Censorship? There is no censorship!

No not in game journalism per se, though the trend toward more critical looks at games in recent years is a positive development. But in journalism in general. You just have to know where to look.
 
Ok, seriously.
When the hell are you going to apply any of this to anyone you do not perceive as GG?
"He could stop flipping his lid over things like that charity stream, because when he does that, the result is (not surprisingly) harassment. "
Hey, are you talking about TB or Tolvo? And are you blaming them for the harassment they received or what was dished out by their followers? Maybe Tolvo should stop going "I hate gamergaters and TB is one" every few days!
You admit there's harassment coming out of Ghazi, but I don't see you making puppet videos about how they're "structurally enabling harassment and terrorism" or whatever.
Where do you draw the line? When is all the harassment coming out of the other side enough that it's sullied and stated goals should be ignored in favour of condemning the entire thing as a hate-group?
 
I've consistently called out harassment by any side when it's been pointed out to me. I think the tendency to make fun of people for their appearance among GamerGhazi and some people opposed to GamerGate is distasteful -- but that's largely disappeared, and has been frequently critiqued in GamerGhazi and other places where anti-gamergaters are somewhat organized.

I'm not sure why you like to equate the two groups, though, because they are fundamentally different. Look at GamerGhazi right now -- there's a sticky noting concrete action against harassment right now: anyone trying to justify it will be banned, one person who's complained he's gotten too much attention will not be mentioned anymore. And there's no one complaining about that. Similarly, there's a front page post about the harassment TotalBiscuit faced, with everyone agreeing that's pretty horrible and discussing whether there's something they can do to alter their behavior to prevent that from happening. And another front page post about that specific person who complained about the attention, and everyone agreeing to not give him that attention.

That's a group trying to be accountable for its behavior, and changing their behavior when critiqued. It's a group organizing to moderate people where it can. And this is something I've seen throughout GamerGate among the voices I tend to agree with -- people like freebsdgirl or PixieJenni or foldablehuman consistently call out and condemn harassment, and actively exhort people not to engage in it. Any hub that I have seen where anti-gamergaters congegrate consistently self-polices. They don't deny the existence of harassment. They don't think people are "professional victims". They don't try to minimize the impact of harassment. They don't go "yeah well why are you talking about death threats" when someone talks about receiving death threats. They don't promote conspiracy theories about people making up their harassment for attention. All of those things happen consistently in GamerGate, and are promoted by some of the biggest names in GamerGate -- hell, Akratus and TheWesDude have done all of these things and more on this very forum. Instead, GamerGhazi and every major "anti-gg" personality I know do what they can to minimize that kind of behavior. And that has happened consistently since there's been anything like an other side.

Meanwhile on KotakuInAction? Nothing. Because GamerGate refuses to hold itself accountable in any way, even in the places where it is organized. Instead of actively condemning harassment or trying to instate policies that could help mitigate the targeting of specific people, they constantly promote complete bullshit that they know (or should know) will lead to harassment of these people.

And then there's the fact that this entire movement was founded on the harassment of Zoe Quinn (based on bullshit), was then co-opted by the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian (because people hate cultural critique) and has consistently added targets to harass to its insane conspiracy theories. These are not remotely two equivalent sides.


As for your specific example, I think the harassment that happened as a result of both reactions is completely inexcusable. I also think that someone with 390,000 followers and a history of minimizing harassment and supporting a movement that harasses people on the regular, should be held to a higher standard of behavior than a random dude with 400 followers. Or 250 followers, actually, as @DurpSA was the one who flipped his lid, not Tolvo. The reach is not remotely comparable, and neither is the damage they can do. But, once again, I think all the reactions in this scenario, both from TB and from the charity stream, are understandable given the context of what happened -- neither constitutes harassment or abuse on their own, at most they're overreactions. I just think that TB, given the damage he can do (inadvertently!) should be more aware than he is of the consequences of his actions, instead of pretending that he has no control over these things.
 
Because it's so fucking important to announce that angry tweeting is condemned. TB gets tons of about how he should kill himself and he responds like an adult. The fact that many people who continually spit on gamergate can't be as mature is their problem, not KiA's.

I talk to the wind
My words are all carried away
I talk to the wind
The wind does not hear
The wind cannot hear.

I'm on the outside looking inside
What do I see
Much confusion, disillusion
All around me.

You don't possess me
Don't impress me
Just upset my mind
Can't instruct me or conduct me
Just use up my time
 
Sander I think you are just too emotionally involved to have a clear prescriptive. Anti-GG and GG are two sides of the same coin when it come to harassment. Both side are populated with stupid idiots that will be anything for The War.
 
Both sides have those people, yes. Never denied that. However, one side is built around those people and around enabling them, while the other side tries to minimize, condemn and marginalize those people.

And you can see this in the reaction when people bring up the fact that they're being harassed. GamerGate has denied the existence of harassment, has denied that it's tied to them, has called people "professional victims," uses nonsense like "just words on the internet" to pretend it's no big deal, makes ridiculous claims that people are harassing themselves etc etc etc. And not just GamerGate in the abstract. Those are all things Akratus and TheWesDude have done, specifically.

I have seen none of that on the other side. Nothing remotely resembling it. Instead, when people complain about harassment -- every single time I've seen that, people on the "other side" do what they can to condemn and prevent it. They don't try to deny it. They don't try to go "well that's not us." They don't do any of those things.

Again: these two sides are not remotely equal.

EDIT: I mean for fuck's sake, Reddit is now taking a stance against KiA and limiting the naming of people in that subreddit. Reddit thinks they've gone too far! Reddit!
 
Sander said:
That's a group trying to be accountable for its behavior, and changing their behavior when critiqued.
Click to expand...
And when the GGs tried to do shit like this with the anti-harassment patrol and whatever, you called them out as being misguided idiots who had created a structure that allowed and encouraged it regardless.
How was that any different from shit like this?
Your cries of "they're doing it more" are not convincing.
 
Sander said:
I've consistently called out harassment by any side when it's been pointed out to me.
Click to expand...
Total and complete hypocrisy, UNLESS you can exclude yourself because you are an individual, and not a "group"? Either way, it's still bullshit, when the implication of terms such as "party" or "group" also include individuals acting on their own. I'm seeing instances of harassment "in places" spiraling out of control, and there's not a hint of "consistency" in calling it out when doing so necessitates a modicum of humility.
 
PlanHex said:
And when the GGs tried to do shit like this with the anti-harassment patrol and whatever, you called them out as being misguided idiots who had created a structure that allowed and encouraged it regardless.
How was that any different from shit like this?
Your cries of "they're doing it more" are not convincing.
Click to expand...
Not sure where that link's from (so I can't say much about that group -- I'm not familiar with it, I don't think), but yes that moderator appears to be behaving horribly, and the GamerGhazi guy is calling him out on it.

The "harassment patrol" frequently denied actual harassment -- in effect, the only thing they did was report people for specifically doxxing and threats. Anything else they let slide. It's good that they organized it, but it's a fairly flimsy step. More importantly it doesn't address the structural problems with GamerGate that cause these issues in the first place. Structural problems that do not exist on the other side.

Yes, GamerGate as a whole absolutely promotes and encourages harassment regardless of the existence of that harassment patrol (which has disappeared anyway). It does so by, as I keep pointing out, promoting and signal boosting all of the serial harassers in the movement. It does so by constantly witch-hunting for stuff to egg on people. Like that time they went ape-shit over freebsdgirl using pet-safe dye on her dog for a hospital charity. Someone pretended she was dying her dog with non-pet-safe dye, took one picture out of context, called it horrific animal abuse and created another round of harassment. That was promoted everywhere in GamerGate, including the front page of KotakuInAction, just a couple of weeks ago. Akratus posted that bullshit here!

Similar episodes include speculating that Brianna Wu was broadcasting from her house after saying she was driven from it (she was there because she had a camera crew with her to help her stay safe), speculating that Sarkeesian faked the death threats sent to her, digging through Quinn's code to find an instance where she forgot to include a copyright notice for included code (easy mistake she immediately corrected), constantly promoting the "Sarkeesian lied about Hitman: Absolution" falsehood, promoting the idea that FoldableHuman distributed child porn (a ridiculous distortion of fact, and meanwhile they pretend 8chan doesn't host it). All of those instances led to very predictable harassment, all of them are based on complete bullshit, many of them led to doxxings. And that's just off the top of my head.

Those kinds of episodes happen every single week, if not more frequently. Those incidents are not a coincidence. The structure of GamerGate has included and encouraged that from the start. It's the core of their movement, and all of the most prominent names in GamerGate engage in the same bullshit rationalizations of harassment, and many participate in harassment. And all of that harassment is based on insane conspiracy theories, ridiculous framings and outright lies.

Let me make this abundantly clear: there is no equivalent of InternetAristocrat, or RogueStar, or Mike Cernovich, or Thunderf00t, or FartChives, or RooshV or any other serial harasser, doxxer and person-egging-on-the-hate-mob among anti-gamergaters that I know of. Certainly some will exist somewhere, but none of them are a voice of consequence within the groups opposed to gamergate. None of them are structurally promoted. All of the prominent voices in anti-gamergate that I know of consistently and frequently condemn harassment, will call out their followers for engaging in it when it happens, and try to alter their behavior to prevent it.

Yes, there are bad eggs everywhere. But to pretend that a group built on and consistently promoting bad eggs is the same as the group that condemns them at every step is lunacy.
 
I guess a big problem with having some sort of harassment patrol is where to draw the line. What "lesser" form of harassment do you want banned? Look at the tweets Tolvo collected in the Storify about the whole TB incident. There were like five tweets that were genuinely harassing in some way or another, but the rest? If that's called harassment, I don't know how one is supposed to have any sort of conversation anyway.

Although that's something I noticed with many groups and people in modern Internet feminism. An unwillingness to discuss and receive any sort of criticism. And I mean any criticism, doesn't matter how constructive it is. Since they know that they're right, any form of discussion is really, really tiring to them. They don't want to argue, and they certainly don't want to broaden their own horizons in any way that's not already reaffirming their existing world view. Because they already know that they're irrefutably right, and criticism is not there to make them better, it's just there to destroy them.
But the good thing is that many condemn "self care" because it's "neoliberal self-optimisation", so the movement in this form will burn itself out rather quickly, and maybe it will be replaced by something actually smart people formed. Let's hope for the best.
 
PlanHex said:
You words would ring so much more true if it wasn't for stuff like this or the Ghazi front page going "haha whoops turns out our constant mocking and demonizing attitude created space for harassment who would've thought".
Click to expand...
So that first thing is a bit weird. Hadn't seen it before, quick Google makes it look like a minor clusterfuck. Some of what freebsdgirl says there is definitely out of line. Let's see what GamerGhazi did? Oh, they called her out on it and she agreed with them, promising not to do that anymore? The second is GamerGhazi agreeing not to talk about him after anymore after he asked them not to. And then discussing what they can do to prevent this from happening again. I actually linked to that specific thread before because it's an example of a community being accountable and changing their behavior. As is the first image.

Meanwhile in GamerGate land, srhbutts was doxxed today and someone sent a SWAT team to PixelGoth/Grace Lynn's (former) house yesterday night. Oh, and Chris Kluwe got doxxed. All in the past day. But the two sides are totally equal, guys!

Hassknecht said:
I guess a big problem with having some sort of harassment patrol is where to draw the line. What "lesser" form of harassment do you want banned? Look at the tweets Tolvo collected in the Storify about the whole TB incident. There were like five tweets that were genuinely harassing in some way or another, but the rest? If that's called harassment, I don't know how one is supposed to have any sort of conversation anyway.
Click to expand...
Well, there was a dude specifically and repeatedly telling him to go die of cancer. TB asked not to link to those storifys, so I won't. But more than that, angry tweets of disagreement aren't necessarily harassment. But when people start flooding your mentions with anger to the point where normal interaction with other people becomes impossible, that's effectively harassment. Death threats and rape threats certainly are harassment. People flooding your mentions with insults are, too. As are people flooding you with the demand that you answer the same (often debunked) criticism over and over and over and over and over again -- because things like that effectively make your social media account completely unusable, and take a heavy psychological toll on people.

Hassknecht said:
Although that's something I noticed with many groups and people in modern Internet feminism. An unwillingness to discuss and receive any sort of criticism. And I mean any criticism, doesn't matter how constructive it is. Since they know that they're right, any form of discussion is really, really tiring to them. They don't want to argue, and they certainly don't want to broaden their own horizons in any way that's not already reaffirming their existing world view. Because they already know that they're irrefutably right, and criticism is not there to make them better, it's just there to destroy them.
But the good thing is that many condemn "self care" because it's "neoliberal self-optimisation", so the movement in this form will burn itself out rather quickly, and maybe it will be replaced by something actually smart people formed. Let's hope for the best.
Click to expand...
This is mostly the old "this question is dumb, go away" response you see a lot in established communities. It's the same thing you saw when people started flooding this forum with "what's wrong with first person in Fallout" (though that's before your time, I think). Perhaps a better example: creationists jumping into scientific discussions, demanding answers to inane questions and then complaining that people aren't willing to discuss things when they get mocked/banned/shouted at/whatever. It's not a lack of willingness to listen to criticism, it's that they've heard all that criticism before and it's dumb. That's what a lot of the criticism you talk about looks like to them, and justifiably so: it's uninformed and not aware of the vast amount of literature that's been written on all these subjects. It's why I spent pages and pages trying to explain feminism 101 to Akratus, and the best he could do was run off to the Codex to get a small list of thoroughly-refuted authors, while he thought he found some knockdown academic theories. This is why you don't see Sarkeesian respond to all the dumb criticism she gets: her critics are literally arguing against well-established, entry-level media studies theories.

But when you look at feminism itself, there's a ton of discussion happening within the movement and a ton of disagreement on lots of issues. There's no shortage of informed criticism and debate and discourse -- hell, that's why the internet is filled with feminist tracts. Like when #solidarityisforwhitewomen happened. Or like when a couple of days ago, some professors complained about how feminists make life hard for nerds -- and the result was a minor discussion on whether or not their rhetoric is over the top. There are similar discussions happening around trans people, around sex work, around affirmative action, around things like "lean in" etc. There's criticism and debate everywhere.
 
Oh yeah, there's debate. But inside the groups it's mostly about nuances, details, nothing really groundbreaking or even challenging. It's still mostly very self-affirming.
When it comes to actual, fundamental criticism there often is a distinct lack of will to teach and to learn. I can see how being challenged about your work can get annoying and tiresome to some people, but, dunno, it's what scientists do all day.
Of course it's pretty hard to do actual science with poststructuralist theories, so I don't really see how stuff like queer theory could actually be challenged by their followers if they disregard biology and science as inherently male-biased or whatever right from the start anyway.
 
Hassknecht said:
Oh yeah, there's debate. But inside the groups it's mostly about nuances, details, nothing really groundbreaking or even challenging. It's still mostly very self-affirming.
When it comes to actual, fundamental criticism there often is a distinct lack of will to teach and to learn. I can see how being challenged about your work can get annoying and tiresome to some people, but, dunno, it's what scientists do all day.
Click to expand...
That depends on where you look. There's a lot of entry-level feminism stuff out there. How do you think I became a feminist? I didn't roll out of bed and just magically absorbed all these theories: I was gradually introduced to that stuff, I educated myself by reading and searching. Which is not that hard. Hell, just Google feminism 101. If you want to find answers to your basic questions about feminism and how people view those issues, finding them is not all that hard.

You'll probably find that feminism itself tends to be split on some topics, that much of it consists of "We don't know how big of a role biology plays, but indications are lots of it is cultural," you'll find lots of discussion on the implications of either outcome, you'll find lots of discussion on fundamental questions among those who have actually read up and educated themselves on these topics. You just have to actually look for it.

But yeah, if you go to a community of feminists who are there to discuss their theories and start asking trivial questions, you'll get a bunch of eye-rolls. You wouldn't go to a convention on quantummechanics to ask questions about high school physics, right? I'm fairly sure scientists don't sit around answering creationists' questions all day long, either.


Hassknecht said:
Of course it's pretty hard to do actual science with poststructuralist theories, so I don't really see how stuff like queer theory could actually be challenged by their followers if they disregard biology and science as inherently male-biased or whatever right from the start anyway.
Click to expand...
This only happens on the fringes (if anywhere, I don't know anyone who believes that). The feminist communities that I know laugh at that shit. This is like the "feminists think all sex is rape" stuff TheWesDude keeps bringing up. I'm sure there's people who believe that, and I know you talked to some dumbasses who tried to convince you of that stuff at some point, but it's completely irrelevant to feminism at large. And poststructuralism, too, incidentally.

If you think that's genuinely what's going on in poststructuralism and feminism, it looks to me like you haven't read up on either topic and are instead going off some surface-level observations. That's something I see a lot among those studying more technical sciences: a kind of disdain for postmodernism/poststructuralism/critical theory based on vague observations and no understanding of the actual fields. I'm not a big fan of post-structuralism (mostly for a tendency toward obfuscating language), but you have to understand and research it if you want to offer fundamental critiques.
 
I think there is some truth in it afterall, gamers are kinda dissapearing. What gamers love to snidely call as casuals is slowly but steadily becoming the standart. And I think its a good evolution. Because honestly, when I am looking at this so called "gamer culture" and its excesses, I am not sure if I want to be a part of that.
 
Crni Vuk said:
I think there is some truth in it afterall, gamers are kinda dissapearing. What gamers love to snidely call as casuals is slowly but steadily becoming the standart. And I think its a good evolution. Because honestly, when I am looking at this so called "gamer culture" and its excesses, I am not sure if I want to be a part of that.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to agree here.

The whole concept of ''Gamer'' has always irked me. You don't see people who read books going ''I'm a Reader''. People who go to the theater don't define themselves by it (most of the time). Going to watch a film doesn't make you a ''Movie-goer''. You're just a person who reads. Who watches movies. So on and so forth. If what defines you is your hobby, well... I won't say ''get a life'' or stupid stuff like that, but it sounds weird to me. I've never defined myself as a ''Gamer'', and I play games a lot, hell probably a bit too much sometimes.

Maybe it's time to accept that video games are very, very much part of the life of many people in the world now. I mean, some AAA video games sell more 60$ copies than Hollywood blockbusters sell 12$ movie tickets. Mobile games are played by millions upon millions of people, a good part of them females. The whole ''can we call them gamers?'' question seems moot and useless to me; they are no less people playing video games than the guy/gal who spends 16 hours a day playing WoW or League of Legends or whatever other ''real'' game counts for ''real gamers''. They just choose to not identify by their hobby is all.

And as you say, with all the stupidity of the ''gamer'' community, from harassement to this gamergate vs anti-gamergate shitstorm (on both sides) to constant online trolling and sometimes blatant racism/sexism, mixing in shit like bombing scores on Metracritic or throwing up hissy fits when the devs change the hair color of a protagonist or somesuch or the pure stupidity displayed by people who pre-order 70$ games a year before they release based on pure hype or ridiculously retarded bullshit like voting EA ''worst company in America'' (because I'm sure companies that destroy tens of thousands of jobs or employ quasi-slave labor in China are better than these guys making games you don't like)... Well, if the ''gamers are dead'', I'm not quite sure it's a bad thing at all. Mayhaps some people playing video games need to mature a bit and grow a friggin sense of perspective.
 
Ilosar said:
Crni Vuk said:
I think there is some truth in it afterall, gamers are kinda dissapearing. What gamers love to snidely call as casuals is slowly but steadily becoming the standart. And I think its a good evolution. Because honestly, when I am looking at this so called "gamer culture" and its excesses, I am not sure if I want to be a part of that.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to agree here.

The whole concept of ''Gamer'' has always irked me. You don't see people who read books going ''I'm a Reader''. People who go to the theater don't define themselves by it (most of the time). Going to watch a film doesn't make you a ''Movie-goer''. You're just a person who reads. Who watches movies. So on and so forth. If what defines you is your hobby, well... I won't say ''get a life'' or stupid stuff like that, but it sounds weird to me. I've never defined myself as a ''Gamer'', and I play games a lot, hell probably a bit too much sometimes.
Click to expand...


I vehemently disagree with what you say here. If you are really into something there are often times words that you can use to express how much you like your hobby. I've seen this argument brought up and it boggles my mind. Ever heard of a book worm?

The definition of bookworm is someone who spends a lot of time reading or studying.

Well, that makes sense. That person does that thing a lot, so they are more dedicated to the act of reading than others. Hmmmm...

Audiophile?Cinephile/Film buff?? See where I'm going with this? I tell people I'm a film buff since I watch movies over and over, learning everything about how they were made, who played in what, etc.. It's easier to say "I'm a film buff" as opposed to "I watch, collect, and over-analyze every movie you have ever heard of as a hobby."

There are always going to be names for the hobbies that people find attractive. Gamer is a natural fit for someone who spends a shitload of time with games, reading about the industry, Collecting the systems, games, and collectibles of your favorite games, playing the shit out of them for thousands of hours, whatever the case may be...

Do some people take it to the extreme and act annoying about the "gamer" culture? Sure. Doesn't mean saying you are a gamer is some sort of sub-human thing to do. I'm a fucking gamer. I play games, read about games, think about games, and want to make games some day. I think about games when I take a shit. I watch videos about games and people playing games. I have a game system in every room in the house. I read about games ALL day long. I dream about games. Gaming is my passion. I've never understood people being upset over someone liking something a lot.

Guess what? I'm a gun nut too. When someone really likes a hobby they get a unique title. It's written in the Bible.

I mean when someone sucks a lot of cock what do you call them? A cocksucker. They earned that title. Don't try to take it from them. Crni deserves his own title just like the rest of us.
 
well it has also something to do with the medium you consume. Calling yourself a movie buff or bookworm doesnt contain the same nerd-rage-stigma like the word gamer. Which has somewhat but not solely to do with the nature of the internet. Blaming gaming as a whole would be wrong, but considering how many hardcore-gamers act, you can definitely say that they do their part as well, see GamerGate and anti-gamergate or Fanboys of various games.

I definitely would have no problem to be considered a bookworm for example. But a gamer? Not anymore. No thx. I am glad that I have grown out of that culture. Regardless how much I enjoy games. I just don't want to be considered a part of this culture anymore which is often enough quite toxic, which is also sad because it does contain a lot of positive movements and stuff. But in the eyes of most people which are not into games you can't have the one without the other. For example I can be a bookworm, no problem,, without people thinking about me as some kind of dorky rage kid.

Audiophile?Cinephile/Film buff?? See where I'm going with this? I tell people I'm a film buff since I watch movies over and over, learning everything about how they were made, who played in what, etc.. It's easier to say "I'm a film buff" as opposed to "I watch, collect, and over-analyze every movie you have ever heard of as a hobby."
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, and I tend to agree. Though, don't forget that people tend not to look very fondly at what you could call "fanboys", the kind of people which are extremely involved in their hobby and will do everything to defend it what ever if it makes sense or not. - And I am not talking about you here, I WAS a pretty huge gamer in my teenage days, but I am just disillusioned by the negative sides of the culture today.

It is after all not exclusive to gaming, it does happen with books, movies, music and many other stuff, up to the point where the people are quite fanatic about their sub-culture/hobby and where they are seen as cocky or overly eccentric, something that you can experience also quite often in art really. I love art, it is what I want to do for the rest of my life, but I would never get the idea to see people which are not creative/can't draw as some kind of lowlife.

The kind of people - just as example, that will talk about metal and only about metal and how metal is superior to every other music and how it is always misunderstood and if you don't agree then you're some kind of hater.

To have something as your hobby, something that you really love and support, is not the problem. Not at all! We all have those. But for many people when they hear gamer they have some kind of nerd-rage behaviour in mind, and quite a few gamers do a lot to support and cultivate this image:
And I am quite aware that this video is a fake (its pretty old by the way).



TorontRayne said:
I mean when someone sucks a lot of cock what do you call them? A cocksucker. They earned that title. Don't try to take it from them. Crni deserves his own title just like the rest of us.
Click to expand...

*hugs* You never complained so far, honey!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top