3 ms·

It's the bias in the media. GamerGate supporters are painted uniformly as misogynists. There is a legitimate argument about press ethics, freedom of speech, and

It's the bias in the media. GamerGate supporters are painted uniformly as misogynists. There is a legitimate argument about press ethics, freedom of speech, and whether appreciating an attractive body is the same as objectification. >justify some pretty terrible actions I'm asking that the terrible actions of BOTH sides are reported. There is an awful, hateful minority on both sides, but in the mainstream media, only the terrible actions of the GamerGate side is reported. (And there is surely legitimate argument on both sides, too.)

makomk 12y ago
Not only that, the entire reason harassment against women in gaming is in the news right now is to attack GamerGate. Nearly every article is focused on using it as proof that GamerGate are misogynistic scumbags. It's been a huge boon for every asshole who actually wants to drive women out of gaming - they're guaranteed widespread media coverage about how awful gaming is to women and how their actions represent gamers as a whole, and as a bonus their actions get blamed on people who hate them. Win-win! People have even called for gamers to be forced to use their real names as a solution to the harassment, which would of course make the harassers' lives even easier - but hey, it'd let the people making the proposal bring down social consequences on supporters of GamerGate, so why not? The whole thing's fucking ridiculous.
TeMPOraL 12y ago
Upvoted, you're right here. It's the media bias. I personally found asking for covering both sides equally futile, because only one fits the ongoing popular narrative. I personally am waiting for the whole thing to blow over; there ain't much room for a rational discussion or figuring out proper courses of actions right now.
snowwrestler 12y ago
> whether appreciating an attractive body is the same as objectification I know this is off-topic, but the statement above is literally objectification, because it refers to a body (which is an object) instead of a person.
- doctorfoo 12y ago
  I said there is a legitimate argument, and you've certainly demonstrated there is an argument! I disagree with you, but I'd better shut up now.
- doctorfoo 12y ago
  No, it is not. If I thought the owner of said body had no value other than their body, you would be correct. You can appreciate a persons body, you can appreciate a persons personality. Doing the former doesn't magically invalidate the latter. That I appreciated just the body with a glance, at a point in time, doesn't mean the women has no worth other than this. If I went around saying women had no value other than for pleasuring a man - now that would be objectification. I do not think that.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    > You can appreciate a persons body, you can appreciate a persons personality. Doing the former doesn't magically invalidate the latter. Making a statement about a body excludes the personality from the statement. There's nothing to invalidate because there is no content on that subject. I'm not making a value judgment here about you--this is how language works, logically. The word "body" exists to distinguish from the mind; talking about one excludes the other. Generally speaking, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by restricting references to the "body" to a medical context. In every other situation, refer to the person. There's no downside to it, and it avoids misunderstandings. > If I thought the owner of said body had no value other than their body, you would be correct. No one but you knows what you think, they only know what you say. Just to be clear: I'm not judging you as a person and I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm trying to give you advice about how your use of language will be interpretted. Edit: Just to be super clear, if you had written "whether appreciating an attractive person is the same as objectification", I would agree with you. But by referencing the body, you're using the word for the object.
rudolf0 12y ago
I actually don't really think so. The people sending death threats and harassment to "anti-GamerGate" and the people sending death threats and harassment to "GamerGate" are not members of the opposing side or the same side. They're all the same people: Internet trolls who see a grand opportunity.
- doctorfoo 12y ago
  Irrespective of whether they are indeed a part of a given side, they are one-sidedly being described in the media as such.
  - rudolf0 12y ago
    I agree.
pistle 12y ago
Any non-misogynist Gamergaters (are there any?) don't get "it" or the media. Maybe in some weird deconstruction of "equality," so long as you can provoke a response, you can plead "they were mean too!" But, most people know who threw a punch first and who keeps throwing punches below the belt from their painful, awkward youth. The framing of the situation is not within the control of those who started the mess. Fewer and fewer 3rd parties give a shit about any morsel of authenticity in the game media ruse. More and more people are seeing people they know and/or care about get impacted and think, "Fuck GG's and anyone who stands anywhere near them." There's not enough time to separate the wheat and chaff - time to just burn the rotting pile.
- doctorfoo 12y ago
  > Any non-misogynist Gamergaters (are there any?) Yes, there are. The majority, in fact. And there are a fair few women in the movement too, but I suppose you think they are poor deluded fools who are oppressing themselves and need the guiding arm of the authoritarian left (including its legions of male feminists) to help them think proper thoughts.

makomk 12y ago

Not only that, the entire reason harassment against women in gaming is in the news right now is to attack GamerGate. Nearly every article is focused on using it as proof that GamerGate are misogynistic scumbags. It's been a huge boon for every asshole who actually wants to drive women out of gaming - they're guaranteed widespread media coverage about how awful gaming is to women and how their actions represent gamers as a whole, and as a bonus their actions get blamed on people who hate them. Win-win! People have even called for gamers to be forced to use their real names as a solution to the harassment, which would of course make the harassers' lives even easier - but hey, it'd let the people making the proposal bring down social consequences on supporters of GamerGate, so why not? The whole thing's fucking ridiculous.

TeMPOraL 12y ago

Upvoted, you're right here. It's the media bias. I personally found asking for covering both sides equally futile, because only one fits the ongoing popular narrative. I personally am waiting for the whole thing to blow over; there ain't much room for a rational discussion or figuring out proper courses of actions right now.

snowwrestler 12y ago

> whether appreciating an attractive body is the same as objectification I know this is off-topic, but the statement above is literally objectification, because it refers to a body (which is an object) instead of a person.

doctorfoo 12y ago
I said there is a legitimate argument, and you've certainly demonstrated there is an argument! I disagree with you, but I'd better shut up now.
doctorfoo 12y ago
No, it is not. If I thought the owner of said body had no value other than their body, you would be correct. You can appreciate a persons body, you can appreciate a persons personality. Doing the former doesn't magically invalidate the latter. That I appreciated just the body with a glance, at a point in time, doesn't mean the women has no worth other than this. If I went around saying women had no value other than for pleasuring a man - now that would be objectification. I do not think that.
- snowwrestler 12y ago
  > You can appreciate a persons body, you can appreciate a persons personality. Doing the former doesn't magically invalidate the latter. Making a statement about a body excludes the personality from the statement. There's nothing to invalidate because there is no content on that subject. I'm not making a value judgment here about you--this is how language works, logically. The word "body" exists to distinguish from the mind; talking about one excludes the other. Generally speaking, you can save yourself a lot of trouble by restricting references to the "body" to a medical context. In every other situation, refer to the person. There's no downside to it, and it avoids misunderstandings. > If I thought the owner of said body had no value other than their body, you would be correct. No one but you knows what you think, they only know what you say. Just to be clear: I'm not judging you as a person and I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm trying to give you advice about how your use of language will be interpretted. Edit: Just to be super clear, if you had written "whether appreciating an attractive person is the same as objectification", I would agree with you. But by referencing the body, you're using the word for the object.

rudolf0 12y ago

I actually don't really think so. The people sending death threats and harassment to "anti-GamerGate" and the people sending death threats and harassment to "GamerGate" are not members of the opposing side or the same side. They're all the same people: Internet trolls who see a grand opportunity.

doctorfoo 12y ago
Irrespective of whether they are indeed a part of a given side, they are one-sidedly being described in the media as such.
- rudolf0 12y ago
  I agree.

pistle 12y ago

Any non-misogynist Gamergaters (are there any?) don't get "it" or the media. Maybe in some weird deconstruction of "equality," so long as you can provoke a response, you can plead "they were mean too!" But, most people know who threw a punch first and who keeps throwing punches below the belt from their painful, awkward youth. The framing of the situation is not within the control of those who started the mess. Fewer and fewer 3rd parties give a shit about any morsel of authenticity in the game media ruse. More and more people are seeing people they know and/or care about get impacted and think, "Fuck GG's and anyone who stands anywhere near them." There's not enough time to separate the wheat and chaff - time to just burn the rotting pile.

doctorfoo 12y ago
> Any non-misogynist Gamergaters (are there any?) Yes, there are. The majority, in fact. And there are a fair few women in the movement too, but I suppose you think they are poor deluded fools who are oppressing themselves and need the guiding arm of the authoritarian left (including its legions of male feminists) to help them think proper thoughts.