GamerGate thread

[archibaldcrane]

GGers keep Streisanding the Wus and Sarkeesians of the world, it demonstrates a remarkable lack of internet savvy. You give them power by feeling the need to counter what they say or engage them at all.

The "there's someone wrong on the Internet!" hysteria is self-defeating here.

[Kuishen]

Yeah I was gonna say, that dramatica page is really only adding fuel to the fire. There are other ways to bring attention to how somebody is a fraud then being flagrantly sensationalist about it.

[archibaldcrane]

There are no productive ways to bring attention to internet feminist bomb-throwers.

[Charismatic]

Who cares? Post more L&O hilarity.

http://a.pomf.se/dstiyq.webm

[Koul]

Yeah I was gonna say, that dramatica page is really only adding fuel to the fire. There are other ways to bring attention to how somebody is a fraud then being flagrantly sensationalist about it.

That's the way encyclopedia dramatica has always been lol look at anything on that page and it will be heavily glazed with mockery, shit and fire. Some more than others but... yeah.

[Quicklet]

The only major difference is that we have some bizarre notion of anonymity on the internet(that doesn't even slightly exist in reality), so we view it as more serious because it violates our expectations.

I often see people argue against the concept of anonymity on the internet, particularly in the context of article/video comments, precisely because it makes it harder to deal with harassment and other malicious behavior. There is this assumption that we never had anonymity/privacy in real life, but I would argue that the distinction isn't whether you're on the internet or not, but it's how much the ability to compile and analyze data about personal behavior has grown in the past 20 years. I still remember the days when people would complain about having to provide their personal information to rent videos at Blockbuster. Transactions in the real world were in many ways as anonymized and local as they used to be on the internet.

The danger in advocating for things like stripping away anonymity from social media in the name of quelling harassment and other bad behavior is that anonymity provides one of the few protections against the growing power that companies and the government (and the people in positons of power in those institutions and connected to those institutions) wield. It's becoming harder for whistleblowers to provide information about corruption or wrongdoing without being persecuted for their actions. Removing one of their last protections would set a dangerous precedent for the future. In addition to that, we've all seen enough of social media to know that there is no shortage of people who will harass or say hateful things about others with their real name and identity attached to those statements.

[Teryu]

[BerenTebogo]

For those not in the Twitter know: dude was straight talking to himself and his timeline.

Not one of those tweets were directed at anyone and none of then will ever be seen by any game journalist.

Dude just jacked off all over his TL and declared himself winner of an epic battle.

[Teryu]

Well I mean, he's not wrong.

[Andalusian girls]

gaming may never escape from the shade of SVU's cultural monopoly

[thetruepandagod]

gaming may never escape from the shade of SVU's cultural monopoly

Spoiler: show

SVU finally made me a fan. Let's marathon some seasons together.

[Andalusian girls]

you merely adopted the dox

[#686578]

Dude just jacked off all over his TL and declared himself winner of an epic battle.

Isnt that kind of the whole point of the internet?

[Vandalhart]

I'm a little confused as to why this is a "win" for Gamergate. Is it because it takes such an extreme or unbelievable turn during the story?

[Charismatic]

Its not a win, its just hilarious.

[Lyall]

I'm a little confused as to why this is a "win" for Gamergate. Is it because it takes such an extreme or unbelievable turn during the story?

Schadenfreude. Remember, very early on the Gamers Are Dead articles fueled a lot of the fire (it was 11 different articles across a number of websites all declaring the same concept: That the "gamer" identity was toxic, problematic and needed to go). So they spin that gamers are the devil, they declare the hobby is above needing the people who sustained it for years, they railed against anyone trying to point out that #notallgamers are trolling raping basement dwellers...

And now they're all so mad that TV has adopted their point of view. The exact same epithets they were bringing up seemingly-daily got put on blast on primetime television and now they're mad at the negative attention, despite it being the same exact bullshit they were clickbaiting with.

[Kibble]

Only person I've seen mad is Oliver Campbell.

[Lyall]

Various game blog sites all posted "WTF is this" articles making fun of the episode, but I don't have the archive links handy. I know Kotaku didn't like it, I know Anita's twitter account didn't like it, and I know Forbes/Erik Kain made fun of it but he was always pretty neutral/GG leaning.

[Charismatic]

Only person I've seen mad is Oliver Campbell.

Well, of course you're not going to see it if you don't bother to look.

[Vandalhart]

Various game blog sites all posted "WTF is this" articles making fun of the episode, but I don't have the archive links handy. I know Kotaku didn't like it, I know Anita's twitter account didn't like it, and I know Forbes/Erik Kain made fun of it but he was always pretty neutral/GG leaning.

I haven't look around too much, but the only thing I've seen positive in terms of the episode was the article from Brianna Wu posted earlier.

I'm re-reading her article and something seems fishy. Unless someone posting something so close to what happened in an episode of SVU that hadn't aired yet (in terms of thread and wearing a skull mask) is common place. That episode would have been filmed quite a while ago, so it's not like SVU could have caused it to happen, or Brianna Wu's threat cause SVU to write their episode.