4 ms·

How is this about making money?

by eeZi 11y ago

Pharaoh2 11y ago
For 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 ago
  Thank 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 ago
    Please 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 ago
      I 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 ago
      Hmm. 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 ago
      This may be unpopular opinion, but the fact is that there is just a perspective that you cannot understand through anecdotes or research. The experience of being trans, queer, female, etc., today is not summed up by text. It is the adrenaline and vomit from death threats, it's falling behind at work because of harassment, I could go on and on. Safe places are a way to ensure that everyone at least can truly empathize with each others' experiences, and as such, a place where they don't have to worry about that. It's a counter, a reaction to all spaces practically being for (white) men. Who's voices are heard? Who's narratives are enforced? Safe places are the only places we have. I could go on, but...
- bimble 11y ago
  Well, here's the thing - while both groups are right if you take them at face value, there's no reason to take GamerGate at face value anymore. It's feminism vs. anti-feminism now. The anti-GG crowd, as a whole, complains about GG and calls them misogynists. They can be annoying. The GG crowd peppers anti-GG people with with threats, doxxes them, and sends SWAT teams to their homes and the homes of their relatives. They can be terrifying. There may be opposing viewpoints, but when it comes to opposing behaviors, there's no contest. One side is a lot more embarrassing for the gaming community than the other. GG has become a hive mind with an enemies list. As a group, it lashes out at anyone who criticizes it or disagrees with it. This is why they come up in this particular mess - Randi got called out to the GG groups as a feminist or whatever. Once she got on the list, she became as much of a target as anyone else they don't like. There are plenty of good people who want to address ethics in gaming journalism, but they aren't going to do it with GG. It's too far gone. They'd do better to form a new group that isn't driven by hate and doesn't make decisions in an echo chamber.
  - rewqfdsa 11y ago
    Citation needed. The behavior you describe is much more prevalent in today's left-authoritarian communities than it is among cultural libertarian ones (of which one example is GamerGate). The anti-SJW side has never gotten a CEO of a tech company fired.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      "Anti-GamerGate" people didn't get Brendan Eich fired, but pro-GamerGate people did indeed send SWAT teams to people's houses. What you're doing here is employing a sleight of hand to try to score points. If you'd been a little more creative with your terms, you probably could have swept the Khmer Rouge into your opposing side, and blamed Randi Harper for genocide as well. So I voted your comment down for its lack of style.
  - belorn 11y ago
    Death threats, doxxes, and SWATing has been done against people who are anti-GG, pro-GG, and third-parties who simply makes comments about both sides. There is no clean hands anywhere in this, and both anti-GG and pro-GG are constantly claiming that people who commit such acts are not part of their movements. Mobs don't take responsibility for their actions, which is why we always see people talk about one side being made from evil and one side being made from good (if annoying).

How is this about making money?

by eeZi 11y ago

How is this about making money?

For 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 ago
Thank 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 ago
  Please 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 ago
    I 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 ago
    Hmm. 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 ago
    This may be unpopular opinion, but the fact is that there is just a perspective that you cannot understand through anecdotes or research. The experience of being trans, queer, female, etc., today is not summed up by text. It is the adrenaline and vomit from death threats, it's falling behind at work because of harassment, I could go on and on. Safe places are a way to ensure that everyone at least can truly empathize with each others' experiences, and as such, a place where they don't have to worry about that. It's a counter, a reaction to all spaces practically being for (white) men. Who's voices are heard? Who's narratives are enforced? Safe places are the only places we have. I could go on, but...
bimble 11y ago
Well, here's the thing - while both groups are right if you take them at face value, there's no reason to take GamerGate at face value anymore. It's feminism vs. anti-feminism now. The anti-GG crowd, as a whole, complains about GG and calls them misogynists. They can be annoying. The GG crowd peppers anti-GG people with with threats, doxxes them, and sends SWAT teams to their homes and the homes of their relatives. They can be terrifying. There may be opposing viewpoints, but when it comes to opposing behaviors, there's no contest. One side is a lot more embarrassing for the gaming community than the other. GG has become a hive mind with an enemies list. As a group, it lashes out at anyone who criticizes it or disagrees with it. This is why they come up in this particular mess - Randi got called out to the GG groups as a feminist or whatever. Once she got on the list, she became as much of a target as anyone else they don't like. There are plenty of good people who want to address ethics in gaming journalism, but they aren't going to do it with GG. It's too far gone. They'd do better to form a new group that isn't driven by hate and doesn't make decisions in an echo chamber.
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  Citation needed. The behavior you describe is much more prevalent in today's left-authoritarian communities than it is among cultural libertarian ones (of which one example is GamerGate). The anti-SJW side has never gotten a CEO of a tech company fired.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    "Anti-GamerGate" people didn't get Brendan Eich fired, but pro-GamerGate people did indeed send SWAT teams to people's houses. What you're doing here is employing a sleight of hand to try to score points. If you'd been a little more creative with your terms, you probably could have swept the Khmer Rouge into your opposing side, and blamed Randi Harper for genocide as well. So I voted your comment down for its lack of style.
- belorn 11y ago
  Death threats, doxxes, and SWATing has been done against people who are anti-GG, pro-GG, and third-parties who simply makes comments about both sides. There is no clean hands anywhere in this, and both anti-GG and pro-GG are constantly claiming that people who commit such acts are not part of their movements. Mobs don't take responsibility for their actions, which is why we always see people talk about one side being made from evil and one side being made from good (if annoying).