|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: #Gamergate, identity politics and the anti-feminist backlash
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And I've (re-)watched three of Sarkeesian's videos now. I find them for the most part quite reasonable and informative, certainly food for thought. They don't make me angry. You however do. And why? Because Sarkeesian is in fact not unfairly judging a community I have some sympathy for (perhaps even sort of belong to). She objectively has a point, even if one doesn't buy everything that she is saying.
Which kind of demonstrates that the whole #Gamergate movement was never really about "journalistic ethics". Sarkeesian funds herself via Kickstarter, not with gaming industry funds or ads. Her work is an actual critique, not the kind of glowing pæans you often see from gaming journalists more dependent on maintaining access and advertising. And yet she's the second biggest target for #Gamergate.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which kind of demonstrates that the whole #Gamergate movement was never really about "journalistic ethics". Sarkeesian funds herself via Kickstarter, not with gaming industry funds or ads. Her work is an actual critique, not the kind of glowing pæans you often see from gaming journalists more dependent on maintaining access and advertising. And yet she's the second biggest target for #Gamergate.
Well, we agree on that, and I have no sympathy for the #Gamergate agenda. I think Sarkeesian missed a few rather obvious ways for making her critique more palatable, and in consequence, actually more effective at generating light rather than heat. But she has the advantage that much of what she says (in the "Damsels in Distress" videos, I haven't seen her other work) is quite simply - and rather obviously - true. So on a fair assessment one has to deal with that truth, whatever one thinks of the packaging and wider interpretation.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Well, we agree on that, and I have no sympathy for the #Gamergate agenda. I think Sarkeesian missed a few rather obvious ways for making her critique more palatable, and in consequence, actually more effective at generating light rather than heat. But she has the advantage that much of what she says (in the "Damsels in Distress" videos, I haven't seen her other work) is quite simply - and rather obviously - true. So on a fair assessment one has to deal with that truth, whatever one thinks of the packaging and wider interpretation.
But is that a criticism that would be offered a male journalist; that he should tone down and sugar-coat observations that are "quite simply - and rather obviously - true"?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But is that a criticism that would be offered a male journalist; that he should tone down and sugar-coat observations that are "quite simply - and rather obviously - true"?
First, "tone down and sugar-coat" are your words, not mine. I was mostly thinking of making clearer that she is in fact a huge gamer herself, in dedicating less time to negative dissection and more time to positive examples and suggestions, and to bringing in a wider range of people speaking on these issues (including men) instead of having it all just come from her as a presenter. Second, if said male journalist was about to engage a huge group of women on their favourite pastime, wishing to point out to them that their entertainment was full of misandry that they might want to distance themselves from - then yes, I would very much hope that this man would be counselled to adjust his approach to engage rather than offend all those ladies. Not in order to compromise truth, but to communicate it more effectively.
Is it necessary? No. Would it be prudent if one's aim is to have the greatest possible positive impact? Yes.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
One of the most striking things to me about this exchange is the degree to which IngoB assumes that harassing, threatening misogyny is both an unalterable, eternal constant in human interactions and, more critically, that anyone calling attention to harassing, threatening misogyny is just some witless crybaby who should have known better.
See, this is a prominent and common shutdown tactic.
I'm not especially bothered by it, being demonstrably neither witless nor a crybaby, but it always disappoints me when I see it, because this particular tactic usually comes from guys who have demonstrated that they absolutely should know better.
And yet I've not heard IngoB call anyone a witless crybaby.
Out of curiosity, Croesus, what exactly is your cure for sin?
Because I know IngB's (even if I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of actually working). But I don't believe I've ever heard you offer one (although that could have happened on a thread I wasn't reading).
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I'm going to risk the ire of the hosts who have asked this conversation to be dropped or taken to Hell, but I want to pick up a statement made after that directive and I'll risk the ire of the Hellhosts if I start a thread there just to post this.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You wouldn't vent your spleen in a place that must have one of the lowest gamer-per-participant ratios on the internet.
So what? Why does the proportion or number of gamers on the Ship make any difference about whether we can discuss issues relating to gamers here? I don't see you posting on the Brazilian election thread saying it isn't relevant because we have a very small number of Brazilians here, for example. The fact that this thread is now on p5 shows that there are sufficient people here interested in gaming and/or the issues of gender equality, internet campaigning etc that #gamergate raises to keep the discussion going. It's hardly as though it's just Wood venting his spleen - a quick skim shows a page or so of posts during a week when Wood didn't post here at all. Which does rather beg the question why you have so forcefully and personally attacked Wood, but didn't show similar reaction to LeRoc for having the gall to post about elections in Brazil, including his personal experience?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But is that a criticism that would be offered a male journalist; that he should tone down and sugar-coat observations that are "quite simply - and rather obviously - true"?
First, "tone down and sugar-coat" are your words, not mine.
Fair enough. It was just an assumption based on your assertion that "palatability" should be a journalistic aim.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I was mostly thinking of making clearer that she is in fact a huge gamer herself, in dedicating less time to negative dissection and more time to positive examples and suggestions, and to bringing in a wider range of people speaking on these issues (including men) instead of having it all just come from her as a presenter.
So instead of "sugar-coating" her reporting, she should have simply used a lot of positive examples to cover over the negative criticisms, sweetening them as it were, and making the bitter center more palatable. Thank you for clearing that up.
I'm also not sure how many male game reviewers have to start out every review with a CV listing their bona fides proving that they're really gamers themselves. That seems to encapsulate the whole 'fake geek girl' meme perfectly, with the underlying assumption that women are not gamers until they exhaustively prove otherwise.
I'm also not convinced that changing narrators (and possibly narratives, you weren't clear) would increase the effectiveness of her message rather than reduce it to a muddle or mish-mash.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Is it necessary? No. Would it be prudent if one's aim is to have the greatest possible positive impact? Yes.
I disagree. Including a lot of rah-rah boosterism as a counterweight to legitimate criticism blunts the impact of most journalism. For example, suppose Woodward and Bernstein had started up every Watergate column with a list of Nixon's positive achievements before getting to the corruption and abuse of power? I maintain that approach would have disastrously blunted the impact of their reporting, not enhanced it.
[ 20. October 2014, 23:51: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which does rather beg the question why you have so forcefully and personally attacked Wood, but didn't show similar reaction to LeRoc for having the gall to post about elections in Brazil, including his personal experience?
Not really. His reaction makes perfect sense to me.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Pursuant to Commandment 4, "If you must get personal, take it to Hell", I can't see a way of pursuing this highly personal tangent outside of Hell, and invite all interested parties to repair there.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Ingo's response to this reads to me as "this isn't important to me, or to many others, so it makes me angry that it's important to anyone."
It's not about you, Ingo. I'm really sick of this idea that because white, hetero guys don't see a problem somewhere there isn't one.
Gamergate has nothing to do with journalistic ethics. If it did, the GGers would be specific about what they wanted to see rather than doxxing and harrassing their opponents and calling women bitches and whores. What's happened here is a bunch of angry entitled men who don't want to let women into their treehouse because girls are icky. They may feel sad that their social circles are all male and they can't get laid, but they're not relating to women as human beings. The message here is clear: if you're a woman, or an ally of women, shut up. Don't try to change a damn thing about this misogynistic subculture. Get back into your place. Don't challenge anything about this culture.
THAT is a problem. You may look at this and see two or three women who are having a rough time with a lot of threats (which will probably never turn into anything) and think, "eh, sucks to be her but whatever. I'm not like that." But what I see, looking at this, is thousands of women and girls who want to get involved with this medium that they love. And they won't, because they're afraid of being treated the same way. Girls will continue to play games in which the men wear cool armour and the women wear chainmail bikinis and get raped so that the men can be more heroic. You may think that that's sexist bullshit and that it'd be good if it changed. But it won't change, if every time a woman opens her mouth about it she gets silenced by harrassment. Or, more likely, if thousands of girls and women keep their mouths shut out of fear.
That's why this matters. Not because every single gamer behaves this way - of course they don't. But ffs this is an opportunity to be one of the good guys and help women out. Or you could say "eh, yeah, sexism and harrassment happens but I'm not like that and my feelings of discomfort are more important."
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Liopleurodon, I've sort of re-directed my efforts to the corresponding Hell thread. You might find the following posts of mine there relevant: here, here and here.
In my mind, you are confusing several things. First, the feminist critique by Sarkeesian et al. I find myself broadly supportive (which for me is not a given), though somewhat skeptical that equality will be achieved by major improvements of what has been critiqued. Instead, I expect some mild improvements and then things levelling out by similarly questionable pandering to the ever growing female consumer base. Second, the #Gamergate idiots. I believe the less public mention they get the better. And where they become seriously threatening, police and "white hats" should move in and shut them down. I do not think that public counter-shouting helps much, quite likely it makes them stronger. Third, the assumption that the #Gamergate idiots are somehow representative of gamers and that therefore something drastic must be done with (or even to) gamers. That was my actual bone of contention with Wood. I think this is simply not the case. I think gamers were a lot like a soccer club with a strong youth section. And they are becoming, well, us. Playing computer games is going to be like watching TV. So while there might have been a tendency to some dumb misogyny early on, it never was particularly serious (more the sort of unreflected nonsense you will get out of male teenagers / young men trying to impress each other) and it is fading into whatever residual misogyny there is in our society (as gaming becomes simply normal). Certainly that can be improved, but it does not make gamers a nefarious society of woman haters as best exemplified by #Gamergate. Fourth, the idea that women are held back from playing and/or developing games by chauvinism. Well, yes. But there are broader issues at work there as we still see a lack of women in STEM fields overall, and a lack of penetration into the most competitive parts in particular. It's not really a gaming-specific issue.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I think gamers were a lot like a soccer club with a strong youth section. And they are becoming, well, us. Playing computer games is going to be like watching TV. So while there might have been a tendency to some dumb misogyny early on, it never was particularly serious (more the sort of unreflected nonsense you will get out of male teenagers / young men trying to impress each other) and it is fading into whatever residual misogyny there is in our society (as gaming becomes simply normal).
I'm not sure why a concerted and fairly sizable campaign of harassment, hacking, and threats of violence don't count as "particularly serious" to you. Does someone have to get actually assaulted or killed before you'll take them seriously? I'd suggest the whole "boys will be boys" routine you seem to use as an all-purpose excuse for any and all misbehavior is actually part of the problem.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Fourth, the idea that women are held back from playing and/or developing games by chauvinism. Well, yes. But there are broader issues at work there as we still see a lack of women in STEM fields overall, and a lack of penetration into the most competitive parts in particular. It's not really a gaming-specific issue.
Typically arguments of this sort (sexism is a problem in X, but it's also a problem in Y and Z) are advanced not as a reason to do something about sexism generally, or even in Y and Z, but to derail discussions of sexism in X. I'm not certain exactly why addressing sexism in #Gamergate (or even the gaming community at large) is supposed to prevent addressing it in STEM fields or anywhere else.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
I have never said that the GGers are representative of all gamers. Obviously they aren't (although they do claim to be). Most of my friends play video games. My husband is as hardcore a gamer as you're ever likely to meet. We met playing WoW. I know this is a small minority. And, like Wood, I'm more disturbed at the lack of peer pressure from the good guys to get these arseholes to stop.
But what I see here on this thread is a guy consistently insisting that the elements of this situation that affect him (people might think that he and his friends are horrible people) are vastly more important than the elements which affect others (threats, harassment, continuing sexism and misogyny in games). I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that it isn't your call, as a man, to say how important or damaging sexism is, or how much of a priority it should be for the people who are directly affected by it. Just as it isn't my call, as a white person who has never directly experienced racism, to tell people who experience it daily to just get over it and stop acting like all white people are bad.
I think that the phrase "don't feed the trolls" is one that has become repeated so many times, and in such vastly different scenarios, that it has pretty much become meaningless. In fact I think that the word "troll" has itself become meaningless. Many kids get given the advice to just ignore bullies, and they'll go away. It doesn't work, and their lives are made a living hell for years. All it really does is provide adults with an excuse to do nothing. I think we're moving away from giving that advice to schoolkids now, but that's still the same basic advice we give to people online who are being bullied and harassed online.
But I'm pretty sure that when this phrase originated, it covered things like people who'd come to SoF and argue that all Christians are deluded idiots, in order to get a rise out of us. Refuse to argue with these people and they do get bored. That's not the same as messages that say "I am coming round to [your address] tonight to rape you to death. I am going to kidnap your parents from [their addresss] and make them watch." Do you really think that pretending this isn't happening will make it stop? Or will it only stop when feminists shut up and leave the internet? Because that's what these people want. They're not trying to wind us up so that we talk to them, like the hypothetical atheist on SoF in the above example. They're trying to scare us so that we don't talk at all.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Liopleurodon:
quote:
I think that the phrase "don't feed the trolls" is one that has become repeated so many times, and in such vastly different scenarios, that it has pretty much become meaningless. In fact I think that the word "troll" has itself become meaningless.
Well, indeed. When "troll" mean "To deliberately post provocatively in order to wind people up and get start a right" it had some merit, although very few people could resist. Trolls weren't even necessarily abusive in the past, just 'abusers' of the system and the social contract.
Now that "troll" has lost any meaning beyond "Someone being an arsehole on the Internet", where aresholery can range from not giving you 100% support through to actively trying to ruin your life, it's an increasingly vapid tag.
Interestingly, I agree with IngoB that what should happen when it moves from "bantz" to actual threats and unacceptable behaviour is that white hats and TPTB should shut them down. Thing is, part of that process is white hats creating a noise that says "No, not acceptable". Which is sort of what Wood was doing.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
You may think that that's sexist bullshit and that it'd be good if it changed. But it won't change, if every time a woman opens her mouth about it she gets silenced by harrassment. Or, more likely, if thousands of girls and women keep their mouths shut out of fear.
Case in point: Felicia Day Says She's Afraid of Gamergate, Immediately Gets Doxxed.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Case in point: Felicia Day Says She's Afraid of Gamergate, Immediately Gets Doxxed.
Well, it is a case in point, but for what exactly? Perhaps you have already forgotten Anonymous, LulzSec and other groups like that. The spectacle #Gamergate has been creating must have been like a flame to moths for such people. Now you get the basic Hell dynamics we know all too well from SoF, the hellions, the peanut gallery, the dog pile, and Miss Day paints a bullseye on herself for them. Problem is, you have attracted weaponised assholes to the party by now, and they bring sticks and stones, not just words.
This certainly reflects something really sad and not a little dangerous about our society. But I maintain that it is not really about gaming or gamers, about how unaccessible gaming / the gaming industry is for women, or for that matter about bringing women into STEM subjects more generally. (And yes, I do know a bit about the last one. For example, I do have two PhD students at the moment in a highly "technical" field and both are young women who beat their male competitors fair and square in the selection procedure.)
FWIW, this rant about #Gamergate from the link is a rather good read, even though I do no think that it helps the situation particularly...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Case in point: Felicia Day Says She's Afraid of Gamergate, Immediately Gets Doxxed.
Well, it is a case in point, but for what exactly?
For Liopleurodon's point, cited within my post, that organized campaigns of harassment and intimidation like we see in #Gamergate are a massive disincentive for women to have anything to do with gaming. From Ms. Day's article:
quote:
I have not said many public things about Gamer Gate. I have tried to leave it alone, aside from a few @ replies on Twitter that journalists have decided to use in their articles, siding me against the hashtag. Why have I remained mostly silent?
Self-protection and fear.
<snip>
I have been terrified of inviting a deluge of abusive and condescending tweets into my timeline. I did one simple @ reply to one of the main victims several weeks back, and got a flood of things I simply couldn’t stand to read directed at me. I had to log offline for a few days until it went away. I have tried to retweet a few of the articles I’ve seen dissecting the issue in support, but personally I am terrified to be doxxed for even typing the words “Gamer Gate”. I have had stalkers and restraining orders issued in the past, I have had people show up on my doorstep when my personal information was HARD to get. To have my location revealed to the world would give a entry point for a few mentally ill people who have fixated on me, and allow them to show up and make good on the kind of threats I’ve received that make me paranoid to walk around a convention alone. I haven’t been able to stomach the risk of being afraid to get out of my car in my own driveway because I’ve expressed an opinion that someone on the internet didn’t agree with.
So naturally the proper response to this was dox her so a variety of angry stalkers know where to find her.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Perhaps you have already forgotten Anonymous, LulzSec and other groups like that. The spectacle #Gamergate has been creating must have been like a flame to moths for such people. Now you get the basic Hell dynamics we know all too well from SoF, the hellions, the peanut gallery, the dog pile, and Miss Day paints a bullseye on herself for them. Problem is, you have attracted weaponised assholes to the party by now, and they bring sticks and stones, not just words.
While the threats and harassment are offputting enough to discourage most, this kind of victim-blaming has also got to be a factor. If we lived in a rational world it would be the people posting her address on the internet who would be considered to be "paint[ing] a bullseye on herself for them", but for a lot of folks it's Ms. Day's fault for saying anything at all about an organized campaign of threats and intimidation against women in the gaming world.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This certainly reflects something really sad and not a little dangerous about our society. But I maintain that it is not really about gaming or gamers, about how unaccessible gaming / the gaming industry is for women, or for that matter about bringing women into STEM subjects more generally.
I'm a bit baffled about why you think an organized campaign of threats and intimidation isn't threatening or intimidating. To take an earlier-discussed incident, Ms. Sarkeesian decided to cancel a public appearance because of threats of a mass shooting. Are you arguing that this was an over-reaction and she should have gone anyway? Or that it was her own fault for "paint[ing] a bullseye on herself" by publicly expressing a controversial opinion? At any rate, insisting that risking death in a mass shooting, or never expressing an opinion anyone can disagree with aren't an impediment to women's participation in gaming seems willfully naïve.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For Liopleurodon's point, cited within my post, that organized campaigns of harassment and intimidation like we see in #Gamergate are a massive disincentive for women to have anything to do with gaming.
It is possible that if #Gamergate continues to be given a very high profile in the mass media, then they might manage to make some non-negligible dent in the number of women playing computer games. And that's a huge number these days. If #Gamergate continues to be featured all over the place, then it is possible that some girls will decide against pursuing a career in computer science in general and game programming in particular. But let's be clear that this potential power would be given to #Gamergate by the mass media. They aren't even proper "cyber terrorists", they have only one real weapon for doing damage - beyond attacking some selected individuals. And that is publicity. Take away the publicity, and just what can they do to remove the millions of women from gaming, and to stop the game changing effect this is starting to have?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So naturally the proper response to this was dox her so a variety of angry stalkers know where to find her.
It wasn't the "proper" response, but it sure as hell was the expected response. What did she or you expect to happen? If you tell a bunch of bullies that you are really afraid of them doing this or that, do you expect them to pause, take stock of their actions, and repent and reform themselves? Or do you expect them to thank you for the good suggestions and do exactly what you feared?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
While the threats and harassment are offputting enough to discourage most, this kind of victim-blaming has also got to be a factor. If we lived in a rational world it would be the people posting her address on the internet who would be considered to be "paint[ing] a bullseye on herself for them", but for a lot of folks it's Ms. Day's fault for saying anything at all about an organized campaign of threats and intimidation against women in the gaming world.
That it is evil to spread somebody's details on the internet against their will is one thing, that it is unwise to tell a bunch of cyberbullies that you are terribly afraid of that is another. I don't know what fraction of #Gamergate critics gets attacked. But if I had been asked to design some post that would most likely provoke attack, then it would have looked a lot like what Ms Day wrote.
This is just self-defence 101. If faced with potential threat, do your best to appear self-confident, strong and dangerous (or at least "a pain to subdue"). Do not make yourself small, show your fear, appear weak and quickly broken. Criminals, bullies etc. look for easy targets, for fights they know they will win before they even start. They are not looking for the honourable duel that is too close to call in advance.
Yes, it would be nice if we didn't have to think along these lines. Yes, ideally everybody could express whatever they want without having to fear anything. But we are talking about a bunch of assholes on the warpath here. Things are not ideal, and you need to think about how you tackle them, if you want to do that.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm a bit baffled about why you think an organized campaign of threats and intimidation isn't threatening or intimidating.
#Gamergate can do diddley-squat to the gaming community by their own power. That's the simple truth. Yes, they can attack individuals. But we are talking here about a community that in total across the world probably has the size of the entire population of the USA. You don't move that many people with a bloody Twitter hashtag. If you manage to move them at all, then by a sustained and intense mass media campaign. And #Gamergate does not have the political power or financial means to get that going. The one and only thing they can go for is constant provocation to keep the publicity going on for free.
They need to be isolated and taken down. In particular so where they threaten and harm individuals. But we should not make them the centre of a massive storm of outrage that just goes on and on. If #Gamergate has the slightest chance of "winning" their game, then so because of that storm. It is the one and only multiplier of their power that they can hope for.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To take an earlier-discussed incident, Ms. Sarkeesian decided to cancel a public appearance because of threats of a mass shooting. Are you arguing that this was an over-reaction and she should have gone anyway? Or that it was her own fault for "paint[ing] a bullseye on herself" by publicly expressing a controversial opinion?
I cannot possible make any reasonable threat assessment for Ms Sarkessian, much less am I in a position to tell her what she should risk for her cause. However, she did not jump into the fray now, she is (one of) the original target(s). That's simply a different situation. I support her decision to speak up (and as I have said before, I think she had a point). I support punitive action against those trying to shut her down, including public statements of support for her and against #Gamergate. That however does not mean that I cannot look at the overall dynamics as it has developed, and say that taking away the oxygen of publicity would be a much better way to end #Gamergate now. I'm not against free speech, I'm for efficient means of defending it.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
At any rate, insisting that risking death in a mass shooting, or never expressing an opinion anyone can disagree with aren't an impediment to women's participation in gaming seems willfully naïve.
I expect about 1-2 million women will log into their Steam account today to play games from their library. How many of them won't, in your opinion, because they are so impeded? Even now, I reckon, most of them will not even have heard of #Gamergate. #Gamergate doesn't command an army. They do not have a secret police. They couldn't control 1-2 million female Steam users if they wanted to. What they can do is to attack a few individuals, and milk that for publicity. If you stop them from doing that, it's game over for them.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I really don't know that you are right about most people not having heard of gamergate. Someone brought it up at lunch the other day at work, and all six of us had heard of it. And as far as I know only two of us play games at all, so that's not even why.
Interesting. I might try to do some straw polling of my own. I would love to do it with some students. Problem is I'm already done with my block teaching for the term...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Gwai: I really don't know that you are right about most people not having heard of gamergate.
I'm far removed from the world of games, and I'd heard about it (before this topic was started).
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is possible that if #Gamergate continues to be given a very high profile in the mass media, then they might manage to make some non-negligible dent in the number of women playing computer games. And that's a huge number these days. If #Gamergate continues to be featured all over the place, then it is possible that some girls will decide against pursuing a career in computer science in general and game programming in particular. But let's be clear that this potential power would be given to #Gamergate by the mass media.
Wow. Is there any kind of abusive behavior where you don't think the right solution is a rigorously enforced code of silence? Pretending this doesn't happen or simply suffering in silence is not a solution, unless you think the problem is bad publicity, not bad behavior.
You know what I haven't heard at all in regard to #Gamergate? Anyone saying anything along the lines of "wow, I never suspected that there might be misogyny in the gaming community" or "this campaign of harassment is totally unexpected and not at all similar to anything that's happened before". The idea that a certain subset of gamers will harass and intimidate women is already out there and trying to suppress the stories is just a way of silencing the victims.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So naturally the proper response to this was dox her so a variety of angry stalkers know where to find her.
It wasn't the "proper" response, but it sure as hell was the expected response. What did she or you expect to happen? If you tell a bunch of bullies that you are really afraid of them doing this or that, do you expect them to pause, take stock of their actions, and repent and reform themselves? Or do you expect them to thank you for the good suggestions and do exactly what you feared?
<snip>
That it is evil to spread somebody's details on the internet against their will is one thing, that it is unwise to tell a bunch of cyberbullies that you are terribly afraid of that is another.
Given the number of other women that have been doxxed by #Gamergate, claiming that it only happened because Ms. Day specifically mentioned it seems like a particularly fragrant grade of disingenuous bullshit. No one has to tell cyberbullies that people don't like having their personal information published. That's why they do it. You act as if no one had ever thought of doxxing before Ms. Day invented it.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is just self-defence 101. If faced with potential threat, do your best to appear self-confident, strong and dangerous (or at least "a pain to subdue"). Do not make yourself small, show your fear, appear weak and quickly broken. Criminals, bullies etc. look for easy targets, for fights they know they will win before they even start.
<snip>
I cannot possible make any reasonable threat assessment for Ms Sarkessian, much less am I in a position to tell her what she should risk for her cause.
It's waffling inconsistency like this that I can't take seriously. Why not apply the same logic to Ms. Sarkeesian as to Ms. Day? If you truly believed about "appear[ing] self-confident" and "[d]o not . . . show your fear", didn't Ms. Sarkeesian make a terrible error by giving away the fact that dying in a hail of bullets scares her?
Of course, all this proceeds from the very dubious assumption that anyone is uncertain about whether people generally fear being raped and murdered in their homes by some psychotic who got their address from the internet or dying in a hail of gunfire. I don't think a serious argument can be built on that premise.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Yes, millions of women will log in to Steam and play their games. And quite a lot of those women will feel compelled to pretend to be men online so that they don't get sexually harassed, or threatened with rape when someone doesn't like how they play CoD. And some will get frustrated at playing games in which their entire gender is presented as sexy trophies rather than human beings. They'll do this because they like video games and they don't really have a choice because that's what's on the market. The fact that some women still play these games because they like games and these are the games that exist doesn't mean that the situation is fine and no change is needed. They're probably not going to say "better not play tonight because there are hateful, violent misogynists out there!" But they may well decide not to challenge the status quo, or not go to that geek convention, not get involved in the industry as a journalist or a developer or an artist. The games that are better than this won't get made, not because women are better than men or vice versa, but because if half the human population feels excluded from the industry a huge talent is lost and the standard can only go down. You don't seem to think that's a problem.
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
