Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Greater Beggnig]

Then why are we not hearing any of this?

If gamergaters would come out in public and issue a public apology for certain of their members doing this perhaps people would have more faith in you.

Muslims are held over the grills when they don't apologize within 30 minutes of Al'Qaeda or ISIS doing something, but RapeHerGaters get leeway with rape and murder threats apparently.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that the original prophet of GamerGate conquered the entire Middle East and that the great book of GamerGate called for people against it to be killed.
I am terribly, terribly sorry for the thousands of years of we killed your puppy and other people's puppies, making them hate us.

[Greater Beggnig]

Certain gamergaters issuing threats, or being put in the spotlight for allegations of threats, don't help their credibility; it rather damages them.

I'm sorry for being so skeptical, but I cannot take seriously people who issue threats to people they are against or put themselves in that sort of vulnerable position. If you want to be seen as people aiming towards something positive you have to weed out the negative and not defend it, it is perhaps the only way people are going to take you seriously.

I think this individual says it well:

That’s my view of GamerGate, and the more reasonable-sounding defenders of the movement have failed to convince me otherwise. No doubt I’ll get a lot of responses claiming that I just can’t see it from the perspective of a GamerGate supporter, to which I reply that most of those involved in GamerGate seem to have zero awareness of how it looks to anyone outside of it.

I was going to end by just encouraging the more reasonable supporters to think about what it is they’re supporting, rather than actively try to push people away from the GamerGate label (as in my experience that just causes people to dig their heels in). However, in light of recent news regarding full-blown terrorist threats made against Anita Sarkeesian, I honestly don’t care anymore. After such a threat, GamerGate officially died. I’m sorry if you’re involved in the movement for benign reasons, but if you’re a reasonable person and genuinely believe in journalistic ethics, you’ll divorce yourself from the movement. It’s too toxic now, even moreso than it ever was.

No excuses. No false equivalences. No ‘this doesn’t represent us’. No false flag accusations. People have now officially put GamerGate in the same bracket as domestic terrorists, and that is now how the movement will forever be perceived.

If decent people really want to get some positive change out of all this, they first need to let GamerGate die.

Why I can’t support GamerGate

What, you mean the crazy terrorist threats that Anita has been receiving for years now? That have not increased in intensity due to GamerGate, nor have been successfully related back to it?

[Beta Test]

An important thing to note is that the threats to Brianna Wu never mentioned Gamergate. Instead, they came from an account dedicated to harassing her, personally. She linked the two together.

[Tahar Joblis]

Hm? Page believes that Quinn is innocent.


For the most part, Zoe Quinn's supporters on this forum have mostly been just appealing to ignorance and saying that it can't be proved that Zoe Quinn is guilty of any real wrongdoing, and that exposing her personal life (or, in my words, an abuse victim talking about the abuse he experienced) was a wrong done to her.

What this amounts to is a denial of the series of wrongful things that Zoe Quinn has done, ranging from cyberbullying of Wizardchan to driving her boyfriend to a nervous breakdown.

So let's assume for the moment that all of the allegations made against Zoe Quinn by her Ex- are true...
What does that have to do with game journalists integrity/ethics?

Now keep in mind before you answer that her Ex- never accused her of sleeping with journalists to get good reviews, that was entirely made up by the people who read his blog.

Well, if we go with the natural conclusion of saying that the things that the list of people Zoe slept with, most of which were first mentioned by her ex and most of which have been confirmed independently, then that leads us to four of them related to professional ethics problems (excluding, coincidentally, the two who have not been confirmed by other sources, IIRC):

1. Nathan Grayson plugged (mentioned favorably) Depression Quest in several articles written on Kotaku.
2. Robin Arnott was on a panel that gave an award to Depression Quest.
3. Maya Kramer was also on that panel. In addition to sleeping with Zoe and being on that panel, Maya also slept with other people who then did favors for Zoe, and was working PR for many of the outfits that gave her favorable coverage as the scandals started to break. Just go here.
4. Joshua Boggs was her boss.

So, that's the professional wrongdoing / impropriety. It's a circumstantial case in terms of quid pro quo, but we have a pattern of ZQ sleeping with people and those people doing favors for her afterwards without being open about the nature of their relationship with ZQ. IMO, the lapses in professional ethics are not as grievous as the cyberbullying and partner abuse, but the lapses in professional ethics are also on her rap sheet.

And, frankly, we have quite a pile of evidence in front of us. As I said before, it's really all there in thezoepost. Her ex presented everything needed to convict her of doing wrong... if it could be confirmed to be true. Almost none of it was public knowledge before he announced it; pieces of it have been confirmed independently; and none of it has been yet proven wrong.

It makes him look really honest, and ... well... lots of people who don't like the GamerGate crowd seem to be agreeing with that assessment if they approach him willing to talk. He is, of course, reporting getting death threats anyway ... but, of course, you're not concerned with those reports, since he's not a woman.

[Gravlen]

Again, I was responding to TJ. TJ claims Sarkeesian overreacts to rudeness, claiming threats were they aren't. I pointed out that the FBI doesn't think this is an overreaction to rude remarks. If they did they would not say that they're investigating the threat. THAT's what it means.

Which was walking right by my point without addressing it.

Because the point is embarrasing. It's the kind of point I don't really want to be seen standing next to if I can avoid it. But OK...

That Sarkeesian has claimed a threat to be a threat does not contradict the fact that 95+% of what Sarkeesian claims to be a threat isn't.

Source for this as of now completely unfounded claim? And remember, guilt by association doesn't work, so please don't show what some other feminist is saying as a source for Sarkeesian's claim, as you tried before. I want to see "the fact that 95+% of what Sarkeesian claims to be a threat isn't".

[Gauthier]

Muslims are held over the grills when they don't apologize within 30 minutes of Al'Qaeda or ISIS doing something, but RapeHerGaters get leeway with rape and murder threats apparently.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that the original prophet of GamerGate conquered the entire Middle East and that the great book of GamerGate called for people against it to be killed.
I am terribly, terribly sorry for the thousands of years of we killed your puppy and other people's puppies, making them hate us.

More like the original prophet and great book of GamerGate calls for women who dare speak against it to be raped and killed.

[Gravlen]

He is, of course, reporting getting death threats anyway ... but, of course, you're not concerned with those reports, since he's not a woman.

There's grounds to be concerned with any threats he recieves. He should report them to the authorities, and I think he's got the wrong idea choosing not to do that even if, as he says, he's probably getting less extreme threats.

"The issue which makes things more pronounced, is that if you’re a woman, you’re open to much more horrifying sorts of harassment".

No matter the severity, however, threats are bad and he shouldn't be getting them. The people behind them should be condemned and prosecuted.





...


Notice what happened just now? There's no "Threats are bad, but...", there's no excuses being made, no desperate attempt at rationalization or justification, no demands to see the evidence even. His claim is being taken at face value. I'm not accusing him of false flagging himself, nor buying into conspiracy theories. I'm not claiming that he's a "professional victim" since he's talking about his experiences on BuzzFeed. I don't even evaluate his moral character to determine whether or not he deserves threats, I just say that he shouldn't be harassed. Full stop.

[Gravlen]

Again, I was responding to TJ. TJ claims Sarkeesian overreacts to rudeness, claiming threats were they aren't. I pointed out that the FBI doesn't think this is an overreaction to rude remarks. If they did they would not say that they're investigating the threat. THAT's what it means.

And TJ just stated in replying to me that he doesn't give a shit about gaming journalism, he just wanted to whine about another supposed round of penis pogroms.

That's part of the insanity. Because there's likely an abused man at the heart of all of this, we are supposed to not care about the campaign of hatred and harassment his words unleashed. For TJ, it seems, it is impossible to express concern and empathy for both of the people involved.

[Gauthier]

This thread is about the nontroversy that is RapeHerGate

Renaming things to suit yourself in that fashion is puerile.

and how it supposedly pertains to issues of feminism.

Which means that everything in the whole sequence of events is relevant. Which includes TheZoePost, since that started everything.

A timeline created with an admitted pro-RapeHerGate stance. Very objective and impartial source indeed.

Since abusive relationships are commonly coded as a feminist issue, this is doubly relevant.

Since the invisibility of male victims is a problematic element of feminist discourse, and this is an example thereof, it's also triply relevant as a point of criticism of feminism demonstrating that it's not about Saint Equality.

Almost any time you post in a thread, it's always with a persecuted tone that men are helpless victims and that women are inherently evil Amazons. Do you check under your bed for Lorena Bobbitt before you go to sleep every night?

If you want to whine about how Men Are Always the Real and Only Victims of Mean Feminazis Who Want to Stage a Peniicaust to Honor Their Patron Saint Valerie Solanis then you can start your own thread.

Men are neither always the real victims of "feminazis" nor the only victims of "feminazis." Whether you mean "feminazi" to refer to radfems or to all feminists, there are some women, children, and animals who are harmed by some feminists, acting either as individuals or acting as feminists.

But all you ever complain about is how men are victimized by women since the dawn of time.

Except nobody in this forum has seriously claimed Zoe Quinn was great.

Hm? Page believes that Quinn is innocent.

Quinn was innocent. The misogynist mob was not. It's not a two way street. Whatever acts of retribution against the gamergate crowd, are in my opinion very well deserved.

Except she actually didn't, and the problem is that even people who aren't up in a shitstorm over this seem to take that at face value. She had an ex-boyfriend who made a libelous forum post and all of the internet's misogynists ran with it.

For the most part, Zoe Quinn's supporters on this forum have mostly been just appealing to ignorance and saying that it can't be proved that Zoe Quinn is guilty of any real wrongdoing, and that exposing her personal life (or, in my words, an abuse victim talking about the abuse he experienced) was a wrong done to her.

First you claim you didn't care about gaming journalism, but it's obvious you'll use it as a convenient soapbox to rant on about how women constantly do no right and men can do no wrong.

What this amounts to is a denial of the series of wrongful things that Zoe Quinn has done, ranging from cyberbullying of Wizardchan to driving her boyfriend to a nervous breakdown.

And what does this have to do with gaming journalism? Nothing. It's simply a personal indictment of Zoe Quinn as a person, which is not much of a surprise coming from you.

The general consensus was she made at best a mediocre game that would have faded into obscurity if not for the neckbeardfest of her ex ranting on a blog combined with 4chan seizing on a chance to get even with Quinn for her sinking their pet project The Fine Young Capitalists.

1. The "4chan is t3h 3bUL NECKBEARD CONSPIRACY DRIVING ALL OF THIS!" narrative just doesn't hold up that well.

https://medium.com/about

So it's basically a blog site. Very objective and impartial source there.

2. "Neckbeardfest?" Can you get through a substantive post without dropping unsubstantiated insults every other sentence?

There isn't a general consensus. The two positions mostly collect around:

• Zoe Quinn is innocent and everybody but approved feminist-friendly media should go home and shut up about feminism in gaming.
• Zoe Quinn is guilty of a significant amount of wrongdoing, and so are the other people on her side, and this should not be tolerated.

The consensus position of your side, in this thread, at this moment, basically amounts to:

"OK, maybe there are some problems in gaming, but you should all go home and shut up because some of the people complaining about the problems are evil misogynist pig-dogs."

No. The position is "Don't pretend what you're throwing a shitstorm about is gaming journalism when it's rooted in the personal harassment of a woman whose ex ranted on a blog and she happened to sink a pet project of a collection of neckbeards."

As I've pointed out, I don't find that convincing. From what I've seen so far, the "GamerGaters" have done more to try to distance themselves from the author of the USU threat than feminists have done to distance themselves from Valerie Solanas. From what I've seen, nobody has really done anything to show misogyny at the core of the movement past showing hostility towards feminism. I also don't see why anyone else should find it convincing. There are some angry misogynists out there, and to the degree that they are willing to display their unpopular opinions, they will line up to condemn feminist wrongdoing as reliably as the KKK will to condemn wrongdoing by black celebrities.

Only you would call personally directed rape and murder threats with leaking of home addresses "hostility towards feminism".

Feminists can (and have) done wrong from time to time, and Michael Vick did do wrong. The anger that Zoe Quinn has inflamed is if anything less potent and enduring than the anger Vick stirred up. He routinely gets death threats. (Note that both examples in that article are, in fact, actually threats.) And guess what? Not many people care about that, because they recognize his guilt. Yeah, it's sorta bad that he gets death threats, but nobody's rallying about how horribly racist animal rights activists are because Michael Vick is getting death threats.

I like how you consider Zoe Quinn's sex life and internet conduct to be on par with staging dogfights.

As far as I'm concerned, your side is still in denial over the fact that Zoe Quinn is - irrespective of her skill as a game dev or lack thereof - someone who has done wrong, and the unwillingness to acknowledge that is tied to deep-rooted sexist attitudes.

So basically "Bitch asked for the rape death threats".

[Soldati Senza Confini]

This thread is about the nontroversy that is RapeHerGate

Renaming things to suit yourself in that fashion is puerile.

and how it supposedly pertains to issues of feminism.

Which means that everything in the whole sequence of events is relevant. Which includes TheZoePost, since that started everything.


Since abusive relationships are commonly coded as a feminist issue, this is doubly relevant.

Since the invisibility of male victims is a problematic element of feminist discourse, and this is an example thereof, it's also triply relevant as a point of criticism of feminism demonstrating that it's not about Saint Equality.

If you want to whine about how Men Are Always the Real and Only Victims of Mean Feminazis Who Want to Stage a Peniicaust to Honor Their Patron Saint Valerie Solanis then you can start your own thread.

Men are neither always the real victims of "feminazis" nor the only victims of "feminazis." Whether you mean "feminazi" to refer to radfems or to all feminists, there are some women, children, and animals who are harmed by some feminists, acting either as individuals or acting as feminists.

Except nobody in this forum has seriously claimed Zoe Quinn was great.

Hm? Page believes that Quinn is innocent.

Quinn was innocent. The misogynist mob was not. It's not a two way street. Whatever acts of retribution against the gamergate crowd, are in my opinion very well deserved.

Except she actually didn't, and the problem is that even people who aren't up in a shitstorm over this seem to take that at face value. She had an ex-boyfriend who made a libelous forum post and all of the internet's misogynists ran with it.

For the most part, Zoe Quinn's supporters on this forum have mostly been just appealing to ignorance and saying that it can't be proved that Zoe Quinn is guilty of any real wrongdoing, and that exposing her personal life (or, in my words, an abuse victim talking about the abuse he experienced) was a wrong done to her.

What this amounts to is a denial of the series of wrongful things that Zoe Quinn has done, ranging from cyberbullying of Wizardchan to driving her boyfriend to a nervous breakdown.

The general consensus was she made at best a mediocre game that would have faded into obscurity if not for the neckbeardfest of her ex ranting on a blog combined with 4chan seizing on a chance to get even with Quinn for her sinking their pet project The Fine Young Capitalists.

1. The "4chan is t3h 3bUL NECKBEARD CONSPIRACY DRIVING ALL OF THIS!" narrative just doesn't hold up that well.
2. "Neckbeardfest?" Can you get through a substantive post without dropping unsubstantiated insults every other sentence?

There isn't a general consensus. The two positions mostly collect around:

• Zoe Quinn is innocent and everybody but approved feminist-friendly media should go home and shut up about feminism in gaming.
• Zoe Quinn is guilty of a significant amount of wrongdoing, and so are the other people on her side, and this should not be tolerated.

The consensus position of your side, in this thread, at this moment, basically amounts to:

"OK, maybe there are some problems in gaming, but you should all go home and shut up because some of the people complaining about the problems are evil misogynist pig-dogs."

As I've pointed out, I don't find that convincing. From what I've seen so far, the "GamerGaters" have done more to try to distance themselves from the author of the USU threat than feminists have done to distance themselves from Valerie Solanas. From what I've seen, nobody has really done anything to show misogyny at the core of the movement past showing hostility towards feminism. I also don't see why anyone else should find it convincing. There are some angry misogynists out there, and to the degree that they are willing to display their unpopular opinions, they will line up to condemn feminist wrongdoing as reliably as the KKK will to condemn wrongdoing by black celebrities.

Feminists can (and have) done wrong from time to time, and Michael Vick did do wrong. The anger that Zoe Quinn has inflamed is if anything less potent and enduring than the anger Vick stirred up. He routinely gets death threats. (Note that both examples in that article are, in fact, actually threats.) And guess what? Not many people care about that, because they recognize his guilt. Yeah, it's sorta bad that he gets death threats, but nobody's rallying about how horribly racist animal rights activists are because Michael Vick is getting death threats.

As far as I'm concerned, your side is still in denial over the fact that Zoe Quinn is - irrespective of her skill as a game dev or lack thereof - someone who has done wrong, and the unwillingness to acknowledge that is tied to deep-rooted sexist attitudes.

It seems like you're still not getting the point.

The point is not "oh poor Zoe Quinn" the problem is:

Who gives a fuck about Zoe Quinn?

If you want to be taken seriously, stop making it sound like Zoe Quinn is the God damned issue and start focusing on whatever the hell it is that you're actually pissed about.

Also, like I told Beta, the fact that they don't have a centralized voice cripples them severely in the ability to be able to plan for contingencies and for them to be able to have a voice that represents them. Being just a bunch of people under a grassroots movement doesn't help because everyone's got their own opinion within a spectrum, there's no established voice.

If anyone here believes that a decentralized movement can do a lot of impact then I have bad news: it ain't happening. The public isn't interested in listening to 1000 different opinions on the same topic, they are interested in one stand, one voice.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So let's assume for the moment that all of the allegations made against Zoe Quinn by her Ex- are true...
What does that have to do with game journalists integrity/ethics?

Now keep in mind before you answer that her Ex- never accused her of sleeping with journalists to get good reviews, that was entirely made up by the people who read his blog.

Well, if we go with the natural conclusion of saying that the things that the list of people Zoe slept with, most of which were first mentioned by her ex and most of which have been confirmed independently, then that leads us to four of them related to professional ethics problems (excluding, coincidentally, the two who have not been confirmed by other sources, IIRC):

1. Nathan Grayson plugged (mentioned favorably) Depression Quest in several articles written on Kotaku.
2. Robin Arnott was on a panel that gave an award to Depression Quest.
3. Maya Kramer was also on that panel. In addition to sleeping with Zoe and being on that panel, Maya also slept with other people who then did favors for Zoe, and was working PR for many of the outfits that gave her favorable coverage as the scandals started to break. Just go here.
4. Joshua Boggs was her boss.

So, that's the professional wrongdoing / impropriety. It's a circumstantial case in terms of quid pro quo, but we have a pattern of ZQ sleeping with people and those people doing favors for her afterwards without being open about the nature of their relationship with ZQ. IMO, the lapses in professional ethics are not as grievous as the cyberbullying and partner abuse, but the lapses in professional ethics are also on her rap sheet.

And, frankly, we have quite a pile of evidence in front of us. As I said before, it's really all there in thezoepost. Her ex presented everything needed to convict her of doing wrong... if it could be confirmed to be true. Almost none of it was public knowledge before he announced it; pieces of it have been confirmed independently; and none of it has been yet proven wrong.

It makes him look really honest, and ... well... lots of people who don't like the GamerGate crowd seem to be agreeing with that assessment if they approach him willing to talk. He is, of course, reporting getting death threats anyway ... but, of course, you're not concerned with those reports, since he's not a woman.

It's wrong that he's getting death threats, but it's also worth noting that the ex-boyfriend of hers is a pretty bad sport and sounds like a spoiled brat.

Seriously, she cheated; big deal. Look, men and women cheat on each other all the time. It's sucky, and I'm sorry you had such a bad girlfriend, but that doesn't mean that all of a sudden this is the end of civilization as we know it and that people should be stooping down to make threats to either side. You have your opinion of him (that he's honest) and I got my own opinion of him (namely, that if he's going to go public he's both an idiot and an opportunist) yet you don't hear me saying "he deserves the death threats"; no, I'm saying "nobody deserves threats, period."; the fact that you seem so hell bent on proving that Zoe Quinn totally deserves the threats because the Ex got threats too speaks volumes about how seriously should we take your opinion.

[Ashmoria]

I just sit back and laugh at the feminists and SJWs as they lose their money making opportunity as gamers start boycotting the places they've infested. It's freaking great!

what places are those?

[Dyakovo]

So let's assume for the moment that all of the allegations made against Zoe Quinn by her Ex- are true...
What does that have to do with game journalists integrity/ethics?

Now keep in mind before you answer that her Ex- never accused her of sleeping with journalists to get good reviews, that was entirely made up by the people who read his blog.

Well, if we go with the natural conclusion of saying that the things that the list of people Zoe slept with, most of which were first mentioned by her ex and most of which have been confirmed independently, then that leads us to four of them related to professional ethics problems (excluding, coincidentally, the two who have not been confirmed by other sources, IIRC):

1. Nathan Grayson plugged (mentioned favorably) Depression Quest in several articles written on Kotaku.
2. Robin Arnott was on a panel that gave an award to Depression Quest.
3. Maya Kramer was also on that panel. In addition to sleeping with Zoe and being on that panel, Maya also slept with other people who then did favors for Zoe, and was working PR for many of the outfits that gave her favorable coverage as the scandals started to break. Just go here.
4. Joshua Boggs was her boss.

So, that's the professional wrongdoing / impropriety. It's a circumstantial case in terms of quid pro quo, but we have a pattern of ZQ sleeping with people and those people doing favors for her afterwards without being open about the nature of their relationship with ZQ. IMO, the lapses in professional ethics are not as grievous as the cyberbullying and partner abuse, but the lapses in professional ethics are also on her rap sheet.

And, frankly, we have quite a pile of evidence in front of us. As I said before, it's really all there in thezoepost. Her ex presented everything needed to convict her of doing wrong... if it could be confirmed to be true. Almost none of it was public knowledge before he announced it; pieces of it have been confirmed independently; and none of it has been yet proven wrong.

It makes him look really honest, and ... well... lots of people who don't like the GamerGate crowd seem to be agreeing with that assessment if they approach him willing to talk. He is, of course, reporting getting death threats anyway ... but, of course, you're not concerned with those reports, since he's not a woman.

1: Mentioning the existence of a free game is problematic? He didn't review it.
2: So, you're asserting that since she (allegedly) slept with one person on a panel that convinced the entire panel that the game deserved the reward?
3: I'm not seeing anywhere except your post itself that Zoe Quinn slept with Maya Kramer...
4: Joshua Boggs is not a journalist, so I'm not seeing how this answers my question.

Any threats he's receiving should be reported to the police. Unlike you, I do not dismiss threats because of the gender of the person receiving them, nor do I assume they are warranted based on either the gender of the recipient nor on some assumption that they deserve it.

[Hirota]

1. Nathan Grayson plugged (mentioned favorably) Depression Quest in several articles written on Kotaku.

1: Mentioning the existence of a free game is problematic? He didn't review it.

Learn to read. Reviewed does not equal plugged.

[Gravlen]

1: Mentioning the existence of a free game is problematic? He didn't review it.

Learn to read. Reviewed does not equal plugged.

Doesn't really matter though, since - according to Gjoni - there's no reason to believe there was a sexual relationship between Quinn and Grayson prior to April and the "plugs" were written in March.

Speaking of the "plugs", this is one of them:

According to a report on Indie Statik (and corroborating testimonials from Depression Quest creator Zoe Quinn, SoundSelf maestro Robin Arnott, and traveling indie of all the hats Adriel Wallick), GAME_JAM was originally conceived as an attempt to give wider audiences an inside look at what a game jam - that is, a rapid-fire game creation process, usually done over the course of a few days as a creative exercise - is actually like.

So then the competition itself began. Things got off on a strange foot when developers were organized into game-show-style teams with "captains" - in this case Zoe Quinn, Robin Arnott, Perfect Stride creator(s) Arcane Kids, and a group of USC students - each with a surprise YouTuber (among them personalities like JonTron) along for the ride, which is not really what a game development team looks like.

YouTube personality JonTron and Depression Quest creator Zoe Quinn butted heads during the Let's Play challenge, and they decided to resolve their differences with a discussion off-set.

He later defended his actions by saying he marched with women in the '70s with "flowers in his hair," but by this point the damage had already been done. He then apparently tried to get one more rise out of Quinn, and that's when everyone decided they'd finally had enough.

And while the experience was trying for all involved, it was also rife with important lessons. Quinn summed it up:

http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284

Woah, right?! SO MUCH PLUGGING!

[Dyakovo]

1: Mentioning the existence of a free game is problematic? He didn't review it.

Learn to read. Reviewed does not equal plugged.

I have been reading. The complaints about Zoe Quinn were that she "bought" good reviews of Depression Quest with sexual favors, ergo the question of journalistic ethics. Nathan Grayson never reviewed the game, and "plugged" it before their relationship got physical.
Basically this brings it right back to the question I asked TJ...
What does that have to do with game journalists integrity/ethics?

[Tahar Joblis]

Source for this as of now completely unfounded claim?

http://femfreq.tumblr.com/post/96569154 ... w-this-has

So. Anita Sarkeesian announces that she's providing a list containing death threats, rape threats, etc.

This list has 45 tweets from other people in it that don't contain threats, by my quick count. It contains one tweet threatening to rape her with a pole, and one tweet threatening to kill her. "Rape threat" and "death threat," singular, in other words, in that entire list.

Which purportedly contains plural death threats and rape threats. (Mind, if you dig back on Twitter, you find that both of those disposable anon accounts posted threats to rape and kill her, but the list purports to contain multiples of each... and while it contains lots of ill-wishing, it is 95% threat-free.)

He is, of course, reporting getting death threats anyway ... but, of course, you're not concerned with those reports, since he's not a woman.

There's grounds to be concerned with any threats he recieves. He should report them to the authorities, and I think he's got the wrong idea choosing not to do that even if, as he says, he's probably getting less extreme threats.

"The issue which makes things more pronounced, is that if you’re a woman, you’re open to much more horrifying sorts of harassment".

No matter the severity, however, threats are bad and he shouldn't be getting them. The people behind them should be condemned and prosecuted.

...

Notice what happened just now? There's no "Threats are bad, but...", there's no excuses being made, no desperate attempt at rationalization or justification, no demands to see the evidence even. His claim is being taken at face value. I'm not accusing him of false flagging himself, nor buying into conspiracy theories. I'm not claiming that he's a "professional victim" since he's talking about his experiences on BuzzFeed. I don't even evaluate his moral character to determine whether or not he deserves threats, I just say that he shouldn't be harassed. Full stop.

You only say he shouldn't be harassed when I point out to you directly that he is being harassed, in a context that leaves you no wiggle room for ignoring it.

It's not that if you're a woman, you're subject to more horrifying harassment. It's not that if you're a woman, you're more likely to see one of those threats carried out. It's that if you're a woman, threats are considered more horrifying. Period. You don't nod, cluck your tongue in stern disapproval, and move along when it's a threat to a woman. You bring it out, repeat it, publicize it, spread it, and make a really big fuss out of it. When it's a threat to a man, you disapprove if it's brought to your attention, and then shut up about it. This is why you've spent thousands of words on the argument that GamerGaters should be shut down on the basis of women receiving threats, but approximately zero words on the argument that feminists should be shut down on the basis of men receiving threats.

Starting to understand what I said? You are demonstrably not concerned with threats unless they are aimed at women. I didn't say you don't, in theory, disapprove of all threats; I said you don't really care about threats unless they're aimed at women. There are, IMO, two reasons for this relative lack of concern on your part (that's both an individual and a collective "your").

1. First, any crime against a woman is viewed to be more horrible. This is a standard and easily documented sexist bias visible in everything from media coverage to sentencing.

2. Second, you have bought into an ideological equation between the personal and political. As a consequence, you believe that what threats have been actually received are part and parcel of a larger system of misogyny, making the threats and the protests part of the same linked object; while ordinarily, a threat against Michael Vick, Ray Rice, WizardChan, Eron Gjoni, or any other man is taken as an isolated act.

#1 and #2 manufacture a situation where you will spend a lot of time talking about threats towards women and very little talking about threats towards men. I have, at no point, stated that threats are good. I have simply spent a lot of time talking about how seriously threats should be taken; how those threats should or should not be tied to a movement; how those threats should not be used to excuse misconduct; and about how those threats are presented and represented.

In the case of Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, and other people who have tried (or succeeded) in the business model of being a professional victim and raising sympathy cash, any threat - or anything remotely resembling a threat - gets drummed up as much as possible by them. A football player doesn't - both because they don't want to be viewed as vulnerable and because they don't want to give more people the idea.

A timeline created with an admitted pro-RapeHerGate stance. Very objective and impartial source indeed.

It's a list of events and when they happened. You can object to the editorial markings, but I wasn't referring to those. Got any factual dispute to make?

Almost any time you post in a thread...

But all you ever...

First you claim you didn't care about gaming journalism, but it's obvious you'll use it as a convenient soapbox to rant on about how women constantly do no right and men can do no wrong...

Almost every post you've made in this thread has lacked material arguments. Trying to claim I am obsessed with my pet topic isn't one. Got any?

And what does this have to do with gaming journalism? Nothing. It's simply a personal indictment of Zoe Quinn as a person

As an abuser.

So it's basically a blog site.

With times, dates, and quotes, presenting counter-evidence to the narrative you swallowed whole.

No.

Yes.

Only you would call personally directed rape and murder threats with leaking of home addresses "hostility towards feminism".

I will say, again, what I have demanded several times: Show that this is a feature of this movement. Is there any reasons to believe that those leading and organizing the GamerGate movement have issued threats, as opposed to trolls, feminists, or feminist trolls?

I like how you consider Zoe Quinn's sex life and internet conduct to be on par with staging dogfights.

I consider her partner abuse and cyberbullying to be unquestionably reprehensible.

So basically "Bitch asked for the rape death threats".

No; basically "Admit that a woman did something wrong instead of searching for excuse after excuse to pretend her innocence in the face of convincing evidence of guilt."

[Tahar Joblis]

Seriously, she cheated; big deal.

Seriously, she was systematically emotionally abusive. Textbook case. A large number of abuse victims have written in to her ex to talk about that. Someone decided to use it as an example for an educational video on how to recognize the signs of abuse. When I said abuse, I wasn't pulling things out of my ass. Go online, look for abuse warning signs checklists. Print off a couple. Then go read through thezoepost.

Infidelity and emotional abuse are not synonymous. Infidelity is in the kinda-sorta-bad category of "that's not very nice to spring on your partner, especially if you bring home an STD or something." Abuse is flatly and thoroughly wrong.

We have a major problem when it comes to recognizing abuse, a problem that becomes a lot worse when we're dealing with cases where the abuser is female and the victim is male. I firmly believe that the reason you're not recognizing this as a case of abuse (and instead are attacking the victim as a "bad sport" and "spoiled brat" for unloading about the abuse he suffered) is because of sexist bias.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No; basically "Admit that a woman did something wrong instead of searching for excuse after excuse to pretend her innocence in the face of convincing evidence of guilt."

Nobody is saying she's not guilty. My point is it's not a big fucking deal if you think the larger issue is gaming journalism.

If you're going to talk about gaming journalism then stick to fucking gaming journalism. If you are just going to make this another men vs. women issue don't bother. We already know shit hit the fan and she's not as innocent as it might seem, but that's not the issue at hand. Stop making people like me, who are the general public, assume the fucking woman has anything to do with the movement when other people are saying it doesn't have anything to do with it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Seriously, she cheated; big deal.

Seriously, she was systematically emotionally abusive. Textbook case. A large number of abuse victims have written in to her ex to talk about that. Someone decided to use it as an example for an educational video on how to recognize the signs of abuse. When I said abuse, I wasn't pulling things out of my ass. Go online, look for abuse warning signs checklists. Print off a couple. Then go read through thezoepost.

Infidelity and emotional abuse are not synonymous. Infidelity is in the kinda-sorta-bad category of "that's not very nice to spring on your partner, especially if you bring home an STD or something." Abuse is flatly and thoroughly wrong.

We have a major problem when it comes to recognizing abuse, a problem that becomes a lot worse when we're dealing with cases where the abuser is female and the victim is male. I firmly believe that the reason you're not recognizing this as a case of abuse (and instead are attacking the victim as a "bad sport" and "spoiled brat" for unloading about the abuse he suffered) is because of sexist bias.

And I think you are making the mistake of trying to read my mind when you don't know who the fuck I am to begin with.

I read his part of the story. He does come across like a spoiled brat. Now, that Zoe Quinn was abusive? I'mnot denying that, and it is an issue, but it happens and is not my concern. If the guy WAS my concern then perhaps I MIGHT have sympathy for him or Quinn, but this isn't about them in my point of view and form what others are saying so they are irrelevant to me. It's like telling me I should care about the controversies of a famous F1 team when all I care about is F1 racing. I could give a fuck less about THEIR issues because it's none of my business. I just want to see the damn racers win a race. Why should I bother with their private lives?

I've been abused, but you don't see me posting it online and defamating the character of my ex who abused me. I'm fucking happy I dodged that bullet, but I'm not going to go and defamate my ex partner. Emotional abuse is a big deal, but it's a personal struggle we all should go through and we should be able to find help, both men and women, but is it my business? No; and neither is anyone else's business to know about my private life. It's my private life ffs and I'm not making myself look the poster child of emotional abuse either.

[Tahar Joblis]

No; basically "Admit that a woman did something wrong instead of searching for excuse after excuse to pretend her innocence in the face of convincing evidence of guilt."

Nobody is saying she's not guilty.

I quoted someone saying exactly that, in this thread. They are far from alone. You will notice the use of some weasel words by Dyakovo just on the other page, as a far more recent example.

Dyakovo very clearly didn't want to admit that any wrongdoing had happened, or Dyakovo would have just said "OK, so she slept with XYZ, now what does that actually have to do with gaming journalism ethics?"

My point is it's not a big fucking deal if you think the larger issue is gaming journalism.

You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between me and other people you also find disagreeable.

I'll put it bluntly: I don't think the larger issue is gaming journalism. That's a sideshow from my perspective. I understand that some people see it as important, and I understand why some people see it as important, but my values are not the same as theirs. I am far more concerned with recognition of forms of partner abuse that are under-recognized. Including, in particular, abuse of men by women.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Nobody is saying she's not guilty.

I quoted someone saying exactly that, in this thread. They are far from alone. You will notice the use of some weasel words by Dyakovo just on the other page, as a far more recent example.

Dyakovo very clearly didn't want to admit that any wrongdoing had happened, or Dyakovo would have just said "OK, so she slept with XYZ, now what does that actually have to do with gaming journalism ethics?"

My point is it's not a big fucking deal if you think the larger issue is gaming journalism.

You seem to be having trouble distinguishing between me and other people you also find disagreeable.

I'll put it bluntly: I don't think the larger issue is gaming journalism. That's a sideshow from my perspective. I understand that some people see it as important, and I understand why some people see it as important, but my values are not the same as theirs. I am far more concerned with recognition of forms of partner abuse that are under-recognized. Including, in particular, abuse of men by women.

I'll put it bluntly: if this isn't about gaming journalism then this isn't worth the fucking declarations the gamergaters have said, at all. And it's not worth my time to be making an opinion on an issue nobody knows what the fuck they are focusing on.

Gamergaters say gaming journalism is the issue, you say it is a gender issue that IS the issue. And if neither side can agree on WHAT is the issue and WHY then I have no time to be listening on who's right and who's wrong and wasting my fucking time listening to people ranting, and this is why gamergaters are not being taken seriously, because nobody knows what the fuck they're arguing about.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It occurs to me that even if it was true that she was fucking someone from the industry (and that has been proven to be false), who the fuck cares? It's her life.

[The Arctic Kingdom]

Did you really just post a Facebook Drama? Because that's what this entire incident essentially is

[Tahar Joblis]

1: Mentioning the existence of a free game is problematic? He didn't review it.

Doesn't really matter though, since - according to Gjoni - there's no reason to believe there was a sexual relationship between Quinn and Grayson prior to April and the "plugs" were written in March.

That link says he thinks they began sleeping together in late march or early April, and the plugs do, in fact, date back that far. Gravlen, that means your comment doesn't actually hold water, in other words, in terms of dismissing the link.

Publicity of any kind is like gold for an indie dev. The editor of Kotaku took the issue seriously enough to say that it was OK based on Nathan Grayson having told him that they didn't start sleeping together until after he'd plugged her game.

2: So, you're asserting that since she (allegedly) slept with one person on a panel that convinced the entire panel that the game deserved the reward?

A single judge being biased does cast a poor light on the opinion of the whole panel.

3: I'm not seeing anywhere except your post itself that Zoe Quinn slept with Maya Kramer...

I have seen it numerous places other than my post, including one that I linked to right in the post you're replying to where you replied to it. So please don't pretend otherwise.

4: Joshua Boggs is not a journalist, so I'm not seeing how this answers my question.

Joshua Boggs was her boss. You don't see the professional ethics problem there, or how that can tie to advancement, future status, publicity, and everything else?