Ship of Fools: Following Orders (gamergate the Hell version)

Thread: Following Orders (gamergate the Hell version) Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028042

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Would you explain then?

I find it perfectly understandable that some people have valid reasons to criticise some aspects of computer games, for example for the manner in which some of them portray women. Similar criticisms could be expressed in relation to other parts of the entertainment industry, and indeed western societies more generally. And, of course, we could have a serious discussion about the validity of those criticisms. Some people will find those criticisms unfair, that they reflect only a very small minority of games and people playing them, that the industry as a whole is improving and sorting out failings. And, that would be a reasonable discussion.

What I can't understand or comprehend is a reaction, even by a very small minority of people, that would be a criminal offense. Threats of physical assault or damage to property over criticisms of some aspects of some games is a response that I just can't fathom. And, certainly is a response that I can't imagine any reasonable person condoning.

Now, I admit not having followed this thread in detail. But, it seems to me that Wood's OP was basically a "WTF is this about?", similar to my paragraph above. Which has created a discussion that has mostly been reasonable, more or less following my first paragraph - with some discussion of related issues thrown in (there were a few points where things stepped beyond that, notably Alex getting all worked up about women oppressing and bullying him).

But, I still don't see why Ingo got so worked up about the issue. He stated he's no longer a frequent player of computer games, and has no direct current personal connection to the #gamergate issues. I find it difficult to believe that he's actually wanting to defend the actions of people who credibly threaten physical violence against someone else. But, he seems to have got himself worked up about something Wood had said, and I can't work out what that is - which is unusual as Ingo is usually tediously clear (in that I've understood him in his first sentance but he feels the need to spend another 3 paragraphs explaining the point in meticulous detail).

IngoB can of course speak for himself. But I'll try to explain why his reaction makes sense to me. Warning: rambling and some connections you may find difficult to follow ahead.

I was trying to find a thread from earlier this year - May? June? where IngoB posted some of his personal experiences of being the victim of RL violence. I think it may have been called Rape Culture, but it appears to have been moved to Oblivion and my google-fu is failing me at the moment. I'm not sure if you read it, but if not I think it might help you make more sense of his response.

Anyway.

I don't know IngoB IRL. I've never met him, I have no idea how he talks to or treats the women in his life. All I've got are words on a message board, which for all I know could be written by someone who is completely misrepresenting himself and what he thinks and feels or what his experiences have been etc. For all I know IngoB could be a woman.

I know that when IngoB first joined the Ship he got called to Hell a whole bunch of times. IIRC it was often for misogyny (either being a misogynist or coming across as one). Some of which was, IMO, caused by his adherence to the doctrines of the Catholic Church and the fact that there are (or were) a lot of Shipmates who view the doctrines of the RCC as inherently misogynistic.

I finally joined in on the umpteenth Hell call because it seemed to me that his tone was a little too aggressive for a lot of people to handle - he sometimes came across as if he was describing his own experiences in an objective scientific way while discounting the experiences of others. Which doesn't go over well with people who have had their RL thoughts, opinions, experiences, etc. dismissed as unimportant and not worth caring about.

I don't know if RL changed him or he just proved himself a generally decent human being on the Ship (and someone who tends to sound like he's being more aggressive than he really is; or someone whose bark is worse than their bite), but the Hell calls eventually tapered off.

In the US, IME, class trumps gender. In other words, IngoB and I might fight about gender sometimes and whether or not he's taking my point of view into account etc. But if we both belong to a class of people who seem to be being treated badly, then we will generally disregard our gender differences in favor of fighting a class war. It's like when siblings squabble and then unite because a neighborhood kid is teasing one of them.

IRL, I went to a high school where we had to worry about things like this happening. In the US the middle class is constantly telling the poor and working class that violence is never the solution to anything and is never acceptable.

And yet, when we don't act the way they want us to act, they use state-sanctioned violence on us.

But it's not criminal or illegal when they do it. Because. (Because they made the rules and don't necessarily want anyone who doesn't currently have power and money to obtain it).

As Doublethink said in the trolls thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
I think we have all been rude in our time hence criminalising rudeness, would be to criminalise everybody. Which is unlikely to be of general benefit to society.

But rudeness and/or poor taste, are not the same things as making credible threats of violence.

If you threaten to run me over with a combine harvester, I am unlikely to believe you or fear you. If you publish my address and say you are going to come round my house with a hammer - I am going to be a lot more worried by your threat.

The cultural divide in the US right now is such that a rich white woman could have a poor black man thrown in prison for a very long time if she claimed that he looked at her funny.

I know the cases that have made the international news have been about the ridiculous application of the Stand Your Ground laws (Trayvon Martin and the like) but most Americans do believe that everyone is entitled to a certain amount of self-defense and that defending yourself against a credible threat is allowed.

I didn't read anything IngoB said as an approval of the tactics of a minority of gamers. But then you have this:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I can't believe how disappointed I am in this post.

Simply, no. Just no.

Yes, there are a few bad apples, but the proverb doesn't go "a few bad apples means everyone else is fine."

The majority of gamers not caring about this #gamergate nonsense (or even knowing about it and simply being better than that) is not a reason not to care about it.

And the fact that this vocal and toxic minority have made a big deal about wishing harm on someone like Anita Sarkeesian for daring to make YouTube videos that saying nothing other than women are often represented harmfully in video games, here are a few ways, suggests a nerve of some sort has been hit.

Much of this gamer culture has become a thing in the last decade, and when you get the young men who are supporting a movement that is founded by men who threaten rape and murder calling their victims "bullies" in the same breath and doing so in vast numbers, you have to think of other minority movements in history that gained traction in the same way.

With all that it implies about gamers and geek culture. And that's after Wood saying, in his opening post:

quote:
I came out of the experience finding it hard not to view "geeks" and "geek culture" as things worthy of anything but my contempt.

Who doesn't jump for joy when called upon to defend an entire culture that one belongs or has belonged to? Particularly when there don't seem to be any other members of that culture onboard the Ship?

And yet... What are the gamers and geeks supposed to do about the problems being caused by a small minority? Threaten violence to the gamers who are threatening violence to the women in tech? Create another twitterstorm by posting #notallgamers which, like #notallmen would probably get shouted down as 'men making it all about them when women are just trying to tell them about their experience'? Which, maybe they know something about, because maybe they listen to the women in their lives and those women have had similar experiences?

Wood and some of the other posters on that thread seem to be long on criticisms but short on solutions. And it's the assumption of bad faith that probably annoys the most.

(Although I have to say that IngoB's post did not come across as particularly angry to me - I mean he may have been sitting on the other side of his computer turning red with rage but in my world that's just the way people talk sometimes).

Did that make any sense?

If not, just watch Muppets Most Wanted. Or read this.

Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :

Which part?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I was trying to find a thread from earlier this year - May? June? where IngoB posted some of his personal experiences of being the victim of RL violence. I think it may have been called Rape Culture, but it appears to have been moved to Oblivion and my google-fu is failing me at the moment. I'm not sure if you read it, but if not I think it might help you make more sense of his response.

The Rape Culture thread included some posts that raised adminly concerns, and it was removed from the boards. Which is why you couldn't find it. Ingo did not post on that thread (another Shipmate did, however post experience of RL violence), so you are mis-remembering something. Which, it seems likely, would result in your mistakenly reading something into what Ingo said on the #gamergate thread.

quote:
I know that when IngoB first joined the Ship he got called to Hell a whole bunch of times ... but the Hell calls eventually tapered off.

I think because most people who Ingo rubbed up the wrong way with his debating style got bored of banging their head against a brick wall. Although there are plenty of things within the Catholic Church to find objectionable (there are also plenty of things in all other churches to find objectionable) I don't recall any times Ingo was called to Hell because of Catholic beliefs, rather the calls were about how he would express his beliefs. Most people come here to discuss issues, we tend to take badly to people who come across as exclusively here to teach (there is value in that, of course, because if we're to discuss something we need to understand it, and that may need someone to teach), especially when they do so in a rather pompous and condescending manner. But, Ingo isn't going to change and we all have better things to do.

quote:
In the US, IME, class trumps gender.

But, Ingo is German. Wood is British. I know both of these are true, because I have met both of them. So, US expectations are irrelevant. Even more so as, to the extent that class still exists in Europe, both Wood and Ingo would be in effectively the same class (white, male, similar age, university educated with higher degrees) and also in a similar class to the gamers and others who are the subject of discussion on the #gamergate thread.

So, if I've understood your long rambling post, your main points in trying to explain Ingo's inexplicable outburst are based on:

Something you thought he'd said on a thread that has long since been pulled. In which you were mistaken, attributing something someone else said to Ingo (who never posted on that thread).
An assumption that US issues with class, race etc apply to a discussion between two Europeans.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
IRL, I went to a high school where we had to worry about things like this happening.

Just noting that this link didn't seem to work correctly for me. It went to the Baltimore Sun, but then came up with a message that it couldn't direct me to the particular story.

I'm unsure as to why. Is there a paywall involved?

orfeo
Hellhost

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's a story about some students arrested over a fight in the cafeteria, to which the police were called to restore order. Quite why that is relevant to the #gamergate thread or what Ingo posted there is entirely unclear. Even if we accepted the premise that everyone in the world is basically American with all the cultural baggage and issues that entails, it's difficult to see the relevance of a fight in a school cafeteria.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The Rape Culture thread included some posts that raised adminly concerns, and it was removed from the boards. Which is why you couldn't find it. Ingo did not post on that thread (another Shipmate did, however post experience of RL violence), so you are mis-remembering something. Which, it seems likely, would result in your mistakenly reading something into what Ingo said on the #gamergate thread.

And yet I don't think I'm mistakenly reading into what Ingo said on the #gamergate thread. I think I'm correctly reading things that others are mistakenly reading into.

I may have the thread title wrong, but I'm fairly sure that Ingo did post somewhere about reaching the age of sexual maturity and having to be wary of random violence. Ingo is free to show up and tell me that I'm wrong and he did no such thing. But as much as I'm willing to admit that sometimes I'm human and fallible and wrong, I'm not really in a place where I'm going to accept a thread being removed for adminly concerns as proof that something never happened.

quote:

quote:
I know that when IngoB first joined the Ship he got called to Hell a whole bunch of times ... but the Hell calls eventually tapered off.
I think because most people who Ingo rubbed up the wrong way with his debating style got bored of banging their head against a brick wall. Although there are plenty of things within the Catholic Church to find objectionable (there are also plenty of things in all other churches to find objectionable) I don't recall any times Ingo was called to Hell because of Catholic beliefs, rather the calls were about how he would express his beliefs. Most people come here to discuss issues, we tend to take badly to people who come across as exclusively here to teach (there is value in that, of course, because if we're to discuss something we need to understand it, and that may need someone to teach), especially when they do so in a rather pompous and condescending manner. But, Ingo isn't going to change and we all have better things to do.

A) Isn't that what I just said?
B) How can you simply accept that Ingo does these hateful things with these hateful rhetorical strategies and yet still belongs in the Catholic communion without calling him out on it?

quote:

quote:
In the US, IME, class trumps gender.
But, Ingo is German. Wood is British. I know both of these are true, because I have met both of them. So, US expectations are irrelevant. Even more so as, to the extent that class still exists in Europe, both Wood and Ingo would be in effectively the same class (white, male, similar age, university educated with higher degrees) and also in a similar class to the gamers and others who are the subject of discussion on the #gamergate thread.

And as I said at the beginning of my post:

quote:
IngoB can of course speak for himself. But I'll try to explain why his reaction makes sense to me.

In other words, I'm trying to make sense out of his behavior from my perspective as an American. I am not trying to tell either of them why or how or whatever they are motivated to say and do the things they say and do - I'm simply trying to make sense of it given my knowledge of the world. In which case, my knowledge of how things work in the US is relevant, because it colors how I look at the exchange.

Also, Mary Doria Russell, _The Sparrow_:

quote:
He stopped talking, deeply embarrassed. Giuliani could never understand the price scholarship boys paid for their education: the inevitable alienation from your uncomprehending family, from roots, from your own firs person, from the original "I" you once were.

Yeah, the lie that class doesn't exist anymore. They've managed to feed that one to a lot of Americans too.

quote:

So, if I've understood your long rambling post, your main points in trying to explain Ingo's inexplicable outburst are based on:
Something you thought he'd said on a thread that has long since been pulled. In which you were mistaken, attributing something someone else said to Ingo (who never posted on that thread).
An assumption that US issues with class, race etc apply to a discussion between two Europeans.

Oh, yeah. The outburst (which, frankly, it's a stretch to call an outburst) was based on those things.

Now, where's that brick wall.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even if we accepted the premise that everyone in the world is basically American with all the cultural baggage and issues that entails, it's difficult to see the relevance of a fight in a school cafeteria.

It's called compulsory schooling.

We're regularly required to show up to a place where violence is likely. And violence (of the state-sponsored kind) is also likely if you don't show up.

You want us to see how your social security net and other programs are superior while ignoring the actual problems we're facing on a day-to-day basis.

It's difficult not to see the relevance.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
B) How can you simply accept that Ingo does these hateful things with these hateful rhetorical strategies and yet still belongs in the Catholic communion without calling him out on it?

He has been called out on it. Repeatedly. It avails naught. He has insulated himself with a double-wrapping of his own arrogance and nothing can get through.

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It's difficult not to see the relevance.

Not for me.

[ 22. October 2014, 03:34: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

My favourite bit was when he said he was ignoring me so now I could talk to the void.

The void being defined as "everything other than Ingo," presumably.

That's all I have to say.

[ 22. October 2014, 06:15: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I don't think I'm mistakenly reading into what Ingo said on the #gamergate thread. I think I'm correctly reading things that others are mistakenly reading into.

A load of people read what Ingo wrote and formed a conclusion. You read the same posts, formed a completely different conclusion about Ingo. You think you are not mistaken in your reading. Well, I don't think I'm mistaken either. But, at least I'm willing to accept that I may be mistaken (which, of course, doesn't mean you're right - we could both be wrong).

quote:
I may have the thread title wrong, but I'm fairly sure that Ingo did post somewhere about reaching the age of sexual maturity and having to be wary of random violence ... I'm not really in a place where I'm going to accept a thread being removed for adminly concerns as proof that something never happened.

I can't prove something never happened. I can say that IngoB never even posted on the Rape thread, let alone posted what you remember him saying. If you don't believe me, tough. Because I can't show you the thread. Maybe one of the other Admins could corroborate my statement (if they can be bothered to).

Of course, Ingo could have said what you've claimed on another thread. But, given that he's usually reluctant to base his arguments on personal experience (prefering cold hard logic and objective data) I would be surprised if he'd done so.

quote:
A) Isn't that what I just said?

No, you said Ingo was called to Hell for the (perceived) misogyny of the Catholic Church. I said he was called to Hell because his posting came across as arrogant, rude and condescending, and that he seemed incapable of accepting any other viewpoint as being valid. He came across as someone with all the correct answers and his duty in life was to teach us.

quote:
B) How can you simply accept that Ingo does these hateful things with these hateful rhetorical strategies and yet still belongs in the Catholic communion without calling him out on it?

As has been said, he was called out for it. That's what the Hell calls were all about.

quote:
I'm trying to make sense out of his behavior from my perspective as an American. I am not trying to tell either of them why or how or whatever they are motivated to say and do the things they say and do - I'm simply trying to make sense of it given my knowledge of the world. In which case, my knowledge of how things work in the US is relevant, because it colors how I look at the exchange.

Surely trying to make sense of an exchange between two non-Americans would be easier if you tried to put yourself in their shoes. Because the exchange didn't happen from an American perspective, but a European one. If your knowledge of the world doesn't extend beyond the borders of America then that's your problem. It's also a problem easily solved - you ask questions. Like "this exchange doesn't make sense from my American perspective, what am I missing?" ... though in this case you'll have got an equally perplexed response from Europeans because Ingo's reaction didn't make sense to us either!

quote:
Oh, yeah. The outburst (which, frankly, it's a stretch to call an outburst) was based on those things.

No, my points were not about the outburst, but about your reaction to it. I know Ingo seems to think everything is all about him, you don't need to join him in thinking it's all about him. In this case, it's about you.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even if we accepted the premise that everyone in the world is basically American with all the cultural baggage and issues that entails, it's difficult to see the relevance of a fight in a school cafeteria.
It's called compulsory schooling.

We're regularly required to show up to a place where violence is likely.

...

It's difficult not to see the relevance.

We have compulsory schooling too. And, many people will testify that British schools are not free of violence either.

So, you claim it's relevant. Because there is violence in American schools, therefore it's OK for a small number of gamers to credibly threaten violence against others?

Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
My favourite bit was when he said he was ignoring me so now I could talk to the void.

The void being defined as "everything other than Ingo," presumably.

That's all I have to say.

I'm pretty sure that referred to at least one or two video games. Not that having basic knowledge of video games, or the capacity to google, would be required to make snide remarks about how rude he is for ignoring you on a thread about video gaming.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
My favourite bit was when he said he was ignoring me so now I could talk to the void.

The void being defined as "everything other than Ingo," presumably.

That's all I have to say.
I'm pretty sure that referred to at least one or two video games. Not that having basic knowledge of video games, or the capacity to google, would be required to make snide remarks about how rude he is for ignoring you on a thread about video gaming.

I like you. You're funny.

Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
I may have the thread title wrong, but I'm fairly sure that Ingo did post somewhere about reaching the age of sexual maturity and having to be wary of random violence ... I'm not really in a place where I'm going to accept a thread being removed for adminly concerns as proof that something never happened.
I can't prove something never happened. I can say that IngoB never even posted on the Rape thread, let alone posted what you remember him saying. If you don't believe me, tough. Because I can't show you the thread. Maybe one of the other Admins could corroborate my statement (if they can be bothered to).

Of course, Ingo could have said what you've claimed on another thread. But, given that he's usually reluctant to base his arguments on personal experience (prefering cold hard logic and objective data) I would be surprised if he'd done so.

I have no god in this race, but I think I know what thread saysay is referring to. I believe I read that same thread. It was one that turned into being about men's stories of experiencing violence, probably from starting out about the #notallmen controversy or something similar.

If I am thinking of the right one, it had amongst other things IngoB writing an example of how men are subjected to male violence and for example how a woman would be able to notice men's constant caution on the way they look whenever they meet someone in the dark, carefully spotting to see whether it was one or several persons and of what gender. This is meant for thread recognition, not to support saysay's point - but I am pretty sure I've read the same thing from IngoB, albeit I too cannot find it on either ship or Google.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Now this is all sorted out, I don't think bringing this up is very fair on Ingo.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I expect there is a Scale of Motifications available to RCs on which having your character defended by saysay ranks somewhere around sisal underwear.

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

I think also if either Ingo or me were interested in starting a Hell call, we'd have done it.

And yeah, that's a bit rich after I got in a cheap parting shot about an aspect of the exchange (if you can call it that) that amused me, but, well. Nobody's perfect.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:
I have no god in this race

Even the atheists are joining in!

quote:
, but I think I know what thread saysay is referring to. I believe I read that same thread. It was one that turned into being about men's stories of experiencing violence, probably from starting out about the #notallmen controversy or something similar.

I've just had a quick look through threads from around the period in question (April-July this year). In addition to the rape culture thread there was "men being abused by women" thread, which (again) Ingo didn't post on. There was a thread on porn where we were treated to some very dull posts by Ingo on the internet viewing habits of men (apparently we don't watch internet videos all the way through, but scroll back and forth looking for the bits that particularly titilate us. I never knew that), and some comparisons between porn and boxing/martial arts (as in both are forms of entertainment where voyeristic audience members watch people getting physical with each other). Those posts almost sent me to sleep.

But, I could find nothing like what has been reported here on any thread in Oblivion with a likely looking subject for those few months. Feel free to look at older threads if you think it was before April.

Needless to say an argument based on something you think someone said when you can't find a source for that is not very compelling. Especially when it isn't actually all that relevant anyway. Regardless of someone's history, there is no excuse for lashing out at someone else in Purgatory.

Now, would you believe me if I said I do have things that need doing? OK, they're the tedious parts of work - but I guess you might have figured that out.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

Ingo has never struck me as someone who needs someone else to argue his corner or hold his coat. [Roll Eyes]

Given that Ingo is German, the title is poor taste at best and deeply offensive at worst! An apology would be in order.

Tubbs

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Ingo has never struck me as someone who needs someone else to argue his corner or hold his coat.

Certainly not.

But also he is evidently not playing this game either, and that is both admirable and suggests that the point of this thread is moot.

quote:

Given that Ingo is German, the title is poor taste at best and deeply offensive at worst! An apology would be in order.

Tubbs

I don't think saysay had a clue about Ingo's nationality. I think he wanted to talk about the exchange and felt people were ordered to take it here.

The guy might have stuff to apologise for but not that, although it is pretty unfortunate.

[ 22. October 2014, 11:38: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Who's on first?

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Who's on first?

What's on second, I hear.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Ingo has never struck me as someone who needs someone else to argue his corner or hold his coat.
Certainly not.

But also he is evidently not playing this game either, and that is both admirable and suggests that the point of this thread is moot.
quote:

Given that Ingo is German, the title is poor taste at best and deeply offensive at worst! An apology would be in order.

Tubbs
I don't think saysay had a clue about Ingo's nationality. I think he wanted to talk about the exchange and felt people were ordered to take it here.

The guy might have stuff to apologise for but not that, although it is pretty unfortunate.

Indeed. I still can't tell whether or not Alan's been called to Hell or what? [Ultra confused]

Sorry, for not noticing the Ship reference one and going straight for a real life one. My bad. [Two face]

Tubbs

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
I still can't tell whether or Alan's been called to Hell or what?

Sorry, for not noticing the Ship reference one and going straight for a real life one. My bad.

Tubbs [/QB]

I thought I was being called to Hell.

Yeah, look at me, making it all about me, but come on! It's only the second time I've ever had a Hell call and the first time the caller didn't even know who I was!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

This could be like, the one-size-fits-all hell call. Anyone longing for a hell call of their very own could glom on to it.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

I am Spartacus.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I know you are missing the UKIP thread, but its closure is no excuse for shitting all over this one.

Get to the point. Whatever it is.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :

quote:
Originally posted by An die Freude:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
I may have the thread title wrong, but I'm fairly sure that Ingo did post somewhere about reaching the age of sexual maturity and having to be wary of random violence ... I'm not really in a place where I'm going to accept a thread being removed for adminly concerns as proof that something never happened.
I can't prove something never happened. I can say that IngoB never even posted on the Rape thread, let alone posted what you remember him saying. If you don't believe me, tough. Because I can't show you the thread. Maybe one of the other Admins could corroborate my statement (if they can be bothered to).

Of course, Ingo could have said what you've claimed on another thread. But, given that he's usually reluctant to base his arguments on personal experience (prefering cold hard logic and objective data) I would be surprised if he'd done so.
I have no god in this race, but I think I know what thread saysay is referring to. I believe I read that same thread. It was one that turned into being about men's stories of experiencing violence, probably from starting out about the #notallmen controversy or something similar.

If I am thinking of the right one, it had amongst other things IngoB writing an example of how men are subjected to male violence and for example how a woman would be able to notice men's constant caution on the way they look whenever they meet someone in the dark, carefully spotting to see whether it was one or several persons and of what gender. This is meant for thread recognition, not to support saysay's point - but I am pretty sure I've read the same thing from IngoB, albeit I too cannot find it on either ship or Google.

For what it's worth, I remember it too. He was having an exchange of views with RuthW. I think it was on the thread that grew out of the Elliot Rodger shootings/stabbings - but I have no idea what the title of that thread was.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
For what it's worth, I remember it too. He was having an exchange of views with RuthW. I think it was on the thread that grew out of the Elliot Rodger shootings/stabbings - but I have no idea what the title of that thread was.

I think this is what you're looking for.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think saysay had a clue about Ingo's nationality. I think he wanted to talk about the exchange and felt people were ordered to take it here.

The guy might have stuff to apologise for but not that, although it is pretty unfortunate.

Oh, for fuck's sake Wood. You started the thread, which means presumably it's a topic you're interested in. Since you replied to at least one of my posts, I'll assume you read it, and possibly also the other posts I made on the thread. It's not that difficult to figure out that I am not a man.

And I did know IngoB was German. I apologize for the thread title and any insult that was given.

And now you want me to watch a video so I can understand what you're talking about?

You're making me a libertarian.

(And I hate you for it.)

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
I don't think saysay had a clue about Ingo's nationality. I think he wanted to talk about the exchange and felt people were ordered to take it here.

The guy might have stuff to apologise for but not that, although it is pretty unfortunate.
Oh, for fuck's sake Wood. You started the thread, which means presumably it's a topic you're interested in. Since you replied to at least one of my posts, I'll assume you read it, and possibly also the other posts I made on the thread. It's not that difficult to figure out that I am not a man.

And I did know IngoB was German. I apologize for the thread title and any insult that was given.

And now you want me to watch a video so I can understand what you're talking about?

You're making me a libertarian.

(And I hate you for it.)

I'll apologise for not realising you weren't a man. But you don't get to call me on issues of reading composition.

[ 22. October 2014, 22:50: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

Or even comprehension. Stupid phone.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But you don't get to call me on issues of reading composition.

Can we call you on issues of writing composition? Oh wait, it's your phone. You know what they say about a workman and his tools.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:

quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
For what it's worth, I remember it too. He was having an exchange of views with RuthW. I think it was on the thread that grew out of the Elliot Rodger shootings/stabbings - but I have no idea what the title of that thread was.
I think this is what you're looking for.

I never followed that thread, so missed those comments. Though the post Ruth linked to doesn't really support the original assertion of being subject to random violence - Ingo quite clearly states that part of being subject to violence related to his identification with particular groups, and when he stopped being so visibly identified as a member of those groups and hanging out in certain places the threat of violence receded.

But, I still don't see the relevance. Unless, of course, you want to say that if you clearly identify yourself as a critic of some aspects of computer games then it's OK for you to be subject to violence (real, and credible threats of real, violence rather than playing a multi-player fantasy game where your character will face violence from roaming bands of orcs).

It's an interesting argument. If you live in a culture where violence is common - whether that's in US school cafeteria or punks walking the streets of German cities - that makes violence acceptable. saysay, is that really what you are claiming? And, if not, what relevance does Ingo's past, or random fights in school cafeteria, have?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

This thread is decidedly weird.

As was the Purgatory thread, where apparently stating explicitly and loudly why you are angry about something / somebody results in the complete mystification of some people why you are angry about something / somebody.

So, let's clear that up, if we can...

I wouldn't call myself a gamer, usually, but by the standards of SoF I'm probably about as good a representative of gamers as you are going to get.

Wood wades in and launches a grand attack on gamers and gamers culture (and potentially geekhood for good measure) based on #Gamergate's mistreatment of some feminists. I spend a good many posts explaining patiently why that is about as sensible as attacking Christianity over Fred Phelps. (A comparison that I incidentally explicitly made on the thread... presumably adding to the total mystification of some.)

Lo and behold, quite a number of people do get it. And not just my usual fans. But not Wood, oh no. Because there are the #Gamergate idiots, apparently everybody who likes to exercise their hand-eye coordination with a computer has a problem and we absolutely must get to the bottom of it. He insists, being very disappointed in me.

At which point I tell Wood that he is being an annoying idiot in just barely Purgatorial terms. Apparently failing, since we get some hostly action which de facto shuts down further dialogue. But not before Alan gets in a post or two about how all this is so terribly mystifying. Somehow.

Anyway. Gamers are enough of my crowd and gaming is an important enough part of my life (in particular of my past life) that I feel protective of this community. I know enough of these people, of who they actually are and what they actually do, to know that Wood is simply talking out of his ass in projecting #Gamergate onto them. The gamers that I know and have known - and I have known some up to semi-professional levels because once upon I time I was good enough to hang with that crowd - simply have no more to do with #Gamergate than any other grouping of mostly young men dedicated to a high performance activity. Let's say in a soccer club.

Anyway, we are talking here about perhaps a couple of hundred people that I have personally known socially over the years, from the dudes that hosted a dozen of us for a cool two day LAN party in their parents summer house with accommodation, beer and pizza free of charge - when I was barely out of high school - to my colleague now who is the Director of our Neuroimaging facility, a top student of Noah Chomsky, my senior in several ways and a console game fiend. Heck, the nine year olds around here are having these lengthy discussions of Minecraft mods... Gamers. Good people. Not Gamergaters.

So, well - fuck off, Wood. And presumably - fuck off, Alan, too. Though while I think Wood is being a dickhead, I just have no idea what Alan's problem is. He seems to have somehow lost his reading comprehension and is blaming me until I can find it for him again. Weird.

[ 23. October 2014, 00:05: Message edited by: IngoB ]

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though the post Ruth linked to doesn't really support the original assertion of being subject to random violence - Ingo quite clearly states that part of being subject to violence related to his identification with particular groups, and when he stopped being so visibly identified as a member of those groups and hanging out in certain places the threat of violence receded.

And yet there are those who argue that being identifiable as a woman puts you in that group, thus giving you the choice between being identifiable as a woman and being subject to that sort of threat.

quote:
It's an interesting argument. If you live in a culture where violence is common - whether that's in US school cafeteria or punks walking the streets of German cities - that makes violence acceptable. saysay, is that really what you are claiming?

In a way. Thus far I have heard absolutely no one defend the real and credible threats to these women gamers. Mostly people seem to be fighting over what the fight is actually about.

However, self defense is allowed and is not usually described as 'violence.' But given that people describe violence differently, as well as what constitutes a credible threat of violence, as well as what constitutes a reasonable amount of self-defense, it leads to a certain amount of confusion.

For example, I once walked out of my apartment to find a black woman walking down the street towards me. She was holding a pipe, using one hand to bang it against the open palm of her other hand. She asked me if I was scared of her, if I thought she was going to attack her. I said I hoped she wasn't, but the way she was holding and banging the pipe concerned me, because I didn't know if it meant that she was about to attack someone, or if she was trying to make sure people knew that they shouldn't mess with her. Someone else might have called the cops and reported her for menacing or some such.

Thus, as I said earlier, in the US a poor black man can be arrested for looking at a rich white woman wrong if she reports that she was threatened. However, most reasonable non-racist people would not conclude that a black man simply looking at a white woman was in some way threatening her. Not that they would have the opportunity, because our criminal justice system is so broken, but that's a tangent.

Many of the both male and female gamers I have known have gotten impatient with some women claiming that they're being threatened when their peer group does not agree. Not knowing Ingo, I attributed his reaction to a similar impatience.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This thread is decidedly weird.

That's something we can agree on.

Now for the rest ...

quote:
I wouldn't call myself a gamer, usually, but by the standards of SoF I'm probably about as good a representative of gamers as you are going to get.

And, bythe same standards Wood himself confessed to being a gamer - in his case D&D rather than video games, but there are (I think) some similarities.

quote:
Wood wades in and launches a grand attack on gamers and gamers culture (and potentially geekhood for good measure) based on #Gamergate's mistreatment of some feminists. I spend a good many posts explaining patiently why that is about as sensible as attacking Christianity over Fred Phelps. (A comparison that I incidentally explicitly made on the thread... presumably adding to the total mystification of some.)

Lo and behold, quite a number of people do get it. And not just my usual fans. But not Wood, oh no. Because there are the #Gamergate idiots, apparently everybody who likes to exercise their hand-eye coordination with a computer has a problem and we absolutely must get to the bottom of it. He insists, being very disappointed in me.

Of course, Woods OP was an attack on the minority within the gamer community (and, he himself suggested that such a label may not be appropriate anyway) active in #gamergate and similar. And, yes there was an attack on large parts of the rest of the gamer community for letting this happen largely unchallenged. I can entirely see why Wood was disappointed in your response.

You introduced Phelps to the discussion. Let's look at that analogy. We all agree that Phelps was a nasty piece of work, unrepresentative of the Christian faith, and frankly a disgrace to the Church and to Christ. And, because of all the publicity he got his actions were reflecting badly on the rest of us - we were getting branded as homophobic, lunatic bigots because that was the face of "Christianity" that Phelps got on the TV screens. The response of other Christians was to quite vocally stand up and say "he doesn't speak for us", counter protests where Phelps and his family turned up as well as considerable internet chatter (long running thread here included).

Compare that with your description of gamers. They're only interested in the game. They're unaware of #gamergate, their response to hearing about it is "huh? what? where?" and "who gives a shit". Which was exactly (as I read it) the point of Woods initial criticism of gamers - that the decent majority were silent and apparently uninterested when a vocal minority was dragging the entire industry and their leisure activity through the mud.

You'd even admitted that one of the main focuses of the criticism of games, the portrayal of women, had validity

quote:
you get your scantily clad "trophy women" with big boobs in some games.

. You just simply dismiss it as not that important.

And, you wonder why Wood was disappointed in you?

quote:

At which point I tell Wood that he is being an annoying idiot in just barely Purgatorial terms.

barely Purgatorial?

You pull a statement from the OP four pages before that sat there providing context to the argument Wood was making (ie: that a) Wood had background in the gaming industry, albeit it not computer games, and b) that the sort of reaction shown in #gamergate isn't new) and misquote it back as being the motive for his reaction to a minority within the community that he still has connections with. You think it's OK in Purgatory to accuse someone of posting solely to have their outrage (which you clearly consider misplaced, as though it's OK for a minority of people to credibly threaten physical harm to others and for the majority to stand quietly aside to let this happen) affirmed? And, you feel it's OK to make that accusation based on a misquote of something said four pages before? Really?

quote:
Apparently failing, since we get some hostly action which de facto shuts down further dialogue.

Yes, well that'll happen. Not surprisingly Wood took a personal attack on him personally and responded (he probably should have responded in Hell, but we're none of us perfect - I probably should have brought my spat with saysay to Hell as well). The hosts did what hosts do and told everyone to quit or take it to Hell.

quote:
But not before Alan gets in a post or two about how all this is so terribly mystifying.

Though my posts followed your continuence of the argument with Wood, after the hosts told you to stop it. One thing I find mystifying is how you got away without someone mentioning Commandment 6.

Frankly, I am still mystified how you can appear to dismiss the #gamergate and related stuff so easily, as though it isn't an issue that the gamer community shouldn't be actively countering. I was even more mystified when saysay tried to explain it, because that made even less sense than your original statements.

quote:
Gamers are enough of my crowd and gaming is an important enough part of my life (in particular of my past life) that I feel protective of this community.

Then you should be joining Wood on the barricades and declaring that #gamergate etc is damaging the gamer community and rallying the community to expose this minority as the unrepresentative bad apples that they are, rather than let the world think they represent a large constituency within the gamer community.

quote:
So, well - fuck off, Wood. And presumably - fuck off, Alan, too. Though while I think Wood is being a dickhead, I just have no idea what Alan's problem is. He seems to have somehow lost his reading comprehension and is blaming me until I can find it for him again. Weird.

Actually, though I find your position incomprehensible (see above) my biggest problem is probably with saysay, who seems to be living in an entirely different universe (without, apparently, the excuse of spending too many hours immersed in some computer generated fantasy land)

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Compare that with your description of gamers. They're only interested in the game. They're unaware of #gamergate, their response to hearing about it is "huh? what? where?" and "who gives a shit". Which was exactly (as I read it) the point of Woods initial criticism of gamers - that the decent majority were silent and apparently uninterested when a vocal minority was dragging the entire industry and their leisure activity through the mud.

Does this mean that viewers of movies and TV shows need to take interest in whatever shenanigans take place on the production lot? Just wondering.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Actually, though I find your position incomprehensible (see above) my biggest problem is probably with saysay, who seems to be living in an entirely different universe (without, apparently, the excuse of spending too many hours immersed in some computer generated fantasy land)

Ah. I see. I should have taken your "would you explain" question as disingenuous based on your reputation as a hateful tricky bastard intent on keeping us all under Colonial Rule.

Won't make that mistake again.

(And you're wrong - I do spend too much time in the computer generated fantasy land of the Ship).

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

quote:
[...] your reputation as a hateful tricky bastard intent on keeping us all under Colonial Rule.

One of the more interesting accusations leveled against Alan recently. Though I have been chafing under many yokes lately, that of Alan's Colonial Rule is not one of them.

I would be interested to know more.

[ 23. October 2014, 02:07: Message edited by: Jon in the Nati ]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I wouldn't call myself a gamer, usually, but by the standards of SoF I'm probably about as good a representative of gamers as you are going to get.

Wait, I thought you didn't get into gaming much these days? Am I the only World of Warcraft addict here? (Maybe that's not enough to be a "gamer." God knows I encounter people on WoW who seem to do nothing else but level up ten million characters.)

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

saysay:

quote:
...your reputation as a hateful tricky bastard intent on keeping us all under Colonial Rule.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
[...] your reputation as a hateful tricky bastard intent on keeping us all under Colonial Rule.
One of the more interesting accusations leveled against Alan recently. Though I have been chafing under many yokes lately, that of Alan's Colonial Rule is not one of them.

I would be interested to know more.

Erm... wasn't it meant as a joke? [Confused]

Posted by Jon in the Nati (# 15849) on :

Didn't seem it to me; the exchange between AC and saysay felt a little heated, and frankly saysay is generally pretty angry and borderline-incoherent, so I have trouble telling.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, bythe same standards Wood himself confessed to being a gamer - in his case D&D rather than video games, but there are (I think) some similarities.

These communities certainly have some overlap, but they are also far from identical. For one thing, the D&D community is much, much smaller. Furthermore, Wood has not identified himself as being a computer gamer, and I'm not sure that he would call himself a D&D gamer. I'm not re-reading the entire thread to see if he ever did. But from the OP we just know that he did contract work for this community, which is a rather different thing. (Though it likely indicates some familiarity with these games.)

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You introduced Phelps to the discussion. Let's look at that analogy. We all agree that Phelps was a nasty piece of work, unrepresentative of the Christian faith, and frankly a disgrace to the Church and to Christ. And, because of all the publicity he got his actions were reflecting badly on the rest of us - we were getting branded as homophobic, lunatic bigots because that was the face of "Christianity" that Phelps got on the TV screens. The response of other Christians was to quite vocally stand up and say "he doesn't speak for us", counter protests where Phelps and his family turned up as well as considerable internet chatter (long running thread here included).

I had never consciously heard of Phelps until I started frequenting SoF. I very much doubt that he played a major role in shaping perceptions of Christianity even in the USA, but certainly not in Europe. It is good and proper that some people took up the case against him. It is also complete tosh to wish for the entirety of Christianity to bother about him. Heck, even the pope doesn't need to be on every Christian agenda every day. The vast majority of Christians had not fucking clue that Phelps even existed, and that is perfectly fine.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which was exactly (as I read it) the point of Woods initial criticism of gamers - that the decent majority were silent and apparently uninterested when a vocal minority was dragging the entire industry and their leisure activity through the mud.

Except they don't. Not that they don't dive into mud with abandon, but they are simply not big enough to drag the juggernaut of gaming anywhere. They are a fart in cyberspace, perhaps bigger and stinkier than others but not more. And there's a lot of really bad stuff out there on the internet. #Gamergate is not some super-expectional badness that should shock us all by its novelty. Again, I am a gamer - at least more than Wood and I'm guessing you. But #Gamergate barely registered. In fact, the only thing that I did eventually remember was having watched Sarkeesian's videos before, presumably because of having read some article in the (online) press.

Now, if you would focus on saying that the gaming community has a problem because feminist critique doesn't particularly arrive, then that would have been a reasonable point. Because the juggernaut of gaming stomps happily onward ignoring those impulses, too. But it is precisely not #Gamergate that matters. And anyway, it is not really true either. The direction of travel has been shifting, quite likely simply because there are more and more women in gaming. If you play a recent popular game like say Dota 2, then you will find a good number of non-bullshit female heroes.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You'd even admitted that one of the main focuses of the criticism of games, the portrayal of women, had validity
quote:
you get your scantily clad "trophy women" with big boobs in some games.
. You just simply dismiss it as not that important. And, you wonder why Wood was disappointed in you?

It is not so important because it is in fact not that common, and where it occurs it is for the most part a kind of game score. Yes, that is a problem, because, yes, it objectifies women. But no, it is not a deep problem, because quite frankly if you replaced the trophy woman with big boobs by dropping a hat that your character can wear then you would be way more successful as software publisher. (No, I'm not joking, getting cool, special hats is a complete obsession for Team Fortress 2 players - which is a really big game.) Yes, there is some lazy sexism but it is just not something that somehow is crucial to gaming. Also see my point about gaming stories being "pulp fiction" barely hiding the games' challenge mechanics, for the most part. And my point about stories being tuned for player identification with the character, players who until recently were in the vast majority men. Etc. In fact, I said many things about this, I did not at all simply dismiss it as unimportant.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You pull a statement from the OP four pages before that sat there providing context to the argument Wood was making (ie: that a) Wood had background in the gaming industry, albeit it not computer games, and b) that the sort of reaction shown in #gamergate isn't new) and misquote it back as being the motive for his reaction to a minority within the community that he still has connections with.

From the OP: " I was active on internet forums during this time, and by the time I quit, I was sick of it, and the thing that burned me out more than anything else, the thing that absolutely soured me and robbed me of any enjoyment was the behaviour of the fans. ... I came out of the experience finding it hard not to view "geeks" and "geek culture" as things worthy of anything but my contempt." That's not some statement about professional insight, that's a statement about emotional bias. Well, at that point I came to the conclusion that this was exactly what was shaping Woods reaction to #Gamergate.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You think it's OK in Purgatory to accuse someone of posting solely to have their outrage (which you clearly consider misplaced, as though it's OK for a minority of people to credibly threaten physical harm to others and for the majority to stand quietly aside to let this happen) affirmed? And, you feel it's OK to make that accusation based on a misquote of something said four pages before? Really?

I paraphrased the OP quite accurately, if of course in an attacking manner. I have distanced myself multiple times from any threats that were made, and indeed explicitly sided with Sarkeesian on concrete details of her critique - which presumably would put me onto #Gamergate's shit list. What I have said on the thread in many ways is the following, to quote myself from that thread: "These are apparently some gamers doing nasty things. By all means, condemn them for that, but don't pretend that they are representative or a majority." That does not tell people to simply shut up, does it now? I do not have the agenda that you were - and still are - reading into my posts.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though my posts followed your continuence of the argument with Wood, after the hosts told you to stop it. One thing I find mystifying is how you got away without someone mentioning Commandment 6.

Well, the hosts correctly judged that I was not continuing the "personal attack", i.e., that I was not banging on about the emotional bias that Wood appears to have in this matter due to his trauma with the D&D fans. Because, well, I wasn't doing that. (In fact, I even could have discussed Wood's trauma further if I had wanted to, just without explicitly claiming it as bias. Eliab allowed that. But I didn't.)

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Frankly, I am still mystified how you can appear to dismiss the #gamergate and related stuff so easily, as though it isn't an issue that the gamer community shouldn't be actively countering. I was even more mystified when saysay tried to explain it, because that made even less sense than your original statements.

I said nowhere that it is wrong to counter #Gamergate, quite to the contrary. I merely pointed out that this is not a defining problem of gaming, as Wood tried to present it.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Then you should be joining Wood on the barricades and declaring that #gamergate etc is damaging the gamer community and rallying the community to expose this minority as the unrepresentative bad apples that they are, rather than let the world think they represent a large constituency within the gamer community.

I happen to think that feeding trolls is stupid, and that fighting heavily armed trolls should be avoided if one can. Starve them off oxygen, and watch them go to sleep and die. If the Vatican had issued a daily bulletin contra Phelps, do you think that Phelps would have minded? I bet he would have celebrated that with a bottle of champagne! It is one thing to stage an appropriate counter-protest if Phelps tries to land in your vicinity, it is quite another to try to wage a publicity campaign against him. That would just have given him the air time that he craves.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Wait, I thought you didn't get into gaming much these days? Am I the only World of Warcraft addict here? (Maybe that's not enough to be a "gamer." God knows I encounter people on WoW who seem to do nothing else but level up ten million characters.)

Naw, you probably are a gamer. It's actually a big part of my point that there are so many gamers. Anyway, I'm currently racing towards 300 hours of play time in Crusader Kings 2. But there was a time when I had to make a conscious decision between playing / developing games, and actually studying / working. And, well, occasionally sleeping. Studying / working and occasionally sleeping won, but it was a close call...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I had never consciously heard of Phelps until I started frequenting SoF. I very much doubt that he played a major role in shaping perceptions of Christianity even in the USA <snip>

Based on what? You don't live here, you don't have to deal with co-workers reacting to news about Phelps and associating it with your religion. Ignorant, self-righteous jackass.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I had never consciously heard of Phelps until I started frequenting SoF. I very much doubt that he played a major role in shaping perceptions of Christianity even in the USA, but certainly not in Europe. It is good and proper that some people took up the case against him. It is also complete tosh to wish for the entirety of Christianity to bother about him. Heck, even the pope doesn't need to be on every Christian agenda every day. The vast majority of Christians had not fucking clue that Phelps even existed, and that is perfectly fine.

Well, you were fortunate not to have encountered Phelps and his band of adventurers. I can only remember one occasion when his loathsome group was mentioned in conversation outside church/Ship settings, but it is (IME) generally accepted by many people that Christians (evangelical Christians in particular) are Phelps-like loonies. Perhaps it's much more of a problem for Evangelicals than it is for Catholics, but Phelps (and some others) have made it very difficult for Evangelicals to be respected because of association by many non-Christians with the lunatic fringe. Of course, we're not going to spend every waking hour campaigning against Phelps et.al., but it's not something we can dismiss with a simple "so what?".

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which was exactly (as I read it) the point of Woods initial criticism of gamers - that the decent majority were silent and apparently uninterested when a vocal minority was dragging the entire industry and their leisure activity through the mud.
Except they don't. Not that they don't dive into mud with abandon, but they are simply not big enough to drag the juggernaut of gaming anywhere.

I never claimed the #gamergate group were dragging gaming anywhere (anymore than Phelps etal are dragging the Christian church anywhere), but the are dragging the perception of gaming through the MUD.

quote:
Again, I am a gamer - at least more than Wood and I'm guessing you. But #Gamergate barely registered.

I wouldn't claim to be a gamer. I sometimes play CivIV (single player mode, offline) but that's about it, especially as I can't get my copy of Baldurs Gate to run on my computer. I do enjoy playing board games, but that needs someone to play against.

I hadn't heard the specific #gamergate tag, nor would I have recognised any of the names raised in the Purg thread. But, I was aware of threats against critics of some games, the OP of the thread wasn't entirely new to me. Maybe there had been previous things on the Ship, or Facebook, maybe I'd read something on the technology pages of BBC News, maybe it had had a mention in Big Bang Theory (computer, and board, gaming has been the feature of several story lines) maybe I'd heard something in relation to cyber-bullying. I don't know, but it had registered somewhere in my brain that there were people who had been threatened by gamers because they'd criticised aspects of some games.

quote:
I happen to think that feeding trolls is stupid, and that fighting heavily armed trolls should be avoided if one can. Starve them off oxygen, and watch them go to sleep and die.

Well, there are trolls and there are trolls. Some seek attention, and not feeding them is enough for them to get bored. Others are nasty bits of work who will actively pursue an agenda regardless of whether they get a reaction, in which case they need to be exposed to hard light of day and petrafied.

Besides, from what I've seen the people issuing credible threats are not what I would call trolls anyway. They're nasty, brutish, bullies. Ogres, if I was being kind. And, there are times when you need to fight a band of fully armed ogres, you just need to make sure you're doing so within a group with the right equipment and skills. I've played enough games to know you don't get the big treasure without a fight against some monster or group of bad guys.

.

[yes, I know. I should have used Preview Post, then my code wouldn't have been so badly screwed]

[ 23. October 2014, 05:06: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :

The reason why I stopped posting regularly on Ship of Fools all those years ago is because I came to a realisation that arguing on the internet was making me into a horrible person in a way that it never has with someone like Alan. That realisation hit me again last night.

It doesn't matter how right I believe I am, if I can't say anything without behaving like an asshole, I shouldn't.

So for my sanity's sake I'm taking another break from the forum. Sorry.

[ 23. October 2014, 06:59: Message edited by: Wood ]

Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on :

I'm sorry to hear that, Wood. Don't take too long as you are one of the few posters I enjoy reading partly because of the even-handed way you discuss issues.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
[...] your reputation as a hateful tricky bastard intent on keeping us all under Colonial Rule.
One of the more interesting accusations leveled against Alan recently. Though I have been chafing under many yokes lately, that of Alan's Colonial Rule is not one of them.

I would be interested to know more.
Erm... wasn't it meant as a joke?

Saysay doesn't do funny. Peculiar, yes - funny, no.

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
[...] your reputation as a hateful tricky bastard intent on keeping us all under Colonial Rule.
One of the more interesting accusations leveled against Alan recently. Though I have been chafing under many yokes lately, that of Alan's Colonial Rule is not one of them.

I would be interested to know more.
Erm... wasn't it meant as a joke?
Saysay doesn't do funny. Peculiar, yes - funny, no.

It is ironic that someone railing against Alan’s Colonial Rule is the same person who seems incapable of understanding that the rest of the world has their own culture, values, problems issues etc. It’s fine to quote US examples, but they’re not universal ones! The rest of the world isn’t some glorified US colony or outpost.

Double irony points for getting getting huffy because another poster got something about them wrong whilst asking others to cut them some slack because they did exactly the same thing further up the thread and said something completely inappropriate as a result.

I'm still not getting what the issue is here?! But I am pissed off that Wood has taken another forum break, even if it is for very sensible reasons. Wankbadgers.

Tubbs

[ 23. October 2014, 09:12: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Perhaps it's much more of a problem for Evangelicals than it is for Catholics, but Phelps (and some others) have made it very difficult for Evangelicals to be respected because of association by many non-Christians with the lunatic fringe.

I'm not lacking the experience of being considered as lunatic fringe... and neither is the RCC at large these days, I guess. But in Europe it seems to me that the main problem of calling yourself "Evangelical" is that you identify yourself as fringe (a minority), which then in the absence of any other information is expected to be lunatic (significantly different from the norm) in some way. In Germany, you are either Catholic or Lutheran (*). If you say you are something else, then people have no box left but "strange Christian sect" to put you in. (Well, maybe if you look Greek and say "Orthodox", then they put you into the "foreign stuff I know nothing about" box.) I assume in the UK it works similarly with being either Anglican or Catholic. Well, you are in Scotland, so I don't really know what's going on up there. My point is that in Europe most countries have one, two or rarely three dominant strands of Christianity with well-known labels. All else is weird by default. I don't think that that is Phelps' doing. At most Phelps' antics get associated with the strangeness as at least one bit of information. But the number of times I have heard "Phelps" mentioned apart from (particularly well-informed...) Church circles is one less than for you, i.e., never.

(*) Though to make things confusing, in Germany the Lutherans are calling themselves Evangelicals. The trigger word for "must be a strange sect" would be more "Freikirchlich" (free church).

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, we're not going to spend every waking hour campaigning against Phelps et.al., but it's not something we can dismiss with a simple "so what?".

I disagree. In the highly unlikely case that anybody has a problem with my religion because of some random idiot in the USA, that's precisely what I will tell them: "So what? That was some random idiot in the USA." I don't need to "own" Phelps.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I never claimed the #gamergate group were dragging gaming anywhere (anymore than Phelps etal are dragging the Christian church anywhere), but the are dragging the perception of gaming through the MUD.

Nope, they don't. Who the hell has even heard of #Gamergate? If it wasn't for the stupid mass media, they would be a purely "internal" phenomenon. Thanks to the stupid mass media, they may have had their second of fame in the collective consciousness. But if Wood had not told us at length what #Gamergate is all about, how many people on SoF would have known about this? Or perhaps, still remembered it? And this is a pretty well informed crowd, all things considered.

(Word play on "MUD" the game type there, somehow? If so, I'm not quite getting it...)

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I wouldn't claim to be a gamer. I sometimes play CivIV (single player mode, offline) but that's about it, especially as I can't get my copy of Baldurs Gate to run on my computer. I do enjoy playing board games, but that needs someone to play against.

This may be of interest to you. If you consider it too pricey, wait for a sale. I bought a copy at about 75% off, and pretty much everything goes on sale on Steam sometime during a year (in particular during the big seasonal sales).

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I hadn't heard the specific #gamergate tag, nor would I have recognised any of the names raised in the Purg thread. But, I was aware of threats against critics of some games, the OP of the thread wasn't entirely new to me. Maybe there had been previous things on the Ship, or Facebook, maybe I'd read something on the technology pages of BBC News, maybe it had had a mention in Big Bang Theory (computer, and board, gaming has been the feature of several story lines) maybe I'd heard something in relation to cyber-bullying. I don't know, but it had registered somewhere in my brain that there were people who had been threatened by gamers because they'd criticised aspects of some games.

Well, exactly! That was just about my state, and with that we were almost certainly ahead of the curve. Now, if you ask me that is a good thing. Because the #Gamergate people need the oxygen of public attention much more than the feminists. Sarkeesian et al. are (sort of) winning quite simply by more and more women being part of the gaming crowd. Well, if you ask me it will mostly just mean that there will be female "pulp fiction" in gaming as much as male one. But hey, that's a kind of pop balance, even if it doesn't satisfy cultural critics. It will be basically the same as with movies now, it will be some form of action movies vs. chick flicks. (And yes, I know that plenty of women like action movies and plenty of guys ... well, maybe. But anyway, I'm not making a philosophically deep and politically correct point here. I'm just saying it's going to sort itself out along lines that will leave the #Gamergate people steaming in their little corner of darkness anyhow.)

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Besides, from what I've seen the people issuing credible threats are not what I would call trolls anyway. They're nasty, brutish, bullies. Ogres, if I was being kind. And, there are times when you need to fight a band of fully armed ogres, you just need to make sure you're doing so within a group with the right equipment and skills.

Well, to stick with the analogy, the problem is that ogres are (i) actually pretty rare, (ii) are attracted to the noise of battle, and (iii) tend to join in on the side where they expect to be able to deal the most hurt. So if you decide to have this big war with the trolls, then that tends to bring the ogres out of their caves.

That's not to say in the slightest that one should bullies have their way. But I think this needs the involvement of the police and perhaps "white hats", and mostly a tactic of detect, isolate and take out - from the good guys. I really don't think that this gets particularly helped by online shouting matches.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Based on what? You don't live here, you don't have to deal with co-workers reacting to news about Phelps and associating it with your religion.

The USA is "Evangelical Central". Well, these days you might have a rather large faction of increasingly Hispanic Catholics. But to claim that somebody in the USA is terribly confused about what Evangelicals are like is like saying that somebody in Italy has no idea what Catholics are like. Not. Freaking. Likely. Unless they are a new immigrant from India or something.

If you are worried about what shapes the public perception of Christianity in the USA, then I would look more in the direction of George W. Bush than Fred Phelps. Or at the endless stream of mega church pastors and TV evangelists that capture much of the public space. As for how much any of this arrives in small town USA: not terribly much, I would say. And I happen to know that a bit, because I actually lived in small town USA for a year (though admittedly that's now over two decades back). In my experiences people go to whatever their local church happens to be, and that's pretty much that. What a Fred Phelps may be doing somewhere has about as much relevance as what some LA drug gang may be doing. It's a curiosity item in the news.

I don't know what your co-workers were going on about. Perhaps they were just teasing you, you are very teasable... Anyhow, I fail to see how somebody Orthodox would find Phelps to be a problem. A GLE might find the association painful, but for an Orthodox this should be a super-convenient stepping stone to explain how their Christianity is so different and better.

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
It doesn't matter how right I believe I am, if I can't say anything without behaving like an asshole, I shouldn't. So for my sanity's sake I'm taking another break from the forum. Sorry.

Well, it's your decision, but you really don't have to leave on my account.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I should have taken your "would you explain" question as disingenuous based on your reputation as a hateful tricky bastard intent on keeping us all under Colonial Rule.

Won't make that mistake again.

Surely that would be me, not Alan? I'd bring you damned colonial rebels to heel at the drop of a hat!

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

You Brits are all alike.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, we're not going to spend every waking hour campaigning against Phelps et.al., but it's not something we can dismiss with a simple "so what?".
I disagree. In the highly unlikely case that anybody has a problem with my religion because of some random idiot in the USA, that's precisely what I will tell them: "So what? That was some random idiot in the USA." I don't need to "own" Phelps.

Well of course that's true for you. You're a German Catholic, the distance between you and Phelps is substantial.

I don't need to "own" Phelps either. But, I do have a theological need to own the label "evangelical", one that Phelps also claimed. Now it's true I could just drop the label and no longer describe myself as evangelical. It would mean I distance myself from Phelps, but I also distance myself from a heritage that has a lot of good in it.

But the thing about Evangelicalism is that there is no central body defining what it is exactly, we have no single figure who we all unite behind (well, aside from Christ), no Evangelical Pope. We have a large number of more-or-less self appointed spokesmen (and, sadly that's still dominantly men), many of whom are great people and a shining example of Christian life and discipleship, some like Stephen Green or Phelps are just vile individuals who speak for no one but themselves. So, that does rather leave it up to the ordinary decent evangelicals to make their voice heard. Which we often fail at I admit.

I shouldn't need to draw parallels with a community vaguely associated with an ill-defined label ("gamer") with a few self-appointed spokesmen many of whom are great people but some are just vile individuals. Of course, if you don't self-identify with that label then you have no reason to be bothered by the lunatic fringe. If you do identify with that label then you should be bothered.

quote:
Word play on "MUD" the game type there, somehow? If so, I'm not quite getting it...

It's called a pun. Don't worry, a lot of people seem to not get the higher humour arts.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't know what your co-workers were going on about.

Precisely. Because you don't live here and don't know what it's like here. You're an arrogant idiot as concerns American culture and would be best served by not trying to pontificate about it.

quote:
Anyhow, I fail to see how somebody Orthodox would find Phelps to be a problem. A GLE might find the association painful, but for an Orthodox this should be a super-convenient stepping stone to explain how their Christianity is so different and better.

If you don't remember that I am a convert to Orthodoxy and not cradle, take it on board now. I have not always been Orthodox, just as you have not always been Catholic. If you didn't remember that, it is unimaginative of you not to have considered the possibility. Again you are pontificating where you are ignorant. Which, along with the tu quoque, could be said to be one of your defining characteristics.

Posted by seekingsister (# 17707) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
What a Fred Phelps may be doing somewhere has about as much relevance as what some LA drug gang may be doing. It's a curiosity item in the news.

As a helpful reminder, Westboro Baptist was protesting at the funerals of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan saying their deaths were justified because of the government's provision of LGBT rights. They travelled all across the country to do this and ended up in the Supreme Court over their behavior.

It is therefore not correct to say that what Phelps was doing was of little relevance to most Americans or simply a "curiosity item."

I was a student at the time at a university with a large and active LGBT population and many unchurched/non-Christian gay people linked WBC to evangelicalism and even Christianity in general.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Different thread, probably, but the comment about LA gangs was pretty vapid, too.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
[...] your reputation as a hateful tricky bastard intent on keeping us all under Colonial Rule.
One of the more interesting accusations leveled against Alan recently. Though I have been chafing under many yokes lately, that of Alan's Colonial Rule is not one of them.

I would be interested to know more.
Erm... wasn't it meant as a joke?
Saysay doesn't do funny. Peculiar, yes - funny, no.

Damn. Tried to make California laugh and pissed off Europe. Again.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Hello Kelly? Can we have the opinion of the California jury please?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I have no fucking clue what in that comment was meant to tickle the Californian funnybone. Colonial, maybe? But why wouldn't Massachusets get a bang out if that?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I have no fucking clue what in that comment was meant to tickle the Californian funnybone. Colonial, maybe? But why wouldn't Massachusets get a bang out if that?

Hell yes. Wasn't California a Spanish colony way back? Or is my American History like my Oral Etruscan.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Spanish colonization, then Mexican state, then US state. Although the Portuguese had a few outposts here and there.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
-sniffle- -splash-
Well, it's your decision, but you really don't have to leave on my account.

I might be wrong about my old friend, splinter-boy, but I think he's leaving on his own account. He doesn't like nurturing his sphinctery-side. Unlike you and I.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:

quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:

quote:
Originally posted by Jon in the Nati:

quote:
[...] your reputation as a hateful tricky bastard intent on keeping us all under Colonial Rule.
One of the more interesting accusations leveled against Alan recently. Though I have been chafing under many yokes lately, that of Alan's Colonial Rule is not one of them.

I would be interested to know more.
Erm... wasn't it meant as a joke?
Saysay doesn't do funny. Peculiar, yes - funny, no.

Damn. Tried to make California laugh and pissed off Europe. Again.

Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You Brits are all alike.

Fuck. Right. Off.

(If only for lumping us all in with deano)

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

I hate smart phones. And touch screens.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

I don't know a thing about gamers and their communities, and IngoB's comparisons to Phelps and LA gangs are not illuminating.

Small-town folks have TVs and the internet, and they have the same access to the views of George W. Bush, Christian TV personalities and the Phelps as ordinary people living in big cities.

As for the LA gangs, they started proliferating across the country in the late 80s, even if you didn't see them. Small-town USA has drugs -- chiefly meth -- just like every other part of the country, and where there are drugs, there are gangs. You can read here about gangs from California and Mexico running drugs in Nebraska towns with fewer than 1000 residents.

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
dragging the perception of gaming through the MUD.

I know this was not meant as a ghastly pun (the best kind), but [Killing me]

(I used to be on MUDs, mainly FurryMUCK back in the 1990s...)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, if you don't self-identify with that label then you have no reason to be bothered by the lunatic fringe. If you do identify with that label then you should be bothered.

Shrug. I identify as a traditional Catholic, or I would if I had much of an interest in liturgy (for some reason you have to care deeply if you claim the label... or it confuses people). We had Richard Williamson formerly of the SSPX claiming that label, and he was rather lunatic fringe and all over the media for a while. And while he is no German, he was convicted as Holocaust denier. So there was quite some work to do in distancing myself, sure, but I don't think that I was ever all that bothered by that...

mousethief, you are just being random now. I mean, it's sort of flattering to have a groupie, but I had always imagined swooning girls throwing their panties, not a bearded brute throwing a tantrum...

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I might be wrong about my old friend, splinter-boy, but I think he's leaving on his own account. He doesn't like nurturing his sphinctery-side. Unlike you and I.

Topologically humans are toroids, so arguably we are all continuous assholes inside out...

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
So for my sanity's sake I'm taking another break from the forum. Sorry.

Couldn't you just stay off the Hell forums, or even focus on Heaven, Circus and All Saints or something? [Waterworks]

Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
He doesn't like nurturing his sphinctery-side. Unlike you and I.

I... should I make this joke?

. . .

No, perhaps I'd better not... [Killing me]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You Brits are all alike.
Fuck. Right. Off.

(If only for lumping us all in with deano)

Can I at least mock the Scots for voting to keep him in the same country?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I don't know a thing about gamers and their communities, and IngoB's comparisons to Phelps and LA gangs are not illuminating.

Small-town folks have TVs and the internet, and they have the same access to the views of George W. Bush, Christian TV personalities and the Phelps as ordinary people living in big cities.

As for the LA gangs, they started proliferating across the country in the late 80s, even if you didn't see them. Small-town USA has drugs -- chiefly meth -- just like every other part of the country, and where there are drugs, there are gangs. You can read here about gangs from California and Mexico running drugs in Nebraska towns with fewer than 1000 residents.

And they are frighteningly organized. There was a reason Spike Lee never tackled the San Francisco Latino gangs in " Sucker Free City" , and that is because even he is not that brave. My dead nephew got mixed up with a cell group of [major Cal-Mex gang network I can't even bring myself to mention], and that is exactly why he is my dead nephew. ( not Neph. )
To relate to this thread of discussion: it is stupid to say all Latinos are gang bangers, but it is equally stupid to say a. Anybody who worries about news of gang activity is hysterical, or, b. Those Latinos who rIail against gang activity are merely feeding the trolls. It's stupid. People have to take a stand at some point.
And gamers can't take gaming back from the trolls if that if theirs are the only voice people hear. Aiming their voices at women and minorities they ( gamers) actively seek to support is not feeding the trolls-- it doesn't even have to be responding to them at all. It is simply supporting the community.

[ 23. October 2014, 22:28: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You Brits are all alike.
Fuck. Right. Off.

(If only for lumping us all in with deano)
Can I at least mock the Scots for voting to keep him in the same country?

Only the 55% who voted no. Though I'm sure if it had been solely a referendum on never letting tories run the country ever again we'd have won hands down.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Topologically humans are toroids, so arguably we are all continuous assholes inside out...

I believe that you have found a basis for fundamental agreement between us.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:
Originally posted by Snags:

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You Brits are all alike.
Fuck. Right. Off.

(If only for lumping us all in with deano)
Can I at least mock the Scots for voting to keep him in the same country?
Only the 55% who voted no. Though I'm sure if it had been solely a referendum on never letting tories run the country ever again we'd have won hands down.

And, a referendum with the question "Should deano be an independent country?" I suspect a genuine landslide to disassociate the whole of the rUK from him.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

See, the great thing about being a calm, reasonable person noted for moderate behavior and general decency, is when you do decide to throw shade, it's spectacular.

[Overused]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, if you don't self-identify with that label then you have no reason to be bothered by the lunatic fringe. If you do identify with that label then you should be bothered.
Shrug. I identify as a traditional Catholic, or I would if I had much of an interest in liturgy (for some reason you have to care deeply if you claim the label... or it confuses people). We had Richard Williamson formerly of the SSPX claiming that label, and he was rather lunatic fringe and all over the media for a while. And while he is no German, he was convicted as Holocaust denier. So there was quite some work to do in distancing myself, sure, but I don't think that I was ever all that bothered by that...

So, you considered it important to distance yourself from the lunatic fringe of traditional Catholic. You were bothered enough to do that.

But, you don't see why Evangelicals should be bothered enough to distance ourselves from Phelps etal. And, you don't see why gamers should be bothered enough to distance their community from their own lunatic fringe.

Right. It really is all about you, isn't it?

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Spanish colonization, then Mexican state, then US state. Although the Portuguese had a few outposts here and there.

How could you omit the glory that was the California Republic (June 14-July 9, 1846)!?!

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Ah, yes. One of the most litigious crackpots in California history of, a San Mateo county species, based the bulk of his lawsuits on that little historical beauty. (claimed he had a variety of "land grants") But I digress.

[ 24. October 2014, 01:29: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
But I digress.

Lately in Hell it would probably be more effective if people said "But I stay on point" when it actually happened.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

I've been counting the number of posts on topic on just two hands...

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I've been counting the number of posts on topic on just two hands...

Ah, but how have you been counting them?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

If you see Ariston heading over here, run. Run for your lives.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I've been counting the number of posts on topic on just two hands...

There have been more than 31?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you considered it important to distance yourself from the lunatic fringe of traditional Catholic. You were bothered enough to do that. But, you don't see why Evangelicals should be bothered enough to distance ourselves from Phelps etal. And, you don't see why gamers should be bothered enough to distance their community from their own lunatic fringe. Right. It really is all about you, isn't it?

I've made a point about moderation in one's response to assholery that people falsely associate with one's religion. You opined that I just never had a Phelps to contend with. I said that I had a Williamson to deal with, and that I was moderate in my response. You now say that I'm making this all about me...

Well, to the extent that you did, sure.

Posted by An die Freude (# 14794) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I've been counting the number of posts on topic on just two hands...

Is this one of those things that looks hard only if you haven't bothered trying?

Or is staying on topic one? Or hosting a digressing thread...?

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
If you see Ariston heading over here, run. Run for your lives.

It's an early morning and I'm really cranky. The unicorn horn is glowing, and the death ray is almost ready to fire.

One more off topic post and, So Help Me, the thread gets it.

Ariston, very cranky Hellhost

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I've been counting the number of posts on topic on just two hands...

RooK's been counting them by punching their lights out.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you considered it important to distance yourself from the lunatic fringe of traditional Catholic. You were bothered enough to do that. But, you don't see why Evangelicals should be bothered enough to distance ourselves from Phelps etal. And, you don't see why gamers should be bothered enough to distance their community from their own lunatic fringe. Right. It really is all about you, isn't it?
I've made a point about moderation in one's response to assholery that people falsely associate with one's religion. You opined that I just never had a Phelps to contend with. I said that I had a Williamson to deal with, and that I was moderate in my response.

It all depends on how you define "moderate" though.

To me, venting a bit of angst on a bulletin board unconnected to the particular lunatic fringe (be that Phelps, Williamson or the #gamergater's) is so moderate it barely registers. That includes all the Hell posts re: Phelps and the thread Wood started.

Doing the same somewhere that will be seen by the lunatic fringe (eg: counter demonstrations to Phelps) is probably the other end of the scale for moderate in my book - ie: it's at the point where not only are you making your point, but also providing some more attention to the lunatic fringe, and that's where care is needed that you don't give them attention while you're ignored.

If that range is basically what you'd call "extreme" then it looks to me like your "moderate" is do bugger all.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Doing the same somewhere that will be seen by the lunatic fringe (eg: counter demonstrations to Phelps) is probably the other end of the scale for moderate in my book - ie: it's at the point where not only are you making your point, but also providing some more attention to the lunatic fringe, and that's where care is needed that you don't give them attention while you're ignored.

If that range is basically what you'd call "extreme" then it looks to me like your "moderate" is do bugger all.

Given that I have explicitly approved of counter-demonstrations, both in the case of #Gamergate and Phelps, the only thing that separates us there is that you somehow got the idea into your head that we are disagreeing.

However, my point has been that "going ballistic" on #Gamergate, as satisfying and justified as it might be, is simply not an effective strategy on the internet. That's perhaps a bit different from the Phelps case, simply because how "loud" the counter-demonstrations could become there was more limited by the reporting media. But imagine that somehow the counter-demonstrators could have determined the TV programming. Then we would have quickly run into the law that "any publicity is good publicity", as the agenda of Phelps would have been more furthered than harmed by many attempts to shout him down. If the internet explodes into frothing rage, then that can give a new lease of life to the thing that the rage is about.

In addition, there is a serious problem here because some of the people involved are apparently "armed and dangerous" in a cyber sense. If you imagine that Phelps actually had a terrorist following that would proceed to physically attack targets berated by Phelps, then we get closer to the real problem here. If I tell people that they probably shouldn't try sit-ins in Mosul against the Islamic State, then I'm not somehow supporting Islamic state or rejecting the cause of the protest. I'm exercising duty of care for those who might get hurt. If you deal with people that do not think twice about shooting you in the face, then you send in heavy fighting troops, not unarmed protesters.

It is precisely the reports of serious threats to people, including signs of "hacker attacks" on their online identity, that make me say that people should perhaps back off a bit and let the (techno) cops do their job.

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Ariston: It's an early morning and I'm really cranky. The unicorn horn is glowing, and the death ray is almost ready to fire.

(I know that responding to Host post in Hell is probably the most unwise thing to do, but it is really hard to read this without seeing some kind of innuendo into it.)

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In addition, there is a serious problem here because some of the people involved are apparently "armed and dangerous" in a cyber sense. If you imagine that Phelps actually had a terrorist following that would proceed to physically attack targets berated by Phelps, then we get closer to the real problem here. If I tell people that they probably shouldn't try sit-ins in Mosul against the Islamic State, then I'm not somehow supporting Islamic state or rejecting the cause of the protest. I'm exercising duty of care for those who might get hurt. If you deal with people that do not think twice about shooting you in the face, then you send in heavy fighting troops, not unarmed protesters.

Well, on that we'll have to disagree. There are times when there is a choice between the safe thing and the right thing. I believe that we're called to do the right thing, and sometimes that will put us in genuine danger. Were civil rights activists wrong to stand up against racism, despite the real risk of harm? Was Martin Luther King wrong to stand up and preach his message again and again, even though James Earl Ray was armed and dangerous? Are MSF stupid to volunteer to go to West Africa, even though health workers are among the most likely to contract ebola? Were Chinese students idiots for standing in front of tanks in Tiananmen Square?

There are times when the safe and sensible course of action is quite simply the wrong course of action. Sometimes we need to be Fools.

Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :

It's all very well to say that the techno cops should do their job, but what happens when they don't? Everyone shuts up and waits for these guys to go away? You think that's going to work?

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
It's all very well to say that the techno cops should do their job, but what happens when they don't? Everyone shuts up and waits for these guys to go away? You think that's going to work?

Actually, yes. I think that is exactly what is going to happen. These people are after all complaining about a culture shift that has been going on, one that - quite frankly - they do not have a snowball's chance in hell to stop. And if they were serious revolutionaries, they would actually go after the companies, rather than after some woman making a YouTube video. But the companies have the deep pockets and the technical know how to deal with these people, at least certainly much more so than lone individuals. These are in fact bullies venting their anger about changes that they cannot stop on what they see as a weak target. That's nasty and all, but it is not really threatening to anything but the victims of the bullying.

And so this is also my answer to Alan. This is precisely not some overwhelming oppression by the gamer community that would require a Martin Luther King jr. This is not tyrannical Chinese government that needs to be opposed by democratic bravery. These are some assholes who are viciously attacking some soft targets precisely because they are powerless to impose their agenda. They are being left in the dust by history, nobody needs to do anything to make that happen - it is happening, that is why they are striking out. They hate the new normal that is taking hold everywhere.

Obviously, the victims do deserve public support, but perhaps more importantly, do deserve the protection that the state usually gives to innocents under threat - in this case hopefully including some "high tech" help. If that is not happening, then that certainly is something we should make a fuzz about. Sometimes governments need to be shamed into doing their job.

But we do not need heroics to stop #Gamergate. We need to neutralise their threat to individuals, and then let the ongoing integration of women and the corresponding change of culture happen. Because, well, it is. All data show that women are increasingly participating, getting close to the same level at least on the consumer side of things, and I think we do see this increasingly reflected in the products on offer (like Dota 2 I linked to earlier). Because neither gamers nor game developers are particularly misogynistic, and the software companies really, really do not believe that money coming from female hands stinks.

If you want to really move things along, then instead of hammering on the idiots of #Gamergate, how about asking the software companies about their hiring policies and the percentage of women they have in their ranks? A bit more awareness and progress there would go a long way to speed up "gaming equality"...

Posted by Og: Thread Killer (# 3200) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
It's all very well to say that the techno cops should do their job, but what happens when they don't? Everyone shuts up and waits for these guys to go away? You think that's going to work?
Actually, yes. I think that is exactly what is going to happen. ...

U got no effin clue about reality on the net then.

U been on the internet this long and you havn't figured out that silence doesn't work against a bunch of fucktards who think nothing of putting people into serious danger and ruining lives cause its all a fucking game of beating up on the evil ones to them?

Where the hell have you been?

This short of shit was going on with net.flame FFS. Only then you could get somebody fired for being an asshole on the net cause most people were on due to their jobs.

Ur wrong.

Now, let the rest of us dogpile on the POS that are doing true evil about 3 steps removed from ISIS. Let good happen, instead of getting uppity about the victims not fitting into ur fantasy world of how they should behave.

Cause, those POS need to be dogpiled on good and hard.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And so this is also my answer to Alan. This is precisely not some overwhelming oppression by the gamer community that would require a Martin Luther King jr. This is not tyrannical Chinese government that needs to be opposed by democratic bravery. These are some assholes who are viciously attacking some soft targets

So, you are saying there are some injustices worth fighting against, and others that aren't. Civil rights in the southern US was worth fighting for, but acting to stop assholes attacking soft targets isn't worth it. If you were walking down the street and saw some thugs harassing a young woman, would you say "it's just some assholes picking on a soft target because they're angry because something they value is being dispatched to the dust bin of history. I don't need to do anything, because in a few years they'll be just some footnote in history"? I'd bet you wouldn't. Yes, the least you would do would be to call the police. But, surely the situation demands some action before the police arrive. I know you, as I've learnt here you had your share of fights in the past, you have some martial arts background, you can handle yourself if it was needed, you can certainly present yourself as "I'm not weak and helpless" (which, we all agree is usually more than enough for bullies to back down). Would you step in to try and prevent any more harm to the young woman before the cops turn up, at potential risk to yourself?

If the answer to that question is yes, why is it any different if the attack is on the internet, and the harm emotional and psychological rather than physical? (OK, in #gamergate there are threats, but probably a very small chance, of physical harm)

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

I've stated multiple times now that I'm all for "white hats" moving in for the kill (the equivalent of somebody stronger helping with self defence), for calling the (techno) police and for that matter for doing public counter-demonstration. I'm not sure why you continue to ignore this, just because I'm suggesting that a change of overall tactics would now help most.

My point is quite simply that dog piling a bunch of trolls - or for that matter a bunch of zealous misogynists - will not ultimately resolve the situation. Dog piling works when people are worried by the rage of others, rather than either enjoying it (trolls) or seeing it as the very thing they are attacking (zealous misogynists). And if the offenders being counter-attacked are actually capable of inflicting serious damage, as they will be if some of the Anonymous crowd is joining in, then this is going to get unnecessarily ugly. And yes, if these people had any real chance of "winning", then perhaps one would have to keep piling on just to stop them from taking over. But in fact it is the other way around. They are piling on the pressure because they are afraid that we will win, and rightly so.

(It is a fair point to say that this "winning" is taking a long time, and yes, too long. But the question of how to improve gaming is not best exercised by fighting #Gamergate. Or more precisely, if you are using this as a means of "sensitising" people, then you have to be careful how long you maintain a call for arms before war exhaustion eats your gains.)

Of course, there's no real necessity in advocating a reduction of publicity. That's going to happen automatically. The mass media will need a new sensation when they think that they have squeezed this one dry. As soon as that spotlight goes elsewhere most people will follow it, and all this will get resolved by law enforcement where that is applicable, or otherwise just fade. But becoming conscious of what is going to stop this might just hurry the process along.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm not ignoring it. I'm just not getting it. Plus I wasn't quite sure of your use of "white hat" (I know it as someone who helps improve computer security, so somehow took it as being a technical expert who can help law enforcement identify individuals hiding behind anonymous user names. But, your latest post seems to use it to refer to people within the gamer communities, presumably with some form of authority gained from gaining respect within that community)

Yes, of course where something is illegal the police should be involved. And, yes the few people who by whatever virtue they have by their standing in the community have the authority to chastise the lunatic fringe should be doing so. It's just that when suggested that people with some status within the community should be involved you seem to keep bringing up that in doing so they make themselves a target and so should let others do it. You have stated that a few years ago you had a position of respect in the gamer community, by virtue of not only being an active gamer but good enough to compete in national league. Wood had sufficient standing within a slightly different gamer community to be invited to speak at conventions. You may not count yourself as a "white hat" (if I've actually understood your use of the word), but you're also not without a potential voice in the community.

And, what's wrong with a dog pile? It has one massive advantage that herding animals know by instinct. If a very large number of people join in an attack it's almost impossible to identify an individual target to dox, or otherwise retaliate against. Safety in numbers.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0