"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[Bjorn]

Oh, totally different topic, my daughter gave her gamergate presentation in class today, and no one stood up to say, "Actually, it's about..."   She actually thought it went really well. 

[Problem Machine]

Honestly, with people so self-righteous that they take any concession as weakness, that they take any outreach as a victory, what the fuck is the problem with trying some lighthearted ribbing? There's nothing harsher in these jokes than I would give to a close friend who I thought was acting a bit silly, and yet any position that isn't 100% sympathetic to their deluded and disastrous beliefs is doing harm to the discourse? FUCK. THAT.

How many GamerGaters have you converted with your outreach program? How many victims of their harassment have you given a moment of comfort or joy? At least I'm doing something, and you can disagree with my methodology but fuck you if you question my motivations here and fuck your tone policing horseshit. I respect Gamergaters as fucking human beings, and as human beings I will tell them when they are being goddamn idiots, the exact same way I would tell my friends, because I don't think they're a bunch of babies. They're grown fucking men and women who should know better. And if the fact that someone is having a giggle at their expense is what prevents them from having their grand realization that "oh wait this is actually a hate group" then that's really fucking unfortunate, but I posit that anyone who would be tripped up by that technicality was probably not predisposed towards such an epiphany in the first place.

[Gormongous]

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?

 

Nothing, and I mean nothing, over the past two months has ever led me to believe that, if we treated all members of #GamerGate with the utmost consideration and respect from the outset, we would be any closer to seeing this mess being ended. There have been no instances in my extensive reading of the articles and conversations, beyond intermittent one-on-one dialogues between personal acquaintances, where a moderate stance by a critic has led an avowed member of #GamerGate to retract and apologize for radical statements. All I have seen to that effect is conciliation treated (perhaps rightfully) as weakness by #GamerGate. I ask again, what is your evidence beyond paraphrases of uncited studies and a rather unintuitive understanding of radical reactionary movements that such is the correct way forward?

 

Also, quite frankly, and I only speak for myself here, but fuck your high ground. Incredible, intelligent women are homeless right now because of these bullies and those who apologize for or defend them. They have every ounce of my disdain for that, however sympathetic their reasons may be. I will not pretend otherwise on the outside chance that my exercise of restraint will somehow give them pause, especially with no evidence whatsoever that it even can. I find it unethical to tolerate hate in the hope that it will abate with time. If these people want to be treated with respect, then they need to distance themselves from a movement that has repeatedly and publicly been shown to resemble a hate group in every way. I know of no other way to say it.

[singlespace]

Serious question.  So do you consider the Sea Lioning comic to be bullshit antagonistic mockery?  Or the best examples of the "Actually Ethics" memes?  If those are fine, how do the jokes here cross the line that those don't?  If you think those are just as bad, then we've got a bit of a different discussion going on. 

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.

 

Oh, totally different topic, my daughter gave her gamergate presentation in class today, and no one stood up to say, "Actually, it's about..."   She actually thought it went really well. 

If you don't mind me asking, what class?

[Smart Jason]

I feel that Sea Loining is entirely in line with what they are

 

Could you expound upon that? Frankly, I feel like you're either misinterpreting the comic or you're really cherry picking what one can and can't say about GamerGate.

[singlespace]

Could you expound upon that? Frankly, I feel like you're either misinterpreting the comic or you're really cherry picking what one can and can't say about GamerGate.

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.

[singlespace]

I ask again, what is your evidence beyond paraphrases of uncited studies and a rather unintuitive understanding of radical reactionary movements that such is the correct way forward?

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.

[Merus]

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

 

The climate change skeptics and Tea Party have a more established milieu where they are able to avoid checking their opinions against reality. Most people suffer small amounts of cognitive dissonance daily - where are my keys, I was sure I left them here - and are usually happy to abandon their existing identity when it involves a fairly small shift.

 

To leave the climate skeptic milieu, for instance, requires someone to give up the idea that environmentalists are always wrong and that conservative thought is usually right, as well as all the self-serving justifications for such. That's a tall ask at the best of times, and it becomes taller when the milieu is as effective as the Fox News echo chamber is, and doubly so when the evangelical movement is happy to demonise environmentalists because it makes their political allies happy (and it conforms to the paranoia of the John Birch Society which still has an influence on the evangelical milieu). This is complicated by the milieu reinforcing the idea that people outside the milieu are not to be trusted - not merely 'wrong' but less human.

 

Gamergate, by contrast, is relatively small-time. Its milieu is 8chan, mostly - it used to be 4chan but they got excluded from 4chan - paranoids, anti-semitics and MRAs, none of whom have significant presence in the gaming subculture and many of whom have been happy to throw games under the bus to preserve their own milieu. Their dehumanisation is mostly limited to a handful of people. It's small, and unstable, but much more vicious.

 

Confronting them head-on, as you point out, is ineffective, as it's an attack from outside the milieu. But the vulnerability of the milieu is important; while the most effective strategy is to have them leave the milieu, even temporarily, and see from the outside how poisonous it is, satirical jokes can be effective in highlighting the inconsistency of the milieu.

[Problem Machine]

Thinking about it -- Wouldn't the premise that any mocking or vilification of GGers merely sets them in their ways, taken to its logical conclusion, suggest that we should never disagree with them at all?

[singlespace]

Thinking about it -- Wouldn't the premise that any mocking or vilification of GGers merely sets them in their ways, taken to its logical conclusion, suggest that we should never disagree with them at all?

 

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.

[Problem Machine]

And yet to a mindset that is tuned to react to any dissent as vilification or mockery, it will have the same effect. Thus, 'to it's logical conclusion'. The injection of humor into a critique of GG reasoning is no more inherently othering than otherwise.

[singlespace]

Gamergate, by contrast, is relatively small-time. Its milieu is 8chan, mostly - it used to be 4chan but they got excluded from 4chan - paranoids, anti-semitics and MRAs, none of whom have significant presence in the gaming subculture and many of whom have been happy to throw games under the bus to preserve their own milieu. Their dehumanisation is mostly limited to a handful of people. It's small, and unstable, but much more vicious.

 

Confronting them head-on, as you point out, is ineffective, as it's an attack from outside the milieu. But the vulnerability of the milieu is important; while the most effective strategy is to have them leave the milieu, even temporarily, and see from the outside how poisonous it is, satirical jokes can be effective in highlighting the inconsistency of the milieu.

 

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.

[Problem Machine]

Do you feel that I have misrepresented the arguments that GG has put forth in some way with my jokes? Because THAT I can accept as a legit critique, even though I rather disagree, since I put a lot of work into representing the actual arguments I've seen.

 

In principle I agree with you: That's a thing that happens a lot, and a dangerous trap. In terms of your specifics, I think that it's really jumping the gun to say that anything that mocks the stances of GamerGate casts them as villains and buffoons. The lines are drawn very clearly: Not everyone in GG is a harasser, but it is a harassment movement. Not all who support GG are driven by hate, but it fits the parameters of a hate group. Taking the aspects that drive these classifications to task is NOT an attack on the heart and soul of everyone who belongs to the group, and that sophistic conflation is what has driven so much of GamerGate's longevity. Forgive me for not playing into that delusion.

[Nachimir]

(Oh god, two more pages debating a bunch of knock knock jokes overnight? No thanks).

 

Does anyone else find it extremely troubling that TotalBiscuit's (typically self-important) statement on Dodger contains the words "legitimate harassment"?

 

That really stuck out to me too, they're weasel words. It's also obvious he hasn't dealt with cases like tis much before. He states that he thinks the harasser needs help, but has gone into quite a bit of detail over things he's done, then posted it in a highly public and visible place.

[singlespace]

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

[Merus]

The messy and unpleasant process of trying to grapple with a reactionary mob without just taking up needlepoint instead continues.

[Ben X]

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

Remember everyone, it's easy to build a library of excuses to ignore everything someone has to say.

[singlespace]

Remember everyone, it's easy to build a library of excuses to ignore everything someone has to say.

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.

[Gormongous]

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.

 

You haven't exactly done a great job selling your point. You dive into a conversation that's dozens of pages long with the attempt to tone-police a brief two-page sideshow of questionable seriousness. You also chose one sentence to answer out of multi-paragraph posts I made questioning the efficacy of a conciliating attitude towards #GamerGate. I appreciate you linking me actual studies, which I will look up when I go to the library Thursday to renew this semester's load of dissertation reading, but the data still does not bear out in this situation, since conciliatory moderates like Gerstmann and Day have gotten just as much hate as confrontational feminists like Wu and Klepek, gender and exposure being equal. If your model held at all, Day's wishes not to be doxxed in order to open a dialogue of trust would have actually been borne out, rather than violated within minutes of her posting said wishes. I wish love and kindness could always win the day, but people only have two cheeks to turn.

 

If you're worried that making jokes at the expense of #GamerGate's beliefs is a sign of dehumanization, don't worry. I know a couple self-avowed members of #GamerGate personally and I would never allow my utter contempt for their ideology of hate to obscure the fundamentally human nature that they display with their attraction to and use of said ideology. In the meantime, restructuring the very arguments #GamerGate uses into nonsensical jokes is a way for people who have to deal with the harassment and abuse that is the movement's primary means of expression to keep sane. If you think that we make jokes about hypothetical members of #GamerGate to show that we hate them, your relationship with your friends and family must be very staid. Humor is not a weapon unless used ignorantly, and the amount of consideration and thought displayed in these past eighty-five pages shows to me that the one thing this forum doesn't have about #GamerGate is ignorance.

 

Honestly, I've spent the night thinking about it, and I think there's a danger in taking #GamerGate too seriously. First and foremost, there's a danger because they're not that serious themselves. I mean, sure, they commit awful acts that take dozens of hours of work to pull off, but they do so in defense of a facile understanding of ethics, both personal and professional, and using talking points that border on thought-terminating cliches. If we're always there to oppose them with all of our rhetorical might, we end up taking #GamerGate more seriously than they are even able to take themselves, which accordingly lends them a legitimacy they can't get on their own. But more importantly, at least for me, there's the issue of self-care. The tactics of #GamerGate, like the tactics of most longtime and dedicated trolls, are meant to exhaust their victims, both intentional and collateral. Many people in #GamerGate are willing to say the same vapid things over and over because they know we'll wear our fingers to the bone typing out responses, no matter whether those responses are charitable or vituperative. There's a certain awareness, mostly implicit within the movement, that a human wave built around these tactics will eventually see success. And they have seen some success, for sure. That's why it's so important to keep our hearts however we can, whether by taking a weekend vacation from #GamerGate or by using their talking points to build knock-knock jokes. Sometimes that's how we have to sustain ourselves when a hate campaign against women lasts for over two months.

[Problem Machine]

Re: GamerGaters' lack of seriousness: https://storify.com/vivian_games/a-week-on-gamergate-forums-1

[singlespace]

You haven't exactly done a great job selling your point. You dive into a conversation that's dozens of pages long with the attempt to tone-police a brief two-page sideshow of questionable seriousness. You also chose one sentence to answer out of multi-paragraph posts I made questioning the efficacy of a conciliating attitude towards #GamerGate. I appreciate you linking me actual studies, which I will look up when I go to the library Thursday to renew this semester's load of dissertation reading, but the data still does not bear out in this situation, since conciliatory moderates like Gerstmann and Day have gotten just as much hate as confrontational feminists like Wu and Klepek, gender and exposure being equal. If your model held at all, Day's wishes not to be doxxed in order to open a dialogue of trust would have actually been borne out, rather than violated within minutes of her posting said wishes. I wish love and kindness could always win the day, but people only have two cheeks to turn.

 

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.

[osmosisch]

The thing to me is, the idea that gamergate has anything to do with ethics is so laughable that it's not actually ridiculing per se to reframe the things they actually say by adding some pictures - just revealing that the emperor has no clothes as it were. There's a long and proud tradition of pointing out inconsistencies between word and deed in such a manner.

I agree with your general point that being needlessly offensive is probably not productive, but disagree that knock-knock jokes and image macros are anything of the sort.

[Bolegium]

FILM CRIT HULK full length article about gg: http://badassdigest.com/2014/10/27/film-crit-hulk-smash-on-despair-gamergate-and-quitting-the-hulk/

 

(This isn't intentionally directed at Gormongous/singlespace, Just wanted to post this *fucking awesome* article and it was a coincidence that the discussion had veered this way.)

 

I don't expect anyone to be 'nice' to gg in the face of their death threats, harassment, lies, and more lies, but I am glad that someone like HULK can still somehow try to reach out to the repressed humanity of these 'inhumane' people.

 

This isn't HULK being naive, or an attempt to take the "high ground" or whatever you want to call it. This is choosing hope and optimism in the face of justified cynicism. Giving up on ever attempting civil discourse, even when taking that road is completely justified, is still just giving up in the end. I gave up wanting to talk with anyone pro-gg before any of this shit started, but i'm glad that there are people who still try.

 

Hopefully this doesn't seem like i'm playing some bullshit devil's advocate, because fuck the (tone) police. singlespace should read HULK's article for a more nuanced look on how to not come across as a gg apologist (not saying you are) when arguing for more understanding. Because his article actually is about ethics in journalism, and life.

 

(also i'm probably misrepresenting how 'civil' HULK is towards GG, in his own words "THERE IS LITERALLY NO WAY TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION IN A CIVIL WAY" and that any calls from gg supporters for more 'civility' is "DOWNRIGHT FUCKING POISON.)

[SuperBiasedMan]

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.

 

It took literally minutes after her post for Felicia Day to be doxxed. That's not the most stringent data but it's a shitty indicator for sure.

 

I have little else to add except to ask you not to only sympathise with GamerGate, they are people with misguided goals and a persecution complex, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't also sympathise with the people being seriously attacked, threatened and harassed over GG. Sure, GGers will take the jokes as an attack, but that doesn't make it equivalent. It doesn't mean that the attacks by GG are less serious or less legitimate. People attack by GG have an emotional assault on them, people need to cope somehow. We're all humans and even if your way was definitely the best, it's difficult to maintain a visage of treating GG calmly when people that want to push this medium forward are being terrorised by them.

Maybe you have a point about how to treat GG, I'm in two minds about it, but I've been in multiple conversations with them and I don't think it's fair to ask others to make such an effort when the GG members I saw made no effort to reconcile anything.

[feelthedarkness]

Humor has often been a part of social resistance, from The Black Panther Coloring Book, editorial cartoons of the end of the gilded age, court jesters, social media/memes as part of the arab spring, to Oliver/Colbert/Stewart. 

 

While I respect the criticism that we need to be careful about actions that might further expose existing victims, I also reject any idea thats 1) possible to fan the jerks flames more than they self fan, 2) be nice in hopes that niceness will stop them from threatening murder.