8 ms·

I'm tired of the fact that this debate has deteriorated into sides lead by extremists. On the one side there is the gamergate crowd, who despite their constant

I'm tired of the fact that this debate has deteriorated into sides lead by extremists. On the one side there is the gamergate crowd, who despite their constant denial are fundamentally sexist and misogynistic in pretty much every second sentence they utter. And the existence of these pricks serves as a cover for the ubiquitous but much more subtle sexism in the tech industry. Which in turn is being denied by the people smack dead in the middle of it (this thread to will see a lot that kind of denial). On the other side however are the consummate activist, the ones the bigots refer to as "Social Justice Warriors" who see sexism in everything, stifle any debate with finger pointing, bullying and witch hunts (as recently demonstrated with "shirtgate"). These people are no better than the pricks they claim to be fighting. They don't just fight sexism and inequality, they want to bury anything they are uncomfortable with, including basic human desires and freedom of any kind of non-politically correct form of expression. And from the tactics used and the collateral damage caused, I find it increasingly difficult to tell the two sides apart except for the the symbolism and rhetoric.

rmc 12y ago
Here's a hint. One side is threatening "the greatest school shooting in American history"
- Frozenlock 12y ago
  Yeah, too bad we don't know which one.
  - rmc 12y ago
    Gamergate
    - srslack 12y ago
      Care to back that statement up? Any proof, any proof at all? Randi's post does not have any proof linking #GamerGate, an amorphous hashtag to threats, or even casually proving that "GamerGate supporters" are the ones carrying out the threats. It's just an opinion. It'd be pretty easy going back in one's twitter timeline to make that determination, would it not?
      - rmc 12y ago
        New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women...
        Frozenlock 12y ago
        It's not a proof, it's an article written on the subject which makes the same assumptions as you do.
        rmc 12y ago
        Ah, the New York Times. That rag which just makes things up and can never be trusted for anything. Suuuuuure. If you're not willing to accept that as evidence, then I doubt you'll accept anything.
        546543643 12y ago
        i don't think you know what evidence is. no matter how deeply you or I may respect the author, he doesn't seem to have any evidence for your claim, either.
        facepalm 12y ago
        Uh people threatening Sarkeezian are not #GamerGate. That's what #GamerGate is all about - it's silly to generalize from some anonymous psychopaths to millions of gamers.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  By one side you mean one person who affiliates with that chosen side, trying to say that all the SJW's or GamerGate people support murdering children is ridiculous.
  - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
    It was actually woman and feminists specifically they were vowing to kill, not schoolchildren. It's "School" as in "college".
- facepalm 12y ago
  ??? Certainly not
- facepalm 12y ago
  I'll try again: apparently there were millions of tweets with the hashtag #gamergate and also millions with #notyourshield (according to this anylsis which came up via Google - https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68 https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-o... ) So I think we can safely assume that there are thousands of people actively identifying with the #gamergate side. Do you seriously believe that thousands of people endorse the notion of school shootings? Sorry, that is just ridiculous and you should get your head checked.
graeme 12y ago
This is a false dilemma. Do you know people in real life who are "social justice warriors"? I know one, and only one. But I know many feminists. They tend to be very reasonable. The "shirtgate" story got spread precisely because it created outrage. Outrage goes viral. But most feminists are not bullies. Whereas the problem described above appears to be pervasive in tech. I've seen enough stories here on Hacker News that fit into the same trend. I have no reason to doubt these women. You're contrasting a broad system of oppression against a (vocal) minority within the community that criticizes this system. It's not apples to apples.
- archagon 12y ago
  Also, out of all the "leaders" on the anti-GG side, I can't think of a single one that could be described as a "social justice warrior". Neither Wu, Sarkeesian, nor anyone else has ever said that all men are bad, called people "shitlords", advocated censorship, or done anything else attributed to "SJWs". From my perspective, they have tried very hard to maintain civil and reasonable discourse, even in the face of this GG onslaught.
  - facepalm 12y ago
    They only said all male gamers are bad, right? I guess that's OK then, at least they didn't say all men are bad. Who likes gamers anyway.
    - archagon 12y ago
      As a man, I have never felt threatened by anything these women have said. On the contrary, I enjoy watching Sarkeesian's videos, since they made me realize just how toxic and passé these tropes were, and how much more interesting our games could be if they went without them. Most recently, I played Valdis Story as Reina, and man, I felt like a badass. I wish more games let me play characters like that. Perhaps you should examine your insecurities?
      - acdha 12y ago
fphhotchips 12y ago
The nature of the internet leads to this kind of shitfight. You get the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [1], mixed with the potential for false flags, and no real way to verify that anyone is who they say they are (in the vast majority of cases/without a lot of work), or believe what they say they believe. Actually, if you combine it with [1], Gabriel Morton's "Man Covered in Shit" [2] theory covers it pretty well. [1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O57lehnWUFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O57lehnWUFI
wpietri 12y ago
> who see sexism in everything So recently I've been listening to Derek Jacobi read a newer translation of The Iliad, set 3000 years ago. (My secret motivation: to get ready to hear Ian McKellan's reading of The Odessy. Gandalf reading The Odessy!) The basic story is that in among a who-stole-my-woman war, one dude (Agamemnon) steals another dude's war-prize slave woman. A foundational story of western civilization, and it all turns on women being property. That was basically the story up into modern times. In the US, women gradually became able to own property in the 19th century; previously, upon marriage it all became the husband's property. In the 20th century, women finally got the vote [1] and started being allowed into traditionally male professions. It wasn't until 1993 that all 50 US states passed laws against men raping their wives. [2] Within living memory, it was considered reasonable to discuss when it was ok to beat women to control them. [3] From the history, I think we can agree that sexism was in everything, and so endemic that everybody at the time would deny that it was even a problem. We have slowly been trying to fix that over the last 150 years or so. And we still have the problem that since I started programming, women have been both discouraged from entering tech and driven out of it. [4] There is still substantial gender bias hiring all over the place, even in the sciences. [5] So the only question for a given thing today is whether we have finally managed to 100% rid it of sexism. I think it is always a legitimate question. Even if the answer turns out to be "Yay, X is entirely free of sexism," I think it is entirely reasonable for people traumatized by sexism to be initially suspicious that particular rare islands of non-sexism really are perfect. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape [3] http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2012/07/from-archives-should-women-be-spanked.html http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2012/07/from-archives-shou... [3] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-wom... [4] http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full
- facepalm 12y ago
  If by "sexism" you mean women and men being treated differently, of course it exists - because women and men are different. Women have intrinsic value, so wars are being fought over them (not only in the Iliad, but also in "primitive societies"). Talking about the past is also not so straightforward. The world was very different, for example I wouldn't be surprised if many jobs simply didn't make sense for women. Like if they required a lot of physical labor (which presumably was most jobs). So women being excluded from such jobs might not have been active discrimination but simply common sense (as in "not worth considering"). For the other subjects there also were or might have been reasons that simply don't exist anymore today. For example it seems likely that marriage and women taking care of the household was about the only way to survive. Today our survival is much easier than it used to be, because there are many more amenities and things provided for.

rmc 12y ago

Here's a hint. One side is threatening "the greatest school shooting in American history"

Frozenlock 12y ago
Yeah, too bad we don't know which one.
- rmc 12y ago
  Gamergate
  - srslack 12y ago
    Care to back that statement up? Any proof, any proof at all? Randi's post does not have any proof linking #GamerGate, an amorphous hashtag to threats, or even casually proving that "GamerGate supporters" are the ones carrying out the threats. It's just an opinion. It'd be pretty easy going back in one's twitter timeline to make that determination, would it not?
    - rmc 12y ago
      New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women...
      - Frozenlock 12y ago
        It's not a proof, it's an article written on the subject which makes the same assumptions as you do.
        rmc 12y ago
        Ah, the New York Times. That rag which just makes things up and can never be trusted for anything. Suuuuuure. If you're not willing to accept that as evidence, then I doubt you'll accept anything.
        546543643 12y ago
        i don't think you know what evidence is. no matter how deeply you or I may respect the author, he doesn't seem to have any evidence for your claim, either.
      - facepalm 12y ago
        Uh people threatening Sarkeezian are not #GamerGate. That's what #GamerGate is all about - it's silly to generalize from some anonymous psychopaths to millions of gamers.
Igglyboo 12y ago
By one side you mean one person who affiliates with that chosen side, trying to say that all the SJW's or GamerGate people support murdering children is ridiculous.
- ZeroGravitas 12y ago
  It was actually woman and feminists specifically they were vowing to kill, not schoolchildren. It's "School" as in "college".
facepalm 12y ago
??? Certainly not
facepalm 12y ago
I'll try again: apparently there were millions of tweets with the hashtag #gamergate and also millions with #notyourshield (according to this anylsis which came up via Google - https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-of-gamergate-dfd809858f68 https://medium.com/@cainejw/an-actual-statistical-analysis-o... ) So I think we can safely assume that there are thousands of people actively identifying with the #gamergate side. Do you seriously believe that thousands of people endorse the notion of school shootings? Sorry, that is just ridiculous and you should get your head checked.

graeme 12y ago

This is a false dilemma. Do you know people in real life who are "social justice warriors"? I know one, and only one. But I know many feminists. They tend to be very reasonable. The "shirtgate" story got spread precisely because it created outrage. Outrage goes viral. But most feminists are not bullies. Whereas the problem described above appears to be pervasive in tech. I've seen enough stories here on Hacker News that fit into the same trend. I have no reason to doubt these women. You're contrasting a broad system of oppression against a (vocal) minority within the community that criticizes this system. It's not apples to apples.

archagon 12y ago
Also, out of all the "leaders" on the anti-GG side, I can't think of a single one that could be described as a "social justice warrior". Neither Wu, Sarkeesian, nor anyone else has ever said that all men are bad, called people "shitlords", advocated censorship, or done anything else attributed to "SJWs". From my perspective, they have tried very hard to maintain civil and reasonable discourse, even in the face of this GG onslaught.
- facepalm 12y ago
  They only said all male gamers are bad, right? I guess that's OK then, at least they didn't say all men are bad. Who likes gamers anyway.
  - archagon 12y ago
    As a man, I have never felt threatened by anything these women have said. On the contrary, I enjoy watching Sarkeesian's videos, since they made me realize just how toxic and passé these tropes were, and how much more interesting our games could be if they went without them. Most recently, I played Valdis Story as Reina, and man, I felt like a badass. I wish more games let me play characters like that. Perhaps you should examine your insecurities?
    - acdha 12y ago

fphhotchips 12y ago

The nature of the internet leads to this kind of shitfight. You get the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [1], mixed with the potential for false flags, and no real way to verify that anyone is who they say they are (in the vast majority of cases/without a lot of work), or believe what they say they believe. Actually, if you combine it with [1], Gabriel Morton's "Man Covered in Shit" [2] theory covers it pretty well. [1] http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O57lehnWUFI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O57lehnWUFI

wpietri 12y ago

> who see sexism in everything So recently I've been listening to Derek Jacobi read a newer translation of The Iliad, set 3000 years ago. (My secret motivation: to get ready to hear Ian McKellan's reading of The Odessy. Gandalf reading The Odessy!) The basic story is that in among a who-stole-my-woman war, one dude (Agamemnon) steals another dude's war-prize slave woman. A foundational story of western civilization, and it all turns on women being property. That was basically the story up into modern times. In the US, women gradually became able to own property in the 19th century; previously, upon marriage it all became the husband's property. In the 20th century, women finally got the vote [1] and started being allowed into traditionally male professions. It wasn't until 1993 that all 50 US states passed laws against men raping their wives. [2] Within living memory, it was considered reasonable to discuss when it was ok to beat women to control them. [3] From the history, I think we can agree that sexism was in everything, and so endemic that everybody at the time would deny that it was even a problem. We have slowly been trying to fix that over the last 150 years or so. And we still have the problem that since I started programming, women have been both discouraged from entering tech and driven out of it. [4] There is still substantial gender bias hiring all over the place, even in the sciences. [5] So the only question for a given thing today is whether we have finally managed to 100% rid it of sexism. I think it is always a legitimate question. Even if the answer turns out to be "Yay, X is entirely free of sexism," I think it is entirely reasonable for people traumatized by sexism to be initially suspicious that particular rare islands of non-sexism really are perfect. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_women%27s_suffrage [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape [3] http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2012/07/from-archives-should-women-be-spanked.html http://www.blameitonthevoices.com/2012/07/from-archives-shou... [3] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-wom... [4] http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.full

facepalm 12y ago
If by "sexism" you mean women and men being treated differently, of course it exists - because women and men are different. Women have intrinsic value, so wars are being fought over them (not only in the Iliad, but also in "primitive societies"). Talking about the past is also not so straightforward. The world was very different, for example I wouldn't be surprised if many jobs simply didn't make sense for women. Like if they required a lot of physical labor (which presumably was most jobs). So women being excluded from such jobs might not have been active discrimination but simply common sense (as in "not worth considering"). For the other subjects there also were or might have been reasons that simply don't exist anymore today. For example it seems likely that marriage and women taking care of the household was about the only way to survive. Today our survival is much easier than it used to be, because there are many more amenities and things provided for.