[AtomicClucker]

I remain convinced that this GamerGate fiasco and the group attacking it in turn has alienated by far the majority of people who play games who are tuning out the whole affair except for periodic shouts about the new lows in online harassment being set by people on both 'sides' of the debate on a regular basis.

If any group thinks they'll win this thing, they're deluded.

It's a conflict of mutually assured exhaustion. Both sides are firmly engaged in both a PR and, well, level of e-penis one-upping.

It means when the dust settles, there will still be gamers. As with my conversation with others who have leaning sympathies to one group or another, trying to get them to have a sane conversation is impossible. Or even trying to communicate. Hah. Both sides firmly believe in "Death before Dishonor!"

[Nemesis6]

I remain convinced that this GamerGate fiasco and the group attacking it in turn has alienated by far the majority of people who play games who are tuning out the whole affair except for periodic shouts about the new lows in online harassment being set by people on both 'sides' of the debate on a regular basis.

If any group thinks they'll win this thing, they're deluded.

It's a conflict of mutually assured exhaustion. Both sides are firmly engaged in both a PR and, well, level of e-penis one-upping.

It means when the dust settles, there will still be gamers. As with my conversation with others who have leaning sympathies to one group or another, trying to get them to have a sane conversation is impossible. Or even trying to communicate. Hah. Both sides firmly believe in "Death before Dishonor!"

I think you're creating a false equivalence here. Gamers are the ones who, along with their hobby, are being vilified as autistic, depressed, woman-hating monsters, and when they hit back, the professional victims pushing this narrative use the minority response of harassment as yet another brush to paint the entire community with. It's brilliant what these people are doing, really; Anita Sarkeesian produces videos, refuses to address criticism or admit mistakes, and just waits for the few trolls who are gonna target her, and boom, instant media coverage; "Gamers harass feminist critic". These people really are professional victims. They're not in this for dialogue or discussion, they're there to push a narrative and crowbar their toxic, quasi-religious ideology into whatever subject they come in contact with, and it just so happens that this year they came in contact with gaming. They get discussion banned from gaming websites, and then they act like the poor damsel when the only thing they get as a result is hate and vitriol.

This is not some equal, two-part fight, it's a sub-culture being attacked by ideologues who have powerful media connections that they use to censor and further vilify their victims.

[The E]

So "better representation of non-white non-male people in gaming" is "toxic, quasi-religious ideology" now?

[Nemesis6]

So "better representation of non-white non-male people in gaming" is "toxic, quasi-religious ideology" now?

If we're going by Anita and Zoey Quinn's way of implementing it, yes. You don't get more inclusiveness in sub-cultures through bullying, lying, manipulation and misrepresentation. You just get backlash.

[The E]

So the use of bullying, lying, manipulation and misrepresentation by the people who disagree with the ideal of better representation for everyone can be justified?

[Grizzly]

professional victims

People being forced to leave their home due to detailed death-threats is flamebaiting now?

[Nemesis6]

So the use of bullying, lying, manipulation and misrepresentation by the people who disagree with the ideal of better representation for everyone can be justified?

Nope, the actions of trolls are just that; the actions of trolls. With 4chan and other imageboards involved in this, turning these accusations around on the victim is problematic because these constitute a third party that does not give a **** about the subject, civility, or propriety and is only out for laughs. This works in the feminists' favor as I explained above because they ignore legitimate attempts at discourse and instead refer to the harassment that does get through as evidence that they're right.

[Grizzly]

instead use the harassment to further their victimhood

You talk as if speaking up about harassment is a bad thing. I don't care who does it, the fact that people decided to harass someone just because she makes videos is abhorrent. It should be brought to light, adressed, and hammered out.

[Nemesis6]

instead use the harassment to further their victimhood

You talk as if speaking up about harassment is a bad thing. I don't care who does it, the fact that people decided to harass someone just because she makes videos is abhorrent. It should be brought to light, adressed, and hammered out.

I agree, but that's not a given in light of the media coverage. How is this an equal fight again?

[Grizzly]

Sorry, how is an article discussing the death of the 'gamer' stereotype in any way comparable to being driven from your home?

And how does it relate to Zoe Quinn's games or Anita Sarkeesian's videos?

[Nemesis6]

Sorry, how is an article discussing the death of the 'gamer' stereotype in any way comparable to being driven from your home?

And how does it relate to Zoe Quinn's games or Anita Sarkeesian's videos?

Please read the article. It's not about discussing the death of any stereotype, it's an attempt to project said stereotype on the community in light of the GamerGate incident. Big difference. It relates to Zoe and Anita because these people have been successful in selling their victimhood to these news outlets, be they gaming sites or mainstream media. Throw into the mix this "Game Journo Pros" group shared by prominent game journalists, and you have the epitome of an uneven fight.

I'm not gonna concern myself with Anita's videos - she's shown how shoddy her research is already.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Sorry, how is an article discussing the death of the 'gamer' stereotype in any way comparable to being driven from your home?

And how does it relate to Zoe Quinn's games or Anita Sarkeesian's videos?

Please read the article. It's not about discussing the death of any stereotype, it's an attempt to project said stereotype on the community in light of the GamerGate incident.

Inability to accurately describe the content of an article you just linked is not helping move the discussion forward in any way.

[Mr. Vega]

I think you're creating a false equivalence here. Gamers are the ones who, along with their hobby, are being vilified as autistic, depressed, woman-hating monsters, and when they hit back, the professional victims pushing this narrative use the minority response of harassment as yet another brush to paint the entire community with.

Ok, Nemesis.

How many times have you been driven out of your home by death threats?

How many times have you had your father threatened as he was recovering from a heart attack (actually happened to ZQ!)

How many times have you been labeled a professional victim after you and your family was doxxed and threatened?

How many times have you been blamed because had the gall to respond angrily to the most vile kind of slander?

Here's my next question; did it ever occur to you, or has anyone ever pointed out to you, that comments like this may be the main reason 'gamers' get vilified? That that's the absolute best way to persuade others that you have no empathy or humanity, that you think a few pot shots fired in response to death threats and relentless harassment turns them into the real villains?

"Professional victims" can't be harmed. They just harvest all the suffering others try to inflict on them. You can't actually scare them or make them cry in a corner. Thus it's ok to do anything you want to them. It's a form that allows you to wave your responsibility to be a human being.

[Grizzly]

Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.

Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.

When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.

It's really not about the 'gaming community' at all (if it is indeed "a community" and not an enormous amount of different communities which all take place behind a screen and involve a controller)

It relates to Zoe and Anita because these people have been successful in selling their victimhood to these news outlets, be they gaming sites or mainstream media.

Zoe Quinna and Anita Sarkeesian have not been "selling their victimhood". The harassers have by making them victims.

[Mr. Vega]

And in TFYC's case, making ****loads of money by slandering ZQ.

[Nemesis6]

Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.

Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.

When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.

It's really not about the 'gaming community' at all (if it is indeed "a community" and not an enormous amount of different communities which all take place behind a screen and involve a controller)

It relates to Zoe and Anita because these people have been successful in selling their victimhood to these news outlets, be they gaming sites or mainstream media.

Zoe Quinna and Anita Sarkeesian have not been "selling their victimhood". The harassers have by making them victims.

Here's my point: These people get to represent the community when you actively censor and shun the rational, majority part, which is exactly what Anita has done. By ignoring all but them, she gets to cherry-pick examples and project these untrue stereotypes unto the majority as if they were the norm, and strengthen the people that send them these heinous threats, and my guess, based on how effective she's been at it, is that she does so deliberately in order to sell this narrative. This is why I use the term "professional victims". By focusing on these people, they get to evade criticism of their own nonsensical claims like what I linked you to. I'm also curious as to who -- apart from Phil Fish -- these game developers are who are "mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks". See, there's that loose, vague rhetoric that's just to be assumed correct -- ALL DEVS are mortified, SHOCKED at what these evil gamers have done.

[Mr. Vega]

Right, let’s say it’s a vocal minority that’s not representative of most people. Most people, from indies to industry leaders, are mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks. It’s not like there are reputable outlets publishing rational articles in favor of the trolls’ ‘side’. Don’t give press to the harassers. Don’t blame an entire industry for a few bad apples.

Yet disclaiming liability is clearly no help. Game websites with huge community hubs whose fans are often associated with blunt Twitter hate mobs sort of shrug, they say things like ‘we delete the really bad stuff, what else can we do’ and ‘those people don’t represent our community’ -- but actually, those people do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not.

When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, you’re responsible for what spawns in the vacuum. That’s what’s been happening to games.

It's really not about the 'gaming community' at all (if it is indeed "a community" and not an enormous amount of different communities which all take place behind a screen and involve a controller)

It relates to Zoe and Anita because these people have been successful in selling their victimhood to these news outlets, be they gaming sites or mainstream media.

Zoe Quinna and Anita Sarkeesian have not been "selling their victimhood". The harassers have by making them victims.

Here's my point: These people get to represent the community when you actively censor and shun the rational, majority part, which is exactly what Anita has done. By ignoring all but them, she gets to cherry-pick examples and project these untrue stereotypes unto the majority as if they were the norm, and strengthen the people that send them these heinous threats, and my guess, based on how effective she's been at it, is that she does so deliberately in order to sell this narrative. This is why I use the term "professional victims". By focusing on these people, they get to evade criticism of their own nonsensical claims like what I linked you to. I'm also curious as to who -- apart from Phil Fish -- these game developers are who are "mortified, furious, disheartened at the direction industry conversation has taken in the past few weeks". See, there's that loose, vague rhetoric that's just to be assumed correct -- EVERYONE is mortified, SHOCKED at what these evil gamers have done.

Tim Schafer (openly endorsed Anita)
Peter Molyneux
Greg Kasavin
Niel Druckmann
Hideki Kamiya (Bayonetta/Okami)
Ron Gilbert
Anna Anthropy

So nobody. You're not well read on this are you?

[Grizzly]

Here's my point: These people get to represent the community when you actively censor and shun the rational, majority part, which is exactly what Anita has done.

How has Anita managed to censor entire communties?

By ignoring all but them, she gets to cherry-pick examples and project these untrue stereotypes unto the majority as if they were the norm,

Where does she claim these are the norm?

and strengthen the people that send them these heinous threats, and my guess, based on how effective she's been at it, is that she does so deliberately in order to sell this narrative.

Pray tell how Zoe Quinn being driven from her home is "selling a narrative". Pray tell how bomb threats aimed at Anita are "selling a narrative"

This is why I use the term "professional victims". By focusing on these people, they get to evade criticism of their own nonsensical claims like what I linked you to.

As it happens, Leigh Alexander is an entirely different person from Sarkeesian and Quinn, so I fail to see how Leigh Alexander's piece helps Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian evade criticism of her own nonsensical claims.
Heck, I don't even know what these claims are.

[Nemesis6]

Peter Molyneux
Greg Kasavin
Niel Druckmann
Hideki Kamiya (Bayonetta/Okami)
Ron Gilbert
Anna Anthropy

So nobody. You're not well read on this are you?

Well that was underwhelming.

[Nemesis6]

Here's my point: These people get to represent the community when you actively censor and shun the rational, majority part, which is exactly what Anita has done.

How has Anita managed to censor entire communties?

By ignoring all but them, she gets to cherry-pick examples and project these untrue stereotypes unto the majority as if they were the norm,

Where does she claim these are the norm?

and strengthen the people that send them these heinous threats, and my guess, based on how effective she's been at it, is that she does so deliberately in order to sell this narrative.

Pray tell how Zoe Quinn being driven from her home is "selling a narrative". Pray tell how bomb threats aimed at Anita are "selling a narrative"

This is why I use the term "professional victims". By focusing on these people, they get to evade criticism of their own nonsensical claims like what I linked you to.

As it happens, Leigh Alexander is an entirely different person from Sarkeesian and Quinn, so I fail to see how Leigh Alexander's piece helps Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian evade criticism of her own nonsensical claims.
Heck, I don't even know what these claims are.

The very first thing that people noticed about Anita Sarkeesian was that the comments on her youtube videos were disabled due to what she claimed was harassment. Likewise, by making the only real interaction with the community her Ted-talk shtick about how she's a victim of online harassment, she has created a narrative where the debate is no longer about her horse**** arguments, but about her victimhood. So here the censorship is indirect, in contrast to Zoe Quinn's DMCA'ing youtube user MundaneMatt's videos critical of her game, talking to reddit moderators to get stuff removed, and m00t attending Anita's talks, which led to 4chan banning any and all debate about Gamergate.

Most of it is is indirect; Anita doesn't need to say these are the norm, all she has to do is focus on just that and contact the media about it, and they will do a variety of things such as get the story wrong, disproportionally cover her side, etc, and the end result is the same; Gamers are dead, and gamergate is all a giant 4chan conspiracy: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how-4chan-users-pushed-gamergate-into-the-national-spotlight/

The argument was never about Anita or Zoe, but about the lies they spewed and their shady behavior. Now, with the media involved, it's about their damselhood. And just like here, we are left to defend ourselves from this both indirect and direct accusation that we're all horrible people who support the threats against them. They've manipulated this entire situation for their own gain, and it's ****ing brilliant on their part. Wrong, but brilliant.