disapproves of how it got started. If one doesn’t want to be associated with assholes, maybe one shouldn't associate themselves with asshole-created groups.
- exstudent2 11y ago
  A lot of people joined GG because there is/was no alternative for people who held views opposed to those in the mainstream. It's one of the only groups fighting for unmitigated free speech on the internet. It's made for some strange bedfellows but in the end it's an anti-censorship campaign (that happens to have identified the group pushing for censorship).
  - mintplant 11y ago
    From what I've seen, they only seem to be fighting for free speech that agrees with their perspective. See, for example, the campaigns to convince advertisers to pull their ads from sites that publish articles they don't like.
    - exstudent2 11y ago
      The campaigns themselves are the free speech. Free speech != profitable speech. The journalists can say whatever they want. If they want to make a profit doing it selling to an audience they're simultaneously beating up, they'll have to deal with the antagonistic relationship they created.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
> People who actually harass people are now loudly shouted down wherever they're seen doing it. This is frequently claimed but there's little evidence of it. If you even dare to talk about gamergate publicly, you will be dogpiled. If you criticise them, you will receive rape and death threats.
- Karunamon 11y ago
  If by "dogpiled", you mean "having your public communication using a hashtag responded to in public by lots of people". Volume of replies does not harassment make. >If you criticise them, you will receive rape and death threats. This is frequently claimed but there's little evidence of it.
  - comrh 11y ago
    This whole thread is just a great example of this comic: http://wondermark.com/1k62/ http://wondermark.com/1k62/
    - 13thLetter 11y ago
      That comic, in turn, is just another efficient mechanism for evading criticism instead of answering it: as if the number of people making a criticism, whether large or small, has any connection to how valid the critique is. If someone was making racist remarks in a public venue and got a lot of angry pushback, would you dismiss that as "sealioning" too?
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        A fun exercise: Compare the definition of "sea lioning" with basic conflict resolution tactics. Then, try to explain how they're substantively different.
    - EdiX 11y ago
      :%s/sealion/black people/
  - deleted 11y ago

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

This reminds me of attempts to discredit planned parenthood by pointing out the views of some of the founders. Even if it is true, should something be judged based on where it came from instead of what it currently is?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
JohnBooty 11y ago
Planned Parenthood is close to 100 years old so in that sense it's not comparable to something like GamerGate that's barely a year old.
- Lawtonfogle 11y ago
  Either origin matters more than current composition or it doesn't.
  - JohnBooty 11y ago
    That's just silly. Of course 100 years of action matter more than 1 year of action.
    - Lawtonfogle 11y ago
      It gives further evidence to any claim they have changed, but that is only relevant if you are doubting their claim to not be what they were accused of being (if they ever even were that to begin with).

dvdcxn 11y ago

Calling it harassment is a huge discredit to a movement that holds very valid criticisms of both these people. Edit: I should qualify this. Both sides of the issue have their shitshows distorting the debate with harassment and dirty tactics. At its core gamergate is a conflict between cultural authoritarians and libertarians. It is just the beginning of a wider issue, the old guard of the internet, those that believe in freedom of expression without repurcussion vs those who believe that speech on the internet should involve more social responsibility. There is really no reason why they should not co exist. Gamergate is one of the examples however of what happens when both occupy the same space. Those who are afraid of their space changing vs those who refuse to occupy such spaces. There's nothing stopping either ideals staying within their own space or creating their own, however the internet is a pressure cooker that inevitavly leads to a game of escalation and one up mansship where no compromise is accepted.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Death and rape threats are not 'valid criticism'.
- dvdcxn 11y ago
  You have fallen into the same trap as both sides in taking the radicals behaviour as typical of the movement as a whole. Well done, you are why we cant have nice things.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    > You have fallen into the same trap as both sides in taking the radicals behaviour as typical of the movement as a whole. That would require the radicals to not be the entire movement.
  - comrh 11y ago
    Except for a long time it was the movement as a whole. The is why people don't take it seriously, because last year the group stood for picking apart of game dev's sex life.

wisty 11y ago

Yes, it was probably partly backlash against the way skepticism of feminism is treated by much of the media as either heresy or misogyny. And with everything that happens online, there's thousands of people on either side, throwing mud at a small number of targets. An internet famous person gets treated like a politician or celebrity, without the benefits (and without necessarily having signed up to it). And as with anything 4chan gets involved in, there was some pretty nasty trolling.