7 ms·
:(... As someone who didn't really follow the whole controversy the past years, this was an eye-opener for me. Did it really get that bad? Stop tolerating the
by eeZi 11y ago
:(...
As someone who didn't really follow the whole controversy the past years, this was an eye-opener for me. Did it really get that bad?
Stop tolerating the intolerant! Also, I don't understand the point of GamerGate. As an outsider, all I see is two groups making themselves look really bad and everyone else loosing. You don't convince others by threatening and harassing them, something the extremes at both sides seem to do. Why?
By the way, note how she did not mention the harasser's username in her post.
- Pharaoh2 11y agoIt's a shit storm, which might have had meaning at some point but it's now mostly a way to grab attention by a group of people, mostly looking for ways to make money out of it.
- eeZi 11y agoHow is this about making money?
- Pharaoh2 11y agoFor all the hate in GG, it's a anonymous/pseudo anonymous mob on the internet. It seems hate is the default language of the louder minority. Somehow, not surprising really, the loudest people are also the worst. On the pro-GG side, look at the supposedly pro-gg websites that have sprung up that sell things or review things basically do everything that they are saying the current status quo is doing wrongly or unethically. On the anti-GG side, look at how much the leaders are charging for talks related to inclusion issues, something that they want to help spread. I am not saying they should run a charity (which they actually do from what I remember, literally run a NPO), but at some points it just looks like they are doing it for the money. The talks are weird, after seeing them, they looked like more about the person giving the talk and less about the actual issue at hand. Every Time things quiet down another shitshow start from nowhere. It's like a massive online bait. If things keep going, the people making money keep making money. If you look at it from an outside perspective, both sides are right. There are huge inclusion issues in gaming. Actually there are huge inclusion issue in almost everything, not sure what makes computer games special. On the other side, there are certainly ethics issue in game media. But then there are ethics issue in every media. Not sure what makes game media special. So now the question why all the fight, especially when both sides are fighting for different things. Both sides are obviously right. The only reason I can think of it is, and it's actually pretty evident, that people have found ways to make money out of it and they rile up the crowd every time things calm down to ensure the money keeps coming in. If both the sides worked on this together both of their problems can be solved mutually, but I am not sure why that is not happening. It's like they don't want to work together. I am sure the people smart enough to figure out how to control this also know that neither side is the picture they have painted, so if they actually wanted to solve this, they can easily do it.
- eeZi 11y agoThank you for responding. > If you look at it from an outside perspective, both sides are right. That's kinda how it feels to me. In most of the conflicts I've read about, one side is right (look at this - if what she writes is true - and there's no reason for me to believe otherwise, how would you reasonably argue against that?, but then I read about "safe spaces" at universities and can only think how dumb of an idea this is), but instead of a civilized discussion which might actually change people's opinions, a shirtstorm ensues. Please disagree with me if you think that I'm wrong on this - I'm really just an outsider who occasionally reads about this on Twitter and shakes his head.
- lillian-lemmer 11y agoPlease trust me when I say safe spaces are crucial, especially to trans survival. I wish you knew how... devastatingly lonely it can be as an outcast in society. How everyone treats you. Solidarity is really important. Can you also imagine who you are constantly being criticized? Your problems constantly being made out to be false? That you have the burden of proof with everyone because nobody knows your struggle? I feel like the most important takehome is that we need recourse for ensuring the safety of the less represented of people, e.g., trans.
- Pharaoh2 11y agoI absolutely agree that every society should be able to provide a welcoming and safe environment for every person. But do you think that a safe space is the best way to do it? I may be wrong, but it looks like a exclusionary step that most societies have fought hard to remove. The way I understand it, safe space is not only a place where people can a particular group of people are "protected" but also a place where idea can grow without any challenge or even merit. Do you think that is a good idea? I may be totally wrong about what a safe space is, but this is the impression I have got till now.
- eeZi 11y agoHmm. I see your point. I've first heard about safe spaces by reading about the "Halloween incident" at Yale which left me with the impression that they're a bad idea since it appeared to me that they not only discourage harassment and violence (and seriously, how can one disagree with this?), but also critical discourse, which I believe is very important to our society. But I also see how "safe spaces" would be useful and how critical discourse could be used for bullying. I've not read enough about this to make up my mind on this. Was the Yale thing an unexpected outcome?
- lillian-lemmer 11y agoNo. This is about women wanting their safety prioritized over others' "right" to treat women like garbage.
- Pharaoh2 11y agoNo one has the "right" to threaten someone's safety. That right simply doesn't exist. No form of free speech rules grant such "right".
- isolate 11y agoThat's why it's in quotes.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Pharaoh2 11y agoHow the hell is gamergate about the "right" to threaten? No one who isn't a troll will argue that anyone has that right. What do games have to do with the right to threaten?
- isolate 11y agoAgain, that's why it's in quotes. Everyone agrees with you. Here, have an upvote.
- Jogyn 11y agoNo This is about maintaining the productivity and integrity of projects against regressive groups that feel the need to force ridiculous code's of conduct on communities in order to pander to a group of people trying to politicize open source projects and use them to further their own "harassment" fueled agendas.
- andallas 11y agoI don't follow you on that last bit, about noticing how she didn't mention the username. I feel like you mean to imply something, but maybe I'm not following?
- eeZi 11y agoI like that she didn't, since it emphasizes that this is not about that particular conflict, but the way it has been handled. She could have mentioned his name in an effort to make him look bad (this post will probably get a lot of attention), but she didn't.
- andallas 11y agoahh, thanks for clarifying, wasn't sure if you were implying something else. In regards to your question, yes things got bad, unfortunately what is hard to see from the outside, is that the vast majority of the harassment was originally done by outside third parties who just wanted to troll two groups. They harassed some people (mostly women) then said they were part of GamerGate. This wasn't even remotely true, and they admitted to this. Unfortunately the other side got caught up in the harassment and the claim that was done by GamerGate to ever actually think, "Why would this person who is harassing me (which is illegal) mention they were part of GamerGate (which was originally about Games Media, and had literally nothing to do with women in tech)?" Follow that up with lots of mudslinging on both sides, and neither side being that willing to 'dig-deep' into the facts, and you get a year long 'cyber-war' between two groups of people who probably have much more in common than they think.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]