GamerGate thread

[hey]

How many went on to say "woe this is really an amazing game, and it was made so much better by having a female lead"?

None, that would be ridiculous.

[Lyall]

Unless we have a stated letter of intention from these unnamed publishers, it's hard to believe exactly what was said between parties. Is it possible they said "We'll only publish your game if you change the lead to a guy?" Sure. It's also possible they said "Look, Remember Me didn't do so great, and we think it could have been for XYZ reasons, would you consider changing your lead's gender?"

I think it's important to remember that the source for this website is ARS Technica, a website that ALSO contributed to the original flurry of attacks on gamers in August that made this whole mess a mess. It's difficult to take their commentary serious when they ran "Gamers are dead" articles right alongside all of the other websites implicated as pushing an agenda.

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/201...ng-to-e-mails/

What’s more is that two days before the deluge of “Gamers are Dead” articles, Kyle Orland, senior gaming editor at Ars Technica, actually linked to and began discussing the Patreon called “The Sarkeesian Effect” – a documentary that alleges to offer a critique on the “Social Justice Warrior” movement that they claim has invaded various cultures, including gaming – as noted in the e-mail image below.

As the images indicate, Kyle Orland had watched this video and looked over their Patreon a day before posting it to the group. Meaning he combed the information the night before, discussed it with other members between August 25th and August 27th, but still decided that any opposing view to the narrative wasn’t worth mentioning in two editorials that were allowed to be printed on Ars Technica following that discussion. Keep in mind that the second editorial that went up on Ars Technica, on September 9th, was still rife with factual inaccuracies, despite the fact that Kyle had been actively looking through “both” sides of the argument, so to speak. So why neglect to acknowledge that there are those who have issues with the current narrative painted by games media?

[Lyall]

https://archive.today/mRoWG

PC Gamer writer who talked a lot about Ubisoft games and how great they looked (but never reviewed them) found to have relationship with Ubisoft "communications associate." He somehow failed to mention he was dating her in all of his articles, and when it got found out, he started deleting tweets and changed his Facebook to hide it.

[Charismatic]

[Tarage]

At least this shit isn't being allowed to be swept under the rug anymore. Say what you will about this entire debate, but it has produced some positive effects such as this.

[Lucavi]

I'll agree to that. Shit's gotta hit the floor and spill all over to the point where everyone can see it before systems get put into place to stop shit from building up in the first place.

Nobody wants to fix behavior they haven't gotten caught doing yet. That goes for all of us in one way or another. I'm not innocent of that at all.

[Vandalhart]

I guess I'm having a little bit of a WTF moment, but situations like these are clearly a situation of conflict of interest. I don't see how they have not been addressed so far.

My wife and I met at our work and started dating, and we had to let managers know that. I know people where I currently worked with that had to do the same. Perhaps it was something specific to the relationship between the couple as employees, but this is something that is completely logical to me.

If it will affect the way you do your job, or how you do your job and interaction on behalf of your company, it needs to be disclosed to at least your company.

[Lyall]

I guess I'm having a little bit of a WTF moment, but situations like these are clearly a situation of conflict of interest. I don't see how they have not been addressed so far.

My wife and I met at our work and started dating, and we had to let managers know that. I know people where I currently worked with that had to do the same. Perhaps it was something specific to the relationship between the couple as employees, but this is something that is completely logical to me.

If it will affect the way you do your job, or how you do your job and interaction on behalf of your company, it needs to be disclosed to at least your company.

Gaming "journalism" is half-conglomerated blogs, half-PR. They just don't want to admit it.

Blackballing for sub-par reviews is a known things, though the Gerstman review of Kane and Lynch is the first big case of it I can think of.

[Lyall]

So can we just accept that gaming has functional lobbies now?

Spoiler: show

http://pastebin.com/pDcQBvTL

[Mazmaz]

I mean, if you're delusional enough to believe that businesses and celebrities don't actively try to avoid being associated with/supporting hate groups, then sure. It doesn't really matter if you believe Gamergate is a hate group/movement or not, that's the image they've developed. They have a massive PR problem, and of course people try to distance themselves as much as possible.

But you know, if you wanna deny that, then sure, it's all lobbying and shit.

PS. I love 4chan-esque copypasta photos like that

[Lyall]

I mean, if you're delusional enough to believe that businesses and celebrities don't actively try to avoid being associated with/supporting hate groups, then sure. It doesn't really matter if you believe Gamergate is a hate group/movement or not, that's the image they've developed. They have a massive PR problem, and of course people try to distance themselves as much as possible.

But you know, if you wanna deny that, then sure, it's all lobbying and shit.

PS. I love 4chan-esque copypasta photos like that

Images like that give me headaches, too. While you aren't incorrect about the terribad PR that GG's gotten, well, part of that conversation is the point of the thread; The folks throwing that image around are the media sources not citing their conflicts of interest, or the internet faux-celebrities claiming it. Then people back them because no one wants to be a misogynist neckbeard basement dweller and then you get situations like this; Someone in a high-up position openly supporting a pundit and (perhaps) getting huge sums of money donated to the cause.

I've always been of the opinion, though, that if you're a public representative of something you should keep your personal business to yourself. These things can be polarizing (imagine if folks in this position were demanding to see Obama's Birth Cert, or were commenting about "Why are so many black people rioting?" sorts of things) and you don't talk about them when it can drive business away. Of course, in this situation there's no polarity, only Right and Wrong, because GG is Rapists is Misogyny is Death Threats. Except... the folks spinning that narrative have something to gain from it; Self-satisfaction, site clicks, etcetera.

I'm not made up about the validity of any of that. On one hand, Pallister's got ties with IDGA going back for some years. On the other, what are the odds that an organization she's friendly with and supportive of happened to get a slice of that funding? That a web blogger with an agenda she supports happened to be included? Femfreq is a youtube show, at best. What exactly is that going to do to get women into tech? IDGA I get; funding indies that can draw women is a plus. But Anita? Anita's not helping anyone but herself. The fact that someone on a board at Intel was so openly supportive (and aggressive against their self-made boogeyman) in public and that person ended up getting a cut of $300,000,000 seems suspect to me.

[Charismatic]

So can we just accept that gaming has functional lobbies now?

Spoiler: show

http://pastebin.com/pDcQBvTL

Anyone who denies this is simply ignoring reality.

[Mazmaz]

Images like that give me headaches, too. While you aren't incorrect about the terribad PR that GG's gotten, well, part of that conversation is the point of the thread; The folks throwing that image around are the media sources not citing their conflicts of interest, or the internet faux-celebrities claiming it. Then people back them because no one wants to be a misogynist neckbeard basement dweller and then you get situations like this; Someone in a high-up position openly supporting a pundit and (perhaps) getting huge sums of money donated to the cause.

I've always been of the opinion, though, that if you're a public representative of something you should keep your personal business to yourself. These things can be polarizing (imagine if folks in this position were demanding to see Obama's Birth Cert, or were commenting about "Why are so many black people rioting?" sorts of things) and you don't talk about them when it can drive business away. Of course, in this situation there's no polarity, only Right and Wrong, because GG is Rapists is Misogyny is Death Threats. Except... the folks spinning that narrative have something to gain from it; Self-satisfaction, site clicks, etcetera.

I'm not made up about the validity of any of that. On one hand, Pallister's got ties with IDGA going back for some years. On the other, what are the odds that an organization she's friendly with and supportive of happened to get a slice of that funding? That a web blogger with an agenda she supports happened to be included? Femfreq is a youtube show, at best. What exactly is that going to do to get women into tech? IDGA I get; funding indies that can draw women is a plus. But Anita? Anita's not helping anyone but herself. The fact that someone on a board at Intel was so openly supportive (and aggressive against their self-made boogeyman) in public and that person ended up getting a cut of $300,000,000 seems suspect to me.

I can't really comment on all the connections between the money and stuff. That rabbit hole goes too deep for me and I haven't kept up with it. I'll make two points before I go though.

1. If the movement has developed such a bad PR that you've acknowledged due to various elements that, truthfully, exist(ed) within the movement, why not abandon that label? Why not try and approach your goals from a different direction, instead of constantly trying to analyze who's sewing the narrative and who's muddying the label? You have to realize that it becomes frustrating for non-GGs to read and take seriously those that claim victimized when they (or those close to them) have victimized others.

2. About what supporting Anita does for women. I'll counter with another example. There's another Youtuber named Laci Green, who started her channel as a sort of "Feminism 101" type of thing and got really big in that field (though a bunch of shit she said was fucked up). She got picked up by MTV and now has her own show on that channel, reaching a far wider and potentially younger audience, in order to spread her teachings and messages about feminism (which arguably, a majority of women would feel good about).
I'm personally also wary of any Youtuber taking big corporation money, but meh, sometimes those opportunities just come up for people.

[Lyall]

1) This is an internet movement. As such, there are always going to be trolls attached to it, either because some idiots just don't really understand when the Internet becomes Real Life, or because we r leejun 4 teh lulz. Truthfully, there isn't any credible claim or proof that the harassment going on by allegedly-GG-based people existed, or that they were actually from Gamergate, or whatever else. It's no different than me throwing a brick through someone's home window with a letter claiming I act on behalf of BG. But instead of the narrative becoming focused on who was attacked, it became latched on who allegedly did the attacking. It wasn't circling the wagons, it was rallying the troops. Plus, there's the completely suspect nature of the "proof" that folks like Anita offered up. A screencap of tweets from a non-logged user, with no search history, with no hashtags, no @user tags, and taken seconds after the most heinous threats? How was it even discovered? If I started tweeting from a previously-neutral account with the #antigamergate or #femfreq hashtag and threatened to kill some famous dudes, would this be taken as seriously? Or would I be written off as a troll? That's neither here nor there, though.

The reason you can't just jump brand names should be obvious: The first time you give up your name/brand/hashtag because trolls misappropriate it, you guarantee trolls are going to follow with you. It's feeding them, and given a fair shake in the news commentary that would have been made clear.

2) It's a message that should be spread, but Anita's not the one to do it. She's got equally-as-bad PR, but for some reason it's a secret that her completely-insane-man-hating writer (yes, writer, because Jon McIntosh writes everything she says, she's merely a producer and pretty face) is behind FemFreq. She is literally his shield to spew whatever nonsense about gaming he wants, and any criticism is deflected by Anita because some trolls acted like trolls on the internet, therefor everyone who agrees with them hates women.

I do agree, though; As soon as companies get involved with people who started (allegedly, we don't know their motives) out for themselves it's a grey area. It's completely possible that these folks get approached because they happen to embrace the same values as the hypothetical company does, but MTV is the same network that created Teen Mom and (something) Wild and Jersey Shore. They're not exactly challenging society on their views.

Who knows, though?

[wipers]

MTV ? The average MTV viewer has never heard of Simone de Beauvoir or Jean-Paul Sartre. Actually I'd be shocked if Laci Green has heard of them either.


You want to preach feminism to people that don't know what feminism is really about. Chances are they haven't "studied" or learned the history of feminism. They just want to be told what they want to hear from people their own age.

I don't think Laci Green is qualified as an "expert" of feminism. I've watched her videos and she is preaching to the choir.

If you take the Huff Post (women section) seriously you will love Laci Green.

[Vandalhart]

I've been watching all of Sargon of Akkad's videos over the last couple of weeks. I'm going to probably branch out a bit, as it may be skewing my view of the entire situation.

He has mentioned that there is a group of #GamerGate representatives that are going around making sure the hashtag isn't being used to spread hateful/mysogynistic comments.
I also believe he feels that the majority of the #GamerGate camp aren't spreading the same hatred that the other side is, but that's just me feeling of the situation. I'm not on twitter enough to know for sure.

[Lyall]

I've been watching all of Sargon of Akkad's videos over the last couple of weeks. I'm going to probably branch out a bit, as it may be skewing my view of the entire situation.

He has mentioned that there is a group of #GamerGate representatives that are going around making sure the hashtag isn't being used to spread hateful/mysogynistic comments.
I also believe he feels that the majority of the #GamerGate camp aren't spreading the same hatred that the other side is, but that's just me feeling of the situation. I'm not on twitter enough to know for sure.

That's true. I haven't really looked at the hash tag much since maybe October but it wasn't uncommon to see some egg-avatar account (that means someone who never set up a picture, for the non-twitter folks, i.e. a sock puppet) railing hate on someone with the #gg tag, that person then screencapping it and going WELL LOOK AT THIS, NECKBEARDS and then several dozen folks calling for mass reports and blocks of the offending egg.

That part never got mentioned, though. Someone wrote bad things with a hashtag attached, so that defines the movement.

[tyven]

is gamergate not over?

[Lyall]

I guess not? Tag seems to be moving. I don't know what else is happening, I'm just using this thread to call out idiots getting caught being idiots.

[Kibble]

It's over, all that's left are the people who were "at war" with SJWs since the dawn of time.