Gamergate, Feminisim, and Journalistic Ethics

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

And even if the ex's statements of abuse were proven to be true, gamergaters are not making this their agenda so talking about gamergaters on the concept of male abuse from women is like talking about the merits of orange jelly when people are establishing we're talking about the merits of peanut butter. Simply not relevant to the discussion.

Now, if there was a movement that was focused on male abouse from women THEN it is relevant to talk about and share experiences from male abuse form women and how is it wrong, but this isn't the fucking issue here, or at least that's what they're trying to sell us.

[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.

And even if the ex's statements of abuse were proven to be true, gamergaters are not making this their agenda so talking about gamergaters on the concept of male abuse from women is like talking about the merits of orange jelly when people are establishing we're talking about the merits of peanut butter. Simply not relevant to the discussion.

Now, if there was a movement that was focused on male abouse from women THEN it is relevant to talk about and share experiences from male abuse form women and how is it wrong, but this isn't the fucking issue here, or at least that's what they're trying to sell us.

I don't disagree. Do I however agree that she shouldn't have been threatened? Absolutely.

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

For them, it probably is about gaming journalism... and in particular the problems illustrated by the case of Zoe Quinn.

For me, it isn't about gaming journalism. I'm not part of the movement. Get the distinction yet?

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.

I'm not a gamergater.

I'm a concerned NSG resident talking about issues related to gamergate. You can't really talk about gamergaters by reference to me or vice versa. Understand the distinction and apply it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

For them, it probably is about gaming journalism... and in particular the problems illustrated by the case of Zoe Quinn.

For me, it isn't about gaming journalism. I'm not part of the movement. Get the distinction yet?

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.

I'm not a gamergater.

I'm a concerned NSG resident talking about issues related to gamergate. You can't really talk about gamergaters by reference to me or vice versa. Understand the distinction and apply it.

And if you're not a gamergater and you are here talking about male abuse and gender issues "related" to the movement then WHY are you making it sound like this is an issue within gamergate?! It IS an issue that sprung gamergate, but when we talk about gamergate we need to understand that gamergate is TRYING HARD to come across as an outlet for the frustration of gamers with gaming journalism and not all of a sudden throw everyone a curve ball and say female to male abuse is an issue that gamergate should be focusing on OR IS FOCUSING ON AT THE PRESENT TIME. Which is how your posts are coming across.

I understand that, if you think abuse is an issue then I don't disagree with you, abuse is an issue and I don't think that, if Quinn abused her boyfriend, she was right. In fact I think abuse is wrong from either party, and the threats to her and the other women who were on her side were not right either as well as I don't think it was right the threats the ex and certain gamergaters got. I disapprove of her AND him, but I'm not making threats to either of them. Do you understand what I meant when I said "when people stoop down to a perceived evil's level they are not worth listening to"? I don't disagree that female-to-male abuse is an issue, and that threats from both sides, either perceived or real were an issue; but gamergater is trying to distance itself from that and trying to focus on their issue with gaming journalism, and within that light it doesn't make sense that somehow I'm talking about gamergate within their scope and you suddenly talk about something entirely different from their scope but you think is related. That doesn't help, that just makes people confused.

[Tahar Joblis]

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.

Reading that, what I see is an echo of the macho-bullshit stance of "He should have shut up and suffered stoically in silence." Yes, I know, you don't want me to say that's what you look like you're saying, but not everybody copes the same way, and not everybody works the same way.

As far as ZQ's boyfriend was concerned, he needed to put his experience out there so that others could learn from it (whether or not they did learn from it), and so that he could get his experience off his chest and his conscience. The lesson he intended to pass on was not to trust ZQ. Is that potentially problematic? Yes, it is, in particular if you're wrong about your judgement. So is being in the position of knowing the truth about someone who is harmful towards others and not passing that lesson on.

Did he recognize it as emotional abuse? No. And if seeking attention and sympathy publicly is a sin, there are probably a dozen people ahead of ZQ's ex in line related to this affair alone. So why is ZQ's ex the "spoiled brat" and not all those others?

[Beta Test]

The problem to do with Zoe Quinn had nothing to do with abuse of males or anything like that. It has to do with the fact that Nathan Grayson, a Kotaku writer who wrote positive things about her game, had a sexual relationship with her. That is a clear conflict of interest. The fact that she was cheating on someone in the process is pretty much irrelevant.

[Tahar Joblis]

And if you're not a gamergater and you are here talking about male abuse and gender issues "related" to the movement then WHY are you making it sound like this is an issue within gamergate?!

It is an issue I see with how the "gamergate" saga has proceeded. We start with a story that narrates very vividly a case of abuse, and neither side gives a flying fuck about that aspect of it, even though one side supposedly has partner abuse on its issue priority list.

It IS an issue that sprung gamergate, but when we talk about gamergate we need to understand that gamergate is TRYING HARD to come across as an outlet for the frustration of gamers with gaming journalism and not all of a sudden throw everyone a curve ball and say female to male abuse is an issue that gamergate should be focusing on OR IS FOCUSING ON AT THE PRESENT TIME. Which is how your posts are coming across.

We, as people, should be focusing on female to male abuse at the present time. IMO.

I understand that, if you think abuse is an issue then I don't disagree with you, abuse is an issue and I don't think that, if Quinn abused her boyfriend, she was right. In fact I think abuse is wrong from either party, and the threats to her and the other women who were on her side were not right either as well as I don't think it was right the threats the ex and certain gamergaters got. I disapprove of her AND him, but I'm not making threats to either of them. Do you understand what I meant when I said "when people stoop down to a perceived evil's level they are not worth listening to"? I don't disagree that female-to-male abuse is an issue, and that threats from both sides, either perceived or real were an issue; but gamergater is trying to distance itself from that and trying to focus on their issue with gaming journalism, and within that light it doesn't make sense that somehow I'm talking about gamergate within their scope and you suddenly talk about something entirely different from their scope but you think is related. That doesn't help, that just makes people confused.

To me, this thread is an opportunity to talk about the scandal and crisis and comment on the problems within the dialogue between the two sides. I see that this can be confusing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Reading that, what I see is an echo of the macho-bullshit stance of "He should have shut up and suffered stoically in silence." Yes, I know, you don't want me to say that's what you look like you're saying, but not everybody copes the same way, and not everybody works the same way.

As far as ZQ's boyfriend was concerned, he needed to put his experience out there so that others could learn from it (whether or not they did learn from it), and so that he could get his experience off his chest and his conscience. The lesson he intended to pass on was not to trust ZQ. Is that potentially problematic? Yes, it is, in particular if you're wrong about your judgement. So is being in the position of knowing the truth about someone who is harmful towards others and not passing that lesson on.

Did he recognize it as emotional abuse? No. And if seeking attention and sympathy publicly is a sin, there are probably a dozen people ahead of ZQ's ex in line related to this affair alone. So why is ZQ's ex the "spoiled brat" and not all those others?

Did I ever say he should suffer in silence? No, what I said was he should seek help. From who? I did it form my family and friends, I didn't suffer it quietly. But I also didn't see a chance to be opportunistic and voice my concerns out. I have talked to many people about my experience with abuse, but I've done it when the issue is relevant, not when the issue might be relevant and I just want to be out there. I'm exposing myself to be seen as someone who has ulterior motives because that's not what people are talking about.

What you see and what I tried to express are two entirely different things.

As far as ZQ's boyfriend was concerned I don't deny that seeking attention and sympathy publicly isn't a sin, but it makes me question if their side of the story is the only one worth listening to and whether or not we should include this issue within gamergate when people have said it's not part of the agenda.

Public sympathy and seeking attention are good sometimes, but not when you are making it about your case, there's a balance between making it a public issue and making it your issue people should pay attention to. Another example: people pay more attention to the crowd in a stadium having fun or protesting for something than the lone figure saying "PAY ATTENTION TO ME! LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME!". I don't have to pay attention to the person shouting loudly if I don't want to, but if the person explains it to me and makes it relatable THEN I can understand, THEN I can begin to sympathize with them. If all they have to contribute is "oh woe me" then there's nothing really for me to actually make a point about. Yea, sure, it sucks, but I'm not the one who is trying to make this a greater issue, YOU are and those who are of the same opinion as you. Making it seem as if I have to listen just because it's an issue? I might listen if you frame it properly, but not within another conversation that doesn't have anything to do with the issue.

That's basically what I'm mostly upset about, because I am mostly confused on what his issues and his abuse have to do with all this gamergate issue? It's not that I don't find it important, it's that we're in a crowd that's talking about one thing and you're discussing another thing.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

We, as people, should be focusing on female to male abuse at the present time. IMO.

And we, as people, care about it. I care about it. But gamergate simply isn't the kind of topic which lends itself to that kind of conflation.

Gaming journalism integrity is one of those things that is a topic all on its own. Female to male abuse is an issue all on its own. To try to combine both, and to think that my reply has anything to do with how people from both sides are approaching the issue is kind of odd. Because I care about both issues, but I don't see how one issue relates to another.

Both topics are important, but addressing my posts as if I am talking about the issue of female-to-male abuse when I'm not is kind of confusing.

[Greater Beggnig]

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.

Death threats, huh? The ones that Anita Sarkeesian has been receiving for months, even years now? The ones that have not increased in intensity due to GamerGate?

[Gauthier]

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

Death threats, huh? The ones that Anita Sarkeesian has been receiving for months, even years now? The ones that have not increased in intensity due to GamerGate?

Yes, let's pretend Brianna Wu wasn't forced out of her home by rape death threats because she dared to criticize the sacred Gate.

[Dyakovo]

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?

1: Again, it's a free game. What was she supposedly gaining from this?
2: It casts a poor light on the opinion of the Judge she slept with (and on her). I don't see how the other judges are tarnished by the actions of one.
3: You mean the blog post where the guy repeatedly says that the claims about Maya unverified )and possibly unverifiable)?
4: Yes, he was her boss. Yes, sleeping with your boss is a professional ethics problem. However, "GamerGate" is supposedly about journalistic ethics (and indeed this is what I asked about) and neither Zoe Quinn nor Joshua Boggs are journalists...

[Greater Beggnig]

Death threats, huh? The ones that Anita Sarkeesian has been receiving for months, even years now? The ones that have not increased in intensity due to GamerGate?

Yes, let's pretend Brianna Wu wasn't forced out of her home by rape death threats because she dared to criticize the sacred Gate.

What exactly was her criticism, dare I ask? A flat-out strawman based on the insufficient media coverage, I presume? Or was it an over-reaction to something else that led to a few douche-nozzles taking the opportunity to get their five minutes of fame by having their threats spread all over the media?

[Greater Beggnig]

I would like to invent my own theorem. It's called the EbilGamerGate theorem.

Acts by any crazy misogynist douchebags on the internet are not just a few crazy people, perhaps coming out of the woodwork as an unintended side-effect of GamerGate, but are rather evidence of a GamerGate plot to discredit their own movement and make people pissed off at them, by allowing the media to further strawman them as crazy sexist terrorist rapists.

Brianna Wu posted some memes on 8chan. GamerGate people and their ilk made some parody memes, and she called it garbage and blamed GamerGate for it.

Then, someone posted her personal details, leading to wankers being wankers, since they know they can get their five minutes of fame if they send her death/rape threats.

[The Black Forrest]

And my question to you is this: if you are supporting gamergate (presuming that you actually are, if not, this is a question to a hypothetical gamergater) why haven't you made an organization or put your name out in the public as an authority on the movement?

A disorganized movement is like a lynch mob, an organized movement can be more effective and more swift in how they deal with situations like this. The fact the gamergaters who are ethical haven't figured this one out speaks volumes about the movement.

Gamergate is far from disorganized. However it is a deliberate decision among the community to not appoint a leader or a group of leaders in order to maintain it's grassroots origins.

It's disorganized in the public eye simply because "well you know there are miscreants and they aren't the majority" People don't buy that kind nonsense.

Gamergate will fail as time moves on. Especially when it talks about conspiracies.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

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.

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.

Compared to the issue of failing to recognize roughly half of the victims of abusive relationships, I think the state of clickbait websites talking about games isn't really that important.

Obviously, there are people who feel otherwise.

Nice to know you can't resist any opportunity to whine about the impending Peniicaust, at least you're more upfront about your agenda than the countless 'Gaters who keep claiming it's about gaming journalism.

From what I've seen... some of them do care about gaming journalism.

And there is, quite clearly, an interaction between feminism and gaming journalism. If your primary concern is journalistic integrity, the idea that a [primarily feminist, partially Gawker-owned] clique controls some segment of gaming media, and uses that as a platform to advance their ideology can, in fact, be an honest concern of yours. I don't doubt that we're dealing with a heterogeneous group here. It's a sensationalist issue and different people have different priorities.

As far as I'm concerned, using Zoe Quinn's situation as a vehicle to talk about feminism in gaming is like using Michael Vick getting charged with dogfighting as an opportunity to talk about [anti-black] racism in sports. That isn't necessarily inappropriate, but you need to do so with careful nuance. The correct response to "VICK R INHUMAN DOG KILLER NIGGER!" would not be "VICK IS GREAT! STOP MAKING VICK SAD BY CALLING VICK BAD!" but rather "I admit that dogfighting is inhumane and wrong, but please don't call Michael Vick a nigger; dogfighting is wrong whatever the skin color of the people involved are, and the term you used is unnecessarily offensive."

It's fascinating to see the people you defend.

[Camelza]

I don't really care about other peoples' sex lifes unless they involve me.

[The Black Forrest]

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.

The guy how designed Gears of War kind of suggests gamergate is involved.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... human-cost

[The Black Forrest]

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?

A couple people have made claims of hurting sites. But, no numbers offered.

[The Black Forrest]

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?

so you are upset a woman allegedly screwed her boss?

You don't understand the gamer mindset. Sure positive reviews may draw interest. But it's immediately lost when the game turns out to be a dud.

If you had bothered looking at DQ, it's not that good and people will not take the positive reviews that well the next time something is attempted.

As to people being hurt? Ok. The game is free. So considering download and playing time; people loose maybe an hour.....

[Gauthier]

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.

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

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.

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?

so you are upset a woman allegedly screwed her boss?

You don't understand the gamer mindset. Sure positive reviews may draw interest. But it's immediately lost when the game turns out to be a dud.

If you had bothered looking at DQ, it's not that good and people will not take the positive reviews that well the next time something is attempted.

As to people being hurt? Ok. The game is free. So considering download and playing time; people loose maybe an hour.....

There's no point in talking to him. Ever since Bottle hurt his feelings he only sees the world in terms of male and female and how every innocuous thing is merely a sign that women have been brutally oppressing men since the dawn of time, even during the periods of history when common observation shows that women were little more than chattel to men.

[The Black Forrest]

The problem to do with Zoe Quinn had nothing to do with abuse of males or anything like that. It has to do with the fact that Nathan Grayson, a Kotaku writer who wrote positive things about her game, had a sexual relationship with her. That is a clear conflict of interest. The fact that she was cheating on someone in the process is pretty much irrelevant.

Ok. Did you play DQ?

All that positive effort is lost when the game turns out to be a dud.

DQ only got attention because the gamegaters starting whining about the situation.

If they remained quiet; DQ would have died a quiet death.

[Gauthier]

The problem to do with Zoe Quinn had nothing to do with abuse of males or anything like that. It has to do with the fact that Nathan Grayson, a Kotaku writer who wrote positive things about her game, had a sexual relationship with her. That is a clear conflict of interest. The fact that she was cheating on someone in the process is pretty much irrelevant.

Ok. Did you play DQ?

All that positive effort is lost when the game turns out to be a dud.

DQ only got attention because the gamegaters starting whining the situation.

If they remained quiet; DQ would have died a quiet death.

It's the Satanic Verses Effect in action.

[Beta Test]

The problem to do with Zoe Quinn had nothing to do with abuse of males or anything like that. It has to do with the fact that Nathan Grayson, a Kotaku writer who wrote positive things about her game, had a sexual relationship with her. That is a clear conflict of interest. The fact that she was cheating on someone in the process is pretty much irrelevant.

Ok. Did you play DQ?

All that positive effort is lost when the game turns out to be a dud.

DQ only got attention because the gamegaters starting whining about the situation.

If they remained quiet; DQ would have died a quiet death.

So? That's not the point. The conflict of interest is there. The writer gives it a positive review, causing people to buy the game. It's a breach of the trust of the audience of the writer.

[Gauthier]

Ok. Did you play DQ?

All that positive effort is lost when the game turns out to be a dud.

DQ only got attention because the gamegaters starting whining about the situation.

If they remained quiet; DQ would have died a quiet death.

So? That's not the point. The conflict of interest is there. The writer gives it a positive review, causing people to buy the game. It's a breach of the trust of the audience of the writer.

Buy? Yep, that's a sure sign you did not even bother to do research. Depression Quest was a free game.