singlespace

I too saw this and was most pleased.

When did I say that we should engage GG on the terms that they want? When did I say that we should engage in rational discourse with them? I said that I think that condescensions and such are not helping. I don't see what you're getting at with FCH. I read the article and largely agree with what he is saying.

Yeah, I realize that here it isn't a problem from a practical perspective because of how much more private it is, but it easy to see the same venting happening at a much larger scale in much more public spaces from those who have much greater reach. Follow a developer who is activate on Twitter and there is a good chance you'll see the same kind of behaviour except in their case it gets spread all over the place through their social graph or through direct replies. I honestly don't know how to address it other than to bring it up in places like this when the same kind of rhetoric occurs even though the context makes the jokes and such more of a triviality as opposed to something that would have a high likelihood of being consumed by a GGer.

Do I come across as mocking? If so, then I apologize because that was not at all the intent.

Look, I get it. You made some jokes and I'm just some stranger who walks into a place that's kind of like your home and is critical of the jokes being made: it's kind of a dick thing to do. But I doubt you'll find much modern research suggesting that facts, that pointing out the flaws in arguments, especially via mechanisms like jokes, or satire, is at all effective in changing vastly differing opinions. You will find that researchers, political advocates, scientific outreach coordinators, and more have found over the last decade that the opposite is in fact true: such measures only serve to harden and galvanize the resolve of those you would like to change the most. Mocking someone's beliefs, no matter how poorly those beliefs correlate with reality, no matter how much you disagree with them, is not effective. It does the opposite of what you would hope. There is a decade of research backing this up now and I gave you two very good places to begin reading about it. The line of reasoning presented by others that even if everyone agreed that mockery wasn't a good idea, that it is perhaps too much to ask of someone to conduct themselves in such a fashion in all public outlets, I can buy, but it is such a terrible thing to consider that these jokes and emotional, instead of rational, shots at GG could be causing more harm than good?

Why would it be an indicator at all, let alone a good one? Assume there is a core element of GG that will attack any high profile person. Say Day's article had some impact in GG and some group of people who are not part of the core decide to not support GG anymore. Does that affect that core group attacking high profile people via criminal acts? No. Say it affects nothing, does that mean Day won't be doxxed? No. I do, just simply expressed in other places. I don't feel that they're equivalent at all by any means, but it seems contrary to the goal of ending this shittiness to antagonize. I'm not asking anyone to go out of their way to try and reason with them, just that I think that mockery makes it more difficult for those who have a part of their identity tied up in GG to leave. If it is, in all honesty, one of the best ways people can vent, then there's not much that can be done. That's just how things are. I don't believe they are arguing in good faith, nor do I believe that they will be eventual allies, but I do believe that they can be given the tools necessary to realize that what they're doing is wrong and that they should stop, but condescensions and slights make it much more difficult. It isn't fair, but if we want this to end as fast as possible then it is in our best interests to at least not go out of our way to make the process more protracted and difficult. I have a hard time believing that refraining from such things as Actual Ethics is equivalent to establishing a meaningful dialog with those who are very different in their fundamental beliefs.

On replying, I well understand that my opinion in these regards would be entirely unpopular and from a logistical standpoint, there is one of me and what? Half a dozen or more of you? I can't answer in full every single person if I am to have any time so I pick and choose what I can reasonably address. On your point of data, to be frank, you have no data at all to reference, just supposition. Can you tell me, in precise quantities, anything about the reception or effect of Gerstmann's or Day's pieces had? Can you tell me any comparable number at all? No, and neither can I. There is no reasonable data in those regards. What we have is opinion and the means by which we came to those opinions. My opinion is not that people need codling, but it is not necessary, and I believe harmful, to go out of one's way to ridicule as is the case of Actual Ethics and things of a similar ilk. Care for oneself and keeping heart are things that must happen, but I question this particular method, as I find it unnecessarily antagonistic to those who will not, and in some sense, cannot, separate a criticism of an idea they hold and a criticism of their person. I do not believe there can be any reasonable defence of such things as constructive. If there is no possible grounds for reconciliation, with even the non-hardliners, if it is alright to take shots at them, then I feel like this won't just be 2 months, or another 2 months, but we can all look forward to years of this.

Oh for... I'm not responding to Problem Machine with that. I just realized after reading Nachmir's comment that this conversation is more effort than it is worth.

It's looking extremely grim: http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/theblackglove/the-black-glove/

Well have fun with your jokes. I'm going to go back to not giving a shit.

I wonder about that. It's so easy to construct these caricatures of those we disagree with, with those we hate, with those we loathe. We assign to them things they never did, words they never said, thoughts they never had, and they become this awkward amalgamation of all the things we hate. When we are inevitably confronted with the real living breathing person, we can then dismiss them for all these things we have constructed in their place. "He total said it! God works in mysterious ways. What an idiot." "If you have to use but, then you're probably are doing it right now." "That's what they say, but look at what they've done." "I told you he'd post it: they all post it." It's easy to build a library of excuses to ignore everything someone has to say, especially if you perceive them to be the enemy, especially if you have something to lose.

No, someone doesn't need to be a villain to be wrong. I think that Gerstmann, Felicia Day, and Film Crit Hulk didn't mock or vilify GGers when making their point that they're wrong.

Certainly, look up Dan Kahan's papers on cultural cognition or scientific communications to begin and you can go from there. Another good place to start is with Jay Ingram who has given some interesting lectures on the topic, but those will be more difficult to come by.

The content is the same -- the context is different. The body of Sea Lioning's entire body of work is of the same tone and disposition.

I feel that Sea Loining is entirely in line with what they are, but I think that the Actually Ethics meme is unnecessarily antagonistic because it is used in such a fashion as to say look at how stupid these people are. These kinds of things are light hearted to you, but I doubt they are treated as light hearted by the people who are the subject of them. If you don't mind me asking, what class?

Who said anything about feigning sympathy or doing outreach? I just think that this whole notion of us versus them along with the associated paraphernalia of ridicule and contempt is as childish as it is harmful to ending this entire mess. Is refraining from petty insults and disdain feigning sympathy and doing outreach to you?

Good luck with that. The climate change skeptics and Tea Party have weathered far harsher condemnations and are still incredibly large groups.

In terms of scientific outreach, which has failed to reach those who they most desperately wished to reach for decades, yes it does.

It doesn't matter what your intentions are, the people who already agree with you will applaud you, the people who are the subject of your jokes will take it as yet another reason not to listen to you. When you mock and deride someone's beliefs, regardless of how right or wrong those beliefs match reality, you are setting up a situation where they must necessarily harm themselves to admit they were wrong. It doesn't matter whether it's an attack, or abuse, or whatever you want to group it with, you're setting up a situation where to change their mind, and admit they were wrong, they must also admit that they are deserving all the hate being thrown at them, that they are an idiot and rube that should be mocked. You're making it harder for someone to come to your way of thinking.

The primary factor correlated with belief is the belief of those who surround you. To be blunt, if all your friends believe one thing, you are apt to believe the same regardless of the facts. The more you set yourself as an outsider, the less someone will listen to you, hence positions like Hulk's and Gertsmann's are invaluable because they are not seen as partisan as many others and can belong to any group to an extent. Even extremely well educated people will tend to pick their social group's beliefs over those of an outsider. Though it seems counter intuitive, there is a correlation with education and how polarized your position is on any subject regardless of what the facts actually are. The most hardline people on both sides of any issue, regardless of how much evidence points in one direction or another, will be those who are the most educated.

I would be more inclined to agree with you it was limited to just here, but it seems to be the prevailing logic of the gaming community that attacking those who attacked you is a reasonable course of action in much less private places than here. What you excuse as venting, I see as needless antagonistic and extending a long dirty fight far longer than it needs to be. I cringe whenever someone yells or taunts Tea Partiers or climate change sceptics as though it will actually help their cause, as though it will actually cause shame in the those who they wish to change the most. How much more pressure has been thrown at those who don't believe in climate change than any of the petulant venting that the gaming community has managed to muster? How many more years of jokes, volumes of facts, legions of experts, have been thrown at them? We even have scientific papers published in Nature supporting tribal bonds are stronger than any attempts at humiliation or rational rebuttal -- they actually harden the resolve of those we wish to change rather than dissuade them of their position because it reinforces the notion that there is such an enemy to fight.

Is that why half of this page is made up of self congratulatory GamerGate jokes? You really think that kind of antagonistic bullshit is helping?

The thing I really appreciate about the more recent pieces discussing Gamer's Gate like Hulk, Gerstmann, and Felicia Day, is that they actually recognize and respect that the people who are supporting the whole GamerGate mess, are in fact people. This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I find it sad that most places have taken on an us versus them attitude including here.

Out of the UK, another post apocalyptic survival RPG. Not as high profile as The Flame in the Flood, but it I really like how quiet the tone of the concept art is: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mojobones/impact-winter/

Kill Screen wrote a blurb, but it doesn't have much new information: http://killscreendaily.com/articles/impact-winter-post-apoc-pixar-meets-thing/