[BBC] Zoe Quinn talks about Gamergate. "Big Firms Must Condemn Gamergate"
266 replies, posted
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;46365694]There's a big difference between a single person addressing a group of people by being invited by a large network to talk about the group and their personal experience with them, and a group of people addressing a single person by sending hundreds of messages ranging [I]wildly[/I] in tone, from "Nobody cares about you, you will be forgotten," to insults about her appearance and private personal affairs, to threats of stalking, violence, and rape/death threats directed at her friends, her family, and herself.
People [I]want[/I] to talk about ethics, just as much as they [I]want[/I] to talk about harassment. But as it stands, "GamerGate" has already been defined in the mainstream as a confused movement mired by a disproportionate amount of violent threats by a small but [I]poisonous and unshakable[/I] core. GamerGate supporters won't be able to have the conversation they want to have, as long as they associate with a name that is tainted beyond repair. Why is the name so important to keep?[/QUOTE]
No-one cares about the name, but it's obvious that the same shit which has happened here will happen again in any movement, which is people addressing the easiest and loudest troll rather than any actual arguments.
If people wanted to discuss ethics or harassment, they wouldn't cherrypick those examples of abuse and claim that's the core when there are so many actual arguments out there. This isn't a matter of not having leaders since there are main figures, this isn't a matter of Gamergate not trying to argue since I know for a fact there's plenty of that, it's a matter of people not wanting to address anything difficult so people pretend the trolls are more than background noise to be ignored because it fits their narrative.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;46365694]There's a big difference between a single person addressing a group of people by being invited by a large network to talk about the group and their personal experience with them, and a group of people addressing a single person by sending hundreds of messages ranging [I]wildly[/I] in tone, from "Nobody cares about you, you will be forgotten," to insults about her appearance and private personal affairs, to threats of stalking, violence, and rape/death threats directed at her friends, her family, and herself.
People [I]want[/I] to talk about ethics, just as much as they [I]want[/I] to talk about harassment. But as it stands, "GamerGate" has already been defined in the mainstream as a confused movement mired by a disproportionate amount of violent threats by a small but [I]poisonous and unshakable[/I] core. GamerGate supporters won't be able to have the conversation they want to have, as long as they associate with a name that is tainted beyond repair. Why is the name so important to keep?[/QUOTE]
Same reason why feminism has the same name even though people post crazy shit on twitter.
If you really think Gamergate is about misogyny then you've been baited by the whole smear campaign. Why would any opposing party describe their enemies stance in a positive view? You don't ask a democrat the end goals of the republican party, or ask a chauvinist what is feminism. You don't take to heart what anti-gamergate people say about gamergate.
Unless of course they provide counter-arguments or evidence.
[QUOTE=Banned?;46365738]There are, maybe, two lines of opinion in that videos initial 60 seconds. Everything else is pretty spot on.[/QUOTE]
The opinion is quite clear and evidenced by the occasionally loaded wordings and the completely one-sided nature of the information presented, he doesn't go at all into how the incident started or the evidence that contradicts or otherwise counters their claims and often greatly exaggerates the evidence supporting them.
Also why does it have an Al Jazeera logo on it?
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;46365758]Same reason why feminism has the same name even though people post crazy shit on twitter.
If you really think Gamergate is about misogyny then you've been baited by the whole smear campaign. Why would any opposing party describe their enemies stance in a positive view? You don't ask a democrat the end goals of the republican party, or ask a chauvinist what is feminism. You don't take to heart what anti-gamergate people say about gamergate.
Unless of course they provide counter-arguments or evidence.[/QUOTE]
One thing GamerGate did for me personally was it helped me to finally 'get' feminism. I had always been distracted by shitty radical groups like Femen who sour the name of feminism. Seeing how that shit affects a movement from the inside, when the tiny vocal minority are used against you really helped feminism to click into place for me. Though I already agreed with most of what second-wave feminism says, recent events have just put everything into place.
[editline]30th October 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46365794]The opinion is quite clear and evidenced by the occasionally loaded wordings and the completely one-sided nature of the information presented, he doesn't go at all into how the incident started or the evidence that contradicts or otherwise counters their claims and often greatly exaggerates the evidence supporting them.
Also why does it have an Al Jazeera logo on it?[/QUOTE]
That's why it's "GamerGate in 60 seconds" and not "A comprehensive video detailing the events of the past 3 months and beyond". If you want a quick answer to "What is Gamergate?" that also gives you the details you aren't going to get one because the issue encompasses 3 months of pure shit, along with years of boiling animosity between gamers and games journalists.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;46365794]The opinion is quite clear and evidenced by the occasionally loaded wordings and the completely one-sided nature of the information presented, he doesn't go at all into how the incident started or the evidence that contradicts or otherwise counters their claims and often greatly exaggerates the evidence supporting them.
Also why does it have an Al Jazeera logo on it?[/QUOTE]
Gamergate has multi-causal origins that span over several years. Even key points like the gamers are dead articles, the original zoe post, and the doritos pope have months or years of events or discussion that need to be read to really understand it all.
Really it's like reading history books. Just make sure you read stuff that address differing perspectives.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;46365718]Because trying to create alternate names causes further confusion and splintering. People won't know specifically what name to use when several are brought up, people will want to stick with the old name, and the people causing problems will use whatever new tag gets big, and the opposition will just frame the new tag as the problem the same as the old one.[/QUOTE]
Why do people [I]need[/I] a name like "GamerGate" to discuss "corruption and ethics in journalism," when they can just describe what they want to discuss in [I]three to five words[/I]? Just lay out what you want to discuss. The name, which is already non-descriptive, has a plethora of different meanings that can confuse the subject (in addition to mainstream definitions: an online games service with [URL="http://www.gamersgate.com/"]a very similar name[/URL], and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate"]ants[/URL]), whereas a brief description makes it far more clear.
If GamerGate [I]really[/I] needs a name to operate: The name it currently has is just straight-up bad, coined by an actor who had [I]zero[/I] mainstream connection with gaming until [URL="https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/504801169638567936"]August 2014, after posting videos that were specifically about Zoe Quinn alongside the tag #GamerGate[/URL] — This detail alone, the fact that the name was coined in response to "Quinnspiracy", makes it difficult for people against GamerGate to believe that it's always been about anything [I]but[/I] women.
People against GamerGate would think far better of people who support GG for journalistic reasons, if said supporters outright dropped the harassers and moved to organize themselves under a more self-descriptive name with clearly defined goals. GamerGate as a name can't be salvaged.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;46366095]Why do people [I]need[/I] a name like "GamerGate" to discuss "corruption and ethics in journalism," when they can just describe what they want to discuss in [I]three to five words[/I]? Just lay out what you want to discuss. The name, which is already non-descriptive, has a plethora of different meanings that can confuse the subject (in addition to mainstream definitions: an online games service with [URL="http://www.gamersgate.com/"]a very similar name[/URL], and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate"]ants[/URL]), whereas a brief description makes it far more clear.
If GamerGate [I]really[/I] needs a name to operate: The name it currently has is just straight-up bad, coined by an actor who had [I]zero[/I] mainstream connection with gaming until [URL="https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/504801169638567936"]August 2014, after posting videos that were specifically about Zoe Quinn alongside the tag #GamerGate[/URL] — This detail alone, the fact that the name was coined in response to "Quinnspiracy", makes it difficult for people against GamerGate to believe that it's always been about anything [I]but[/I] women.
People against GamerGate would think far better of people who support GG for journalistic reasons, if said supporters outright dropped the harassers and moved to organize themselves under a more self-descriptive name with clearly defined goals. GamerGate as a name can't be salvaged.[/QUOTE]
Ever hear of a military strategy called "Divide and Conquer"? Changing the name now would do nothing but harm the movement. Those who think changing the name would still use the GameGate hashtag, troll or idiots who believe in GamerGate but act like dickheads anyway could follow to whatever other movement came along, and journalists would use the opportunity to both shit on everyone and play up the angle that because we can't maintain ranks.
GameGate has been going on for two months (with another before the name was adopted) and for one month and three weeks of that we've had people saying "We should drop the name GamerGate." Dropping the name would do NOTHING to help us and would do everything to hurt us and people suggesting it aren't thinking it through.
[editline]30th October 2014[/editline]
*People who think changing the name [i]is dumb[/i] would still use the hashtag. Edit is broken.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;46366095]Why do people [I]need[/I] a name like "GamerGate" to discuss "corruption and ethics in journalism," when they can just describe what they want to discuss in [I]three to five words[/I]? Just lay out what you want to discuss. The name, which is already non-descriptive, has a plethora of different meanings that can confuse the subject (in addition to mainstream definitions: an online games service with [URL="http://www.gamersgate.com/"]a very similar name[/URL], and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate"]ants[/URL]), whereas a brief description makes it far more clear.
If GamerGate [I]really[/I] needs a name to operate: The name it currently has is just straight-up bad, coined by an actor who had [I]zero[/I] mainstream connection with gaming until [URL="https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/504801169638567936"]August 2014, after posting videos that were specifically about Zoe Quinn alongside the tag #GamerGate[/URL] — This detail alone, the fact that the name was coined in response to "Quinnspiracy", makes it difficult for people against GamerGate to believe that it's always been about anything [I]but[/I] women.
People against GamerGate would think far better of people who support GG for journalistic reasons, if said supporters outright dropped the harassers and moved to organize themselves under a more self-descriptive name with clearly defined goals. GamerGate as a name can't be salvaged.[/QUOTE]
There is no gatekeeper for the internet. Either judge people by the majority sentiment or resolve yourself to a lifetime of despising every single group of people on the planet because of tiny extremist minorities.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;46366095]Why do people [I]need[/I] a name like "GamerGate" to discuss "corruption and ethics in journalism," when they can just describe what they want to discuss in [I]three to five words[/I]? Just lay out what you want to discuss. The name, which is already non-descriptive, has a plethora of different meanings that can confuse the subject (in addition to mainstream definitions: an online games service with [URL="http://www.gamersgate.com/"]a very similar name[/URL], and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate"]ants[/URL]), whereas a brief description makes it far more clear.
If GamerGate [I]really[/I] needs a name to operate: The name it currently has is just straight-up bad, coined by an actor who had [I]zero[/I] mainstream connection with gaming until [URL="https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/504801169638567936"]August 2014, after posting videos that were specifically about Zoe Quinn alongside the tag #GamerGate[/URL] — This detail alone, the fact that the name was coined in response to "Quinnspiracy", makes it difficult for people against GamerGate to believe that it's always been about anything [I]but[/I] women.
People against GamerGate would think far better of people who support GG for journalistic reasons, if said supporters outright dropped the harassers and moved to organize themselves under a more self-descriptive name with clearly defined goals. GamerGate as a name can't be salvaged.[/QUOTE]
And you think making up a different term for the movement to get away from the apparent association with Gamegate, in the exact same way people moved to Gamergate to get away from the association with Quinn, will somehow turn out better?
The issue isn't the name since if you ask someone what it's about they'll either say journalistic ethics, or that it was originally journalistic ethics but became sidetracked, and any new name will have the same issue of people trying to pretend it's really about something else. Trying to move it to a new name will just have the trolls move with it, you'll lose all momentum, and people will still slander it because the ones doing the slandering have a vested interest in making sure consumers don't bite them in the ass for their misdeeds.
This is something that has been well debated within the movement, everyone has considered it, and it would certainly be unsuccessful since it doesn't even touch on the core problems.
[QUOTE=3noneTwo;46366095]Why do people [I]need[/I] a name like "GamerGate" to discuss "corruption and ethics in journalism," when they can just describe what they want to discuss in [I]three to five words[/I]? Just lay out what you want to discuss. The name, which is already non-descriptive, has a plethora of different meanings that can confuse the subject (in addition to mainstream definitions: an online games service with [URL="http://www.gamersgate.com/"]a very similar name[/URL], and [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate"]ants[/URL]), whereas a brief description makes it far more clear.
If GamerGate [I]really[/I] needs a name to operate: The name it currently has is just straight-up bad, coined by an actor who had [I]zero[/I] mainstream connection with gaming until [URL="https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/504801169638567936"]August 2014, after posting videos that were specifically about Zoe Quinn alongside the tag #GamerGate[/URL] — This detail alone, the fact that the name was coined in response to "Quinnspiracy", makes it difficult for people against GamerGate to believe that it's always been about anything [I]but[/I] women.
People against GamerGate would think far better of people who support GG for journalistic reasons, if said supporters outright dropped the harassers and moved to organize themselves under a more self-descriptive name with clearly defined goals. GamerGate as a name can't be salvaged.[/QUOTE]
It's already been said, but not only has this been discussed already, there have been some attempts to derail GamerGate by making new hashtags that claim to just be a renaming of the movement, but are really just there to create a divide. They rarely go on for more than a day or two, showing how unified we really are. Like it or not, we're sticking with the name.
[QUOTE=Explosions;46365712]The only thing I know about all of this gamergate stuff is something to do with "Five Guys Burger and Fries."[/QUOTE]
If you didn't already know, its a fast food place and a good one at that. ZQ cheated on her boyfriend with 5 other guys. I think you can make the connection.
[QUOTE=Firefox42;46366277]It's already been said, but not only has this been discussed already, there have been some attempts to derail GamerGate by making new hashtags that claim to just be a renaming of the movement, but are really just there to create a divide. They rarely go on for more than a day or two, showing how unified we really are. Like it or not, we're sticking with the name.[/QUOTE]
don't people usually get mad at feminists for having a name rooted in "female"
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;46366297]don't people usually get mad at feminists for having a name rooted in "female"[/QUOTE]
That's a vaild point, but in this case I feel that GamerGate is a fitting description. It's about gaming, and although -gate has become an overused suffix to describe any form of controversy, it creates a simple term to name this movement, far better than any alternative I've seen.
[QUOTE=SamPerson123;46365480]I think people should stop talking about "gamergate" and instead just talk about journalistic ethics and misogyny separately. That word means different things to different people.[/QUOTE]
Why should hundreds of thousands, possibly even millions of users condemn a hash tag because of a couple dickheads. Since this is a faceless consumer movement, if #gamergate disbands and focuses on different things under a different hash tag, it wouldn't be nearly as successful.
[QUOTE=Venezuelan;46366297]don't people usually get mad at feminists for having a name rooted in "female"[/QUOTE]
Funny how similar it is, but just like how the issue here isn't with the name itself but in thinking it is tainted by bad behaviour by the movement, the issue over the name feminism stems more from similar bad behaviour or philosophies of the movement not fitting their own views.
With both groups, I wouldn't recommend a name change at all, Atheism+ showed how poorly that can go. I would recommend positive examples and figures that can change the impression and appeal to all sides, acceptance of fence-sitters who can support the goals but not be part of the movement itself, and rational open dialogue with everyone to clear the air and show you're a real person rather than a personification of everything bad.
Ahh #Gamergate one of the biggest internet "discussions" which literary start off his word versus her word.
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;46365596]If gamergate wants to be taken seriously they need some leaders. The fact that any anonymous idiot can send death threats illegitimatizes the whole thing in the eyes of a lot of people.
A lot of media think gamergate boils down to sweaty sexist angry nerds vs women.
Not really surpised gamergate failed tbh[/QUOTE]
Feminism failed as well with your logic
[QUOTE=OfficerLamarr;46366365]Ahh #Gamergate one of the biggest internet "discussions" which literary start off his word versus her word.[/QUOTE]
actually the zoe post has chat logs which have been verified as legitimate by multiple sources that demonstrate textbook abusive behavior
not that it has anything to do with gamergate, just a reminder that anyone who says the claims made in the zoe post are lies is either completely ignorant or lying themselves
I fucking love it when zoe said her boss forced her to have sex with him on twitter, then the boss' wife replied saying that it wasnt forced because zoe told her so in a phonecall.
[QUOTE=codemaster85;46366410]I fucking love it when zoe said her boss forced her to have sex with him on twitter, then the boss' wife replied saying that it wasnt forced because zoe told her so in a phonecall.[/QUOTE]
Some people forget that half of the reason why people were talking about Zoe was that many more people than just Eron have been abused by her. Plenty of people were afraid to come out for fear of being tarred and feathered the way he was.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;46366388]actually the zoe post has chat logs which have been verified as legitimate by multiple sources that demonstrate textbook abusive behavior
not that it has anything to do with gamergate, just a reminder that anyone who says the claims made in the zoe post are lies is either completely ignorant or lying themselves[/QUOTE]
I don't support Zoe Quinn of any of her questionable moral skills, she probably has done some questionable things to get her game promoted. The abusive behavior, let's not kid our selfs. It happens all the time, when your playing games your constantly being called a Fag, if you enter a discussion where you have a opinion different the majority you get flamed. Abuse happens all around the internet because will anonymity comes power.
But does the internet go ape-shit over these people? No.
There is corruption in any field, this kind of stuff isn't new.
As I said, the most pointless "discussion".
She has been caught in so many lies it's a wonder anyone is even acknowledging her. Well, except for the media, since GG is pretty much their biggest threat right now.
This whole thing has been enlightening, it's shown exactly who is drinking the SJW kool aid, exposing their biases, and more or less showing where their loyalties lie (and very few if any have any loyalty to their readerbase)
Gawker and like media corps have really been shown for the trash they are, they are really trying to force the 'GG is completely about misogyny and harassment, they should be treated as literal terrorists/hate group' narrative and have been spewing hit piece after hit piece about the movement ever since they got more than little close to exposing Gawker/Kotaku's/etc. laundry.
I eagerly await my box fort for being supportive of GG.
I'm sorry that people didn't flip out when you deemed it.
Also, just because corruption is always there doesn't mean you don't fight it and its always a discussion worth having.
[QUOTE=OfficerLamarr;46366422]I don't support Zoe Quinn of any of her questionable moral skills, she probably has done some questionable things to get her game promoted. The abusive behavior, let's not kid our selfs. It happens all the time, when your playing games your constantly being called a Fag, if you enter a discussion where you have a opinion different the majority you get flamed. Abuse happens all around the internet because will anonymity comes power.
But does the internet go ape-shit over these people? No.
There is corruption in any field, this kind of stuff isn't new.
As I said, the most pointless "discussion".[/QUOTE]
threatening someone with suicide if they don't do what you want and cut themselves off from all their friends isn't the same as calling someone a fag
[QUOTE=mokkan;46365303]is there a summary of gamergate anywhere[/QUOTE]
1. People expose an entire host of corruption and racketeering in gaming journalism.
2. A few notable members of this exposed party happen to be female, this gets the extreme minority known commonly as the Tumblr SJW's on board to scream about stupid shit, partially justified due to the normally toxic sexist state of the gaming industry, but not relevant at all here in the slightest.
3. As always, in response to Tumblr SJW's the MRA/RedPill/Bodybuilder Forum guys arrive and latch themselves to the GG side of the debate as it opposes their moral enemy. I don't honestly know which came first, but it hardly matters as that's about the same as asking if the pack of rabid dogs ripping you limb from limb came before the raging fire that is actively burning your house down.
4. The entire thing is hijacked and degenerates into popular faux-feminists spewing their usual drivel accompanied by whatever the moronic equivalent by fedora wearing sexists happens to be.
5. Video games are fun, everyone with half a brain cell knows that gaming journalism and integrity have no right to share the same phrase unless the phrase happens to be along the lines of, "Gaming Journalism is rubbish and had zero integrity what-so-ever."
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;46365835]That's why it's "GamerGate in 60 seconds" and not "A comprehensive video detailing the events of the past 3 months and beyond". If you want a quick answer to "What is Gamergate?" that also gives you the details you aren't going to get one because the issue encompasses 3 months of pure shit, along with years of boiling animosity between gamers and games journalists.[/QUOTE]
You're missing my point. I know a summary that length of a conflict of this length is going to have to cut things out, but if you look at what is cut and what's not it's blatantly obvious that "Gamergate in 60 seconds" is "What I want you to think Gamergate is". Of course you're going to have to skip certain details to get the basic idea across in as little time as possible, but the selection of the details included versus skipped and the channel's other uploads make it clear that he's blatantly skewing the facts to push his own agenda.
Also seriously, there appears to be an Al Jazeera logo in the corner, why?
I genuinely don't get why people are against Gamergate. If you're against it you're literally against you're own rights as a consumer, you're saying to the industry that you're all for their corruption. It's not about misogyny, it never was, virtually no-one is against more women in the industry, they are however against women using their position in the industry exploitatively, something which anyone who truly believes in equality should be against.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46366684]they are however against women using their position in the industry exploitatively, something which anyone who truly believes in equality should be against.[/QUOTE]
It honestly doesn't bother me that much that people in general use scummy methods to get ahead. What bothers me a whole lot more is the guy willing to go along with it. He's the one with ethical standards as a journalist. There will always be people offering bribes, sexual favors, etc. in any industry with some sort of gate keeper.
[QUOTE=sgman91;46366713]It honestly doesn't bother me that much that people in general use scummy methods to get ahead. What bothers me a whole lot more is the guy willing to go along with it. He's the one with ethical standards as a journalist. There will always be people offering bribes, sexual favors, etc. in any industry with some sort of gate keeper.[/QUOTE]
Well I was pointing out the hypocrisy of Women involved in the scandal of doing this and are now saying that they are now a victim of misogyny when they were the ones who were exploiting men, not the other way around.
You can't use dirty tactics to get ahead then suddenly revert to principle when someone criticises you for doing it.
[QUOTE=The mouse;46366684]I genuinely don't get why people are against Gamergate. If you're against it you're literally against you're own rights as a consumer, you're saying to the industry that you're all for their corruption. It's not about misogyny, it never was, virtually no-one is against more women in the industry, they are however against women using their position in the industry exploitatively, something which anyone who truly believes in equality should be against.[/QUOTE]
Why can't it be about both?
[editline]30th October 2014[/editline]
Can we acknowledge that video game consumer practices are fucked up but hey sexism is also endemic in the industry?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;46366731]Why can't it be about both?[/QUOTE]
Do you know anyone who seriously believes that more Women in the industry is a bad thing because I can safely say that I have never seen anyone who does think that. Nor do I know why someone would be against such a thing or even why Gender is important anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.