"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

[Malfsyde]

Have I mentioned recently how spectacularly unsuccessful Gamergate has been at its aims? Zoe Quinn got writeups in Time and The New Yorker. Anita Sarkeesian's reach keeps getting bigger as people try and make up for the attacks she's suffered. Of the big sites, only the Escapist has made any moves to change editorial policy, and in doing so exposed that the site owner's kind of a dick.

 

Considering the amount of people who have chosen to quit the industry over harassment, I wouldn't call it entirely unsuccessful on their behalf. You're right though, nothing is going to change in the way video game coverage is done. The irony seems to be totally lost on them that any attempt to discuss sexism on the internet is met with disproportionate amounts of sexism, and any fair-minded person coming to this thing new is going to see where the actual victims are.

[prettyunsmart]

It gives me more joy than it probably should to see that the 'social justice gnome' comment from the first goodgamers.us review that Bjorn linked a few pages back has been deleted by moderators. So I guess you can say almost anything in their comments section, except expressing your lack of surprise at how gross the site's content turned out to be.

[Ben X]

Has anyone challenged them about that, seeing as it directly contravenes that promise they made about no comment getting deleted unless it contained personal details ("period.")?

[James]

It gives me more joy than it probably should to see that the 'social justice gnome' comment from the first goodgamers.us review that Bjorn linked a few pages back has been deleted by moderators. So I guess you can say almost anything in their comments section, except expressing your lack of surprise at how gross the site's content turned out to be.

I was going to post about that. I suppose it doesn't actually say who deleted it, but I don't see why Social Justice Gnome would have.

[clyde]

I was going to post about that. I suppose it doesn't actually say who deleted it, but I don't see why Social Justice Gnome would have.

 

[sarcasm]

 

Ever heard the term "false flag"?

 

[/sarcasm]

[Bjorn]

I was going to post about that. I suppose it doesn't actually say who deleted it, but I don't see why Social Justice Gnome would have.

 

I am Social Justice Gnome, and no, I didn't delete anything.  Which comment do people think was deleted?  The two I screencapped are still there, and scrolling through it, I don't see any missing ones, but I might be forgetting one. 

 

Ultimately I responded to several people in that thread, and felt like it was just very much like watching the gamerghazi folks talk on twitter, some ignorance, some hostility, some insults, some insistence that this was all about "ethics".  I doubt I got back and try to get anymore out of them. 

[Twig]

I am Social Justice Gnome, and no, I didn't delete anything.  Which comment do people think was deleted?  The two I screencapped are still there, and scrolling through it, I don't see any missing ones, but I might be forgetting one. 

 

Ultimately I responded to several people in that thread, and felt like it was just very much like watching the gamerghazi folks talk on twitter, some ignorance, some hostility, some insults, some insistence that this was all about "ethics".  I doubt I got back and try to get anymore out of them. 

Is it maybe one of those shadowbans? I don't know if you made an account or if it's just a "fill in your name here" things, but if it's the former, I imagine they could do that.

 

EDIT: I just checked myself and I still see the post. You guys are nuts!

[James]

The post definitely said it was deleted, but now it's back. I wish I'd taken a screenshot.

[Twig]

Should we be concerned for your sanity?!

[Henroid]

I managed to have a discussion with some GamerGate folks over Twitter, rather than the usual me being snarky and then a bunch of people getting all mad.

 

I was trying to talk to them about how clinging to a group identity may not be worthwhile; that individualism is better. It removes any ability for hijacking. The problem with "gamer" is that it's open. It's not an organization like the NRA where you have a member list and everyone is accountable for their actions and can be kicked out officially. Anyone can lay claim to "gamer," and thus their actions represent it.

 

On top of that, they were heavily focused on Leigh Alexander this morning, and I tried to present to them an alternate means of her " 'Gamers' is dead" piece - that people are tired of constantly having to babysit the label for the bad eggs that intentionally or not drag it down. It's like enough is enough, tired of doing this, we should all just be people that like playing games rather than being this ideology. Or whatever it is.

 

Ultimately I didn't convince any of the people I was talking to, but my long diatribes are out there and I asked them to maybe capture the whole discussion in an image, rather than stick with "gotcha!" captures that tend to circulate easier. If there's a conversation to be had, I tried to at least spark it (against my better judgment).

 

I should note that journalism ethics wasn't the topic at all. But y'know, we talked about one of the things that springboarded this whole mess anyway.

[JonCole]

A super, super good deconstruction of GG's arguments re: ethics and corruption - https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13fftyjopfahdvz504cdldh0zr1j52o12w

[Henroid]

The other shoe has dropped.

 

https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/511308849135882240

 

Adam Baldwin linking to an article titled, "GamerGate And Why It Matters To Conservatives." I'd been saying for a while now these people were gonna get picked up (and discarded shortly after) by politicians, and here it is. It's election season afterall.

[Gormongous]

A super, super good deconstruction of GG's arguments re: ethics and corruption - https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13fftyjopfahdvz504cdldh0zr1j52o12w

 

I was so heartened to read that, an excellent summation, and only have reasonable discussion in the comments... until the last one at the bottom, which trots out the tired old "anti-#GamerGate people are guilty of stalking and harassment too, why won't anyone talk about it" shit that is entirely unsubstantiated but a favorite of people trying to reclaim the middle ground for their hate.

[Henroid]

I was so heartened to read that, an excellent summation, and only have reasonable discussion in the comments... until the last one at the bottom, which trots out the tired old "anti-#GamerGate people are guilty of stalking and harassment too, why won't anyone talk about it" shit that is entirely unsubstantiated but a favorite of people trying to reclaim the middle ground for their hate.

It's also the line that gets pulled out to change the subject when you stomp all over the arguments one presents.

[Problem Machine]

The other shoe has dropped.

 

https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/511308849135882240

 

Adam Baldwin linking to an article titled, "GamerGate And Why It Matters To Conservatives." I'd been saying for a while now these people were gonna get picked up (and discarded shortly after) by politicians, and here it is. It's election season afterall.

Oh my. That is a rather damning endorsement. This pleases me.

[SecretAsianMan]

A super, super good deconstruction of GG's arguments re: ethics and corruption - https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13fftyjopfahdvz504cdldh0zr1j52o12w

 

 

The other shoe has dropped.

 

https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/511308849135882240

 

Adam Baldwin linking to an article titled, "GamerGate And Why It Matters To Conservatives." I'd been saying for a while now these people were gonna get picked up (and discarded shortly after) by politicians, and here it is. It's election season afterall.

 

I read these back to back.  It's amazing the huge amount of contrast between them.  The first is calm and coherent with reasonable thoughts and well considered statements.  The second is nonsense from start to finish.  One of the comments to the second article said "I appreciate a straightforward discussion of the story" which is basically the complete opposite of what the article actually is.  I seriously don't understand how this world continues to function.

[Henroid]

Well it goes to show that a lot of the problem is that the GamerGate people are allowing themselves to fall into the trap of, "If it doesn't agree with me, it's not a good argument." As I wrote before, it is SO HARD to get them to so much as ease off the intensity of a statement they make. Hell even I rescinded a comment I made when it was pointed out to be wrong in some way, and also gave kudos points to a good point. I thought those good faith gestures would have them come around to hear me out some, but instead it was paranoid jargon from the church of video games.

 

Edit - I should note, I recently saw a tweet from a GamerGater that declared (some wording is off), "If you aren't with us 100%, you're against us, gtfo."

[Problem Machine]

Hell even I rescinded a comment I made when it was pointed out to be wrong in some way, and also gave kudos points to a good point.

"He's weakening! We're winning! Go in for the kill, go in for the kill!"

[Bjorn]

You know how much the gamergate people hate doxxing, and doxxers.  They hate it almost as much as they hate insults and abuse.  Often, they consider it one of the great cardinal sins (unless, of course, anyone who they don't like claims to be doxxed, in which case they are just faking it, but that's another story). 

 

Well, that "conservative" article, the person who wrote it, that's someone who likes (it's a donotlink link, thanks to whoever started using that earlier!) to out people.  He has a whole series of posts trying to figure out the identity of another blogger, encouraging the readers to help, publishing bread-crumb trails he's found, and while ultimately his "ethics" stopped him from personally outing her, thankfully he could link to someone else less ethical. 

 

I'm sure we will see the gamerghazi folks rally and denounce this unethical fiend any moment now. 

[Blambo]

I'm having this conversation with a gamergater (a rare species of alligator) who is insisting that feminists are shaming artists into making PC art and considers it systemic cultural oppression, but at the same time doesn't recognize the actual systemic cultural oppression in art. It's really disorienting.

[JonCole]

It's kinda hilarious how GGers think that feminists are this massive force that could possibly have more systemic cultural oppressive impact than hundreds of years of worldwide patriarchy.

[Henroid]

Cracked decided to share their piece on GamerGate. Guess what the GG reaction is? (HINT DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS)

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-90-second-guide-to-determine-if-your-internet-cause-bs/

[Gormongous]

Cracked decided to share their piece on GamerGate. Guess what the GG reaction is? (HINT DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS)

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-90-second-guide-to-determine-if-your-internet-cause-bs/

 

I was surprised at the compassion that's palpable in the last point. That's not something I expect from a Cracked article. Of course, every single comment interprets that compassion as self-righteousness, because kindness and consideration for people who disagree with you is obviously some kind of ploy, right?

 

That's the main reason I'm not optimistic about the large-scale effects of engaging #GamerGate. Sure, some of those people were going along with the crowd or were ill-informed or just wanted their own voice to be heard, and there's merit in opening a dialogue with them, but so many others are people who are literally unable to imagine anyone not speaking from the same place of anger, confusion, ignorance, and fear as them. I've just seen way too many attempts to extend an olive branch or elevate the discussion slapped down as a rhetorical tactic that is even more despicable than spewing bile on Twitter.

[Bjorn]

Sarkeesian spoke at the XOXO Festival about #gamerghazi and harassment.
 

Taking the stage to a standing ovation, Sarkeesian delivered talk that wouldn't have been out of place on Feminist Frequency. Over 20 minutes, she coolly analyzed the strategies that trolls have used to harass her, rooting their fears in a gaming culture that is slowly changing to improve the depiction of women. "The perpetrators do not see themselves as perpetrators at all," she said. "They see themselves as noble warriors." To preserve that view, she said, they deny that women are being threatened at all. "We are blamed for the abuse we receive and regularly told that we are either asking for it or inventing it entirely," she said.

[JonCole]

Also don't read the comments for that article. I accidentally did and participated to some extent, but it seems like the prevalent thought is "if her work isn't of an academic/scientific quality and she is dishonest or misrepresents some small fraction of her evidence in her Feminist Frequency videos, why should I believe her?" or basic arguments like "what reason would I have to just believe someone over someone else?"

 

Sometimes I really hate men's demands for logical explanations for everything, false equivalences, and walls of text.