4 ms·

The outrage wasn't only about "sexual impropriety", though certainly some who used the banner of GG were outraged by that and acted, as you rightly say, like ch

The outrage wasn't only about "sexual impropriety", though certainly some who used the banner of GG were outraged by that and acted, as you rightly say, like children. However, other "sects" of the GG "movement" were concerned over the allegations that the independent developer may have received favors/special treatment for coverage of her projects than she otherwise would have. Hence their insistence that their problem is with "lack of ethics in gaming journalism." Similarly, during an anti-WTO protest, most of the members are there because of valid concerns about globalization, and a few rebel-rousers are there just to "fuck shit up"/get attention/etc. Like I said, those who identify as part of the GG crowd have been generalized (just like anti-globalization/corporate protesters tend to be).

pron 11y ago
That's a false analogy. Anti WTO protesters are really concerned over globalization, while Gamergaters are not concerned over journalistic integrity; they pretend to be concerned because of some specific cases where alleged lapsed ethics served women. They are thus justly generalized, just as the KKK is justly generalized to be racist. Like gamergate, and unlike Occupy etc., the KKK only pretends to be against crime, and they're "outraged" only when a crime is perpetrated by blacks. There are movements that are concerned over issues -- and those may or may not have some bad actors -- and hate groups that simply target people they hate (and they hate those people not for what they do, but for who they are); those hate groups are all bad because that's what they want to be. Gamergate is clearly the latter. The comparison between them and political movements with real ideologies and actual ideas is misplaced.
- kinghajj 11y ago
  > Anti WTO protesters are really concerned over globalization, while Gamergaters are not concerned over journalistic integrity By what basis do you make that assertion? Can you read their minds?! This seems like a pure, basic composition fallacy to me. > alleged lapsed ethics served women The lapses were mutually beneficial, and there was harassment against the men involved as well. > and hate groups that simply target people they hate (and they hate those people not for what they do, but for who they are) Then why were these 'hate groups' active before the allegations were made, if they all truly only target people for "who they are" and not "what they do"? > Gamergate is clearly the latter. Again, by what basis do you make that claim? Are you just listening to the media reports that emphasize the harassment perpetrated by a segment of the GG crowd (while conveniently ignoring the harassment other GG members receive from anti-GG ones?) > The comparison between them and political movements I'm not comparing the movements themselves, but how they're marginalized in order to suppress their message and become vilified in the minds of the public.
  - eropple 11y ago
    > By what basis do you make that assertion? I know them by the fruits of their labors, as they should be known. The concerted attacks on Anita Sarkeesian--an academic, not a journalist--and Jenn Frank--a writer of opinion articles, not a journalist--and a handful of others who just happen to be loud and female and mostly not-journalists but still just so very unethical, we promise, prove the mistruths in those the declarations of intent, be it from outright liars who are participating to the useful idiots who cover the brigading scum. > The lapses were mutually beneficial, and there was harassment against the men involved as well. Yeah, Nathan Grayson totes had to flee from his home and completely uproot his life. Wait, no, the other thing.
    - kinghajj 11y ago
      > prove the mistruths in those the declarations of intent, be it from outright liars who are participating to the useful idiots who cover the brigading scum. You've just stated exactly my point!!! Not everybody that identifies with GG has malicious motivations, they're just "useful idiots" who need to think more critically about the statements they ingest. Hence my complaint about over-generalization: if you outright vilify people and call them names, they'll only get defensive and be less likely to consider critiques. > Yeah, Nathan Grayson totes had to flee from his home and completely uproot his life. I never meant to imply that the distribution was equal, and I acknowledged previously that there were lots of goons acting completely reprehensibly ("Now, there probably are sexist feelings at the root of many of their members' concerns").
      - eropple 11y ago
        Useful idiots are still morally culpable for providing cover for bad people. You don't get a pass on aiding malice through ignorance. And there is a point at which the intense clinging to "well both sides" goes from ignorant to in itself malicious. At this point, months into this, I don't think you can be in that epistemic closure without actively adopting its mores. I have stopped entertaining the notions of people who want to hurt my friends, and the people who want to defend them. Changing minds is a nice-to-have, but putting a stop to the bad behavior is a necessity. So at this point I think that it is sufficient to beat them. Which has already happened; they've already, individually and in aggregate, lost the battle to dominate the industry, to freeze out people who want to cater to people who aren't young white males. The GamerGate people will have their sinecures and their friendly developers (which is why the shirt-rending screaming about "SJWs" is hilarious, it's not like the industry is going to stop making games for young white males), but as a whole, they've lost, and I'm okay with not really making nice-nice to them as they fade to irrelevance.

pron 11y ago

That's a false analogy. Anti WTO protesters are really concerned over globalization, while Gamergaters are not concerned over journalistic integrity; they pretend to be concerned because of some specific cases where alleged lapsed ethics served women. They are thus justly generalized, just as the KKK is justly generalized to be racist. Like gamergate, and unlike Occupy etc., the KKK only pretends to be against crime, and they're "outraged" only when a crime is perpetrated by blacks. There are movements that are concerned over issues -- and those may or may not have some bad actors -- and hate groups that simply target people they hate (and they hate those people not for what they do, but for who they are); those hate groups are all bad because that's what they want to be. Gamergate is clearly the latter. The comparison between them and political movements with real ideologies and actual ideas is misplaced.

kinghajj 11y ago
> Anti WTO protesters are really concerned over globalization, while Gamergaters are not concerned over journalistic integrity By what basis do you make that assertion? Can you read their minds?! This seems like a pure, basic composition fallacy to me. > alleged lapsed ethics served women The lapses were mutually beneficial, and there was harassment against the men involved as well. > and hate groups that simply target people they hate (and they hate those people not for what they do, but for who they are) Then why were these 'hate groups' active before the allegations were made, if they all truly only target people for "who they are" and not "what they do"? > Gamergate is clearly the latter. Again, by what basis do you make that claim? Are you just listening to the media reports that emphasize the harassment perpetrated by a segment of the GG crowd (while conveniently ignoring the harassment other GG members receive from anti-GG ones?) > The comparison between them and political movements I'm not comparing the movements themselves, but how they're marginalized in order to suppress their message and become vilified in the minds of the public.
- eropple 11y ago
  > By what basis do you make that assertion? I know them by the fruits of their labors, as they should be known. The concerted attacks on Anita Sarkeesian--an academic, not a journalist--and Jenn Frank--a writer of opinion articles, not a journalist--and a handful of others who just happen to be loud and female and mostly not-journalists but still just so very unethical, we promise, prove the mistruths in those the declarations of intent, be it from outright liars who are participating to the useful idiots who cover the brigading scum. > The lapses were mutually beneficial, and there was harassment against the men involved as well. Yeah, Nathan Grayson totes had to flee from his home and completely uproot his life. Wait, no, the other thing.
  - kinghajj 11y ago
    > prove the mistruths in those the declarations of intent, be it from outright liars who are participating to the useful idiots who cover the brigading scum. You've just stated exactly my point!!! Not everybody that identifies with GG has malicious motivations, they're just "useful idiots" who need to think more critically about the statements they ingest. Hence my complaint about over-generalization: if you outright vilify people and call them names, they'll only get defensive and be less likely to consider critiques. > Yeah, Nathan Grayson totes had to flee from his home and completely uproot his life. I never meant to imply that the distribution was equal, and I acknowledged previously that there were lots of goons acting completely reprehensibly ("Now, there probably are sexist feelings at the root of many of their members' concerns").
    - eropple 11y ago
      Useful idiots are still morally culpable for providing cover for bad people. You don't get a pass on aiding malice through ignorance. And there is a point at which the intense clinging to "well both sides" goes from ignorant to in itself malicious. At this point, months into this, I don't think you can be in that epistemic closure without actively adopting its mores. I have stopped entertaining the notions of people who want to hurt my friends, and the people who want to defend them. Changing minds is a nice-to-have, but putting a stop to the bad behavior is a necessity. So at this point I think that it is sufficient to beat them. Which has already happened; they've already, individually and in aggregate, lost the battle to dominate the industry, to freeze out people who want to cater to people who aren't young white males. The GamerGate people will have their sinecures and their friendly developers (which is why the shirt-rending screaming about "SJWs" is hilarious, it's not like the industry is going to stop making games for young white males), but as a whole, they've lost, and I'm okay with not really making nice-nice to them as they fade to irrelevance.