@Tuism: Rusty simply said that he feels engaging with gamer gate people is a waste of time, but that sexism is a worthwhile thing to deal with and that it's pervasive.
I feel like focusing on one line about a comment on youtube misses a lot of the rest of his post, which addresses exactly what you're asking him: If their entire platform is based on blind hate and in some cases a very deeply rooted prejudice, how the heck do you remove that? It's not something that can just be gabbed away by some wannabe word-mages. In fact, it's probably something you can't fix unless you can go back and fix the way people have been raised. That's super well said. Also, wannabe word-mages is wonderfully juicy ;)
(My answer to that was that perhaps it's futile to even bother, and mayyybe we should rather focus on trying to fix society. We have a powerful tool at our disposal for that: pop culture.) - edit: posted before I saw the above post, mostly the same clarification.
Everyone should read the link @rustybroomhandle posted earlier. Especially if you're trying to figure out ways to handle PR in that sort of situation: That's what it's like to be in the center of something like this...
(Context for the above is that it's in response to a review posted on GoodGamer, a site that was started up by the #gamergate people wanting their own site after many people pointed out that the internet is a good place to do things like that with no money... The review is of Hatoful Boyfriend)
So, it does seem to me like there's still conversation to be had and again I would like to propose that that's what we spend next meetup discussing. I think we're all adult-enough for this not to end in tears and I'm happy to be the middle man and just manage the conversation rather than get involved if we need a chair.
@Tuism: Rusty simply said that he feels engaging with gamer gate people is a waste of time, but that sexism is a worthwhile thing to deal with and that it's pervasive.
I feel like focusing on one line about a comment on youtube misses a lot of the rest of his post, which addresses exactly what you're asking him: If their entire platform is based on blind hate and in some cases a very deeply rooted prejudice, how the heck do you remove that? It's not something that can just be gabbed away by some wannabe word-mages. In fact, it's probably something you can't fix unless you can go back and fix the way people have been raised. That's super well said. Also, wannabe word-mages is wonderfully juicy ;)
Actually, I feel like the point of what @Blackshipsfillthesky was trying to talk about is being entirely missed. He wanted to talk about how sensible and reasonable people could have handled #gamergate in such a way that didn't create a huge amount of lashing for other good people, OR to alienate those who didn't actively take a side.
But a bunch of people want to talk about how we can shout at sexist people some more.
So that's the two sides of the "discussion" I'm seeing, and it feels to me the latter isn't engaging with the former.
If their entire platform is based on blind hate and in some cases a very deeply rooted prejudice, how the heck do you remove that? It's not something that can just be gabbed away by some wannabe word-mages. In fact, it's probably something you can't fix unless you can go back and fix the way people have been raised. That's super well said. Also, wannabe word-mages is wonderfully juicy ;)
The point that I see is trying to be spoken about here was not whether we can fix sexism. It was trying to see whether we can fix how the topic gets talked about so that people who aren't sexist and unreasonable don't feel like they're being shouted at which causes more knee-jerk backlash ad infinitum.
@dammit unfortunately simply saying that you should discuss this at the meetup is kinda exclusionary, since there are people who can't be there, and this is the kind of thing that really needs a lot of thought put into what is said. And in an open floor format where people speak things will end up going on tangents and I doubt you will really end up any closer to an answer that you are looking for.
---
After speaking to Rami and Evan I have to say my perspective on the matter has shifted quite a bit. So when I have a bit more time to sit down and really think out a post about this I will try and outline some thoughts on the matter, but right now the contract work is a calling.
@tuism That's exactly where the division happens. Any attempts to address that whole spiel in a reasonable manner has resulted in nothing but hate flung at the person attempting the reasonable discourse. And "sexism" comes up not as some random topic, but because it's at the root of it.
@dammit unfortunately simply saying that you should discuss this at the meetup is kinda exclusionary, since there are people who can't be there, and this is the kind of thing that really needs a lot of thought put into what is said. And in an open floor format where people speak things will end up going on tangents and I doubt you will really end up any closer to an answer that you are looking for.
I can't agree with you there. People are having these kinds of conversations over the watercooler all the time, so why can't we have one with the Cape Town people (who are able to attend one meetup). As you said yourself, talking to Rami and Evan made you think differently. What if Evan and Danny talking to each other makes other people think differently? Why would you want to prevent that just because you can't attend?
Also, I'll add that talking in person is less likely to end in tears because you have that other 70% of communication: body language, tone ect, that we just don't have online.
Speaking of attacking people. The press seems to have weekly doses of "gamers did x horrible thing".
I suggest a topic of discussion that goes: "What can we do to help produce better gamers?" - rather than mushing through the vile river of poo that is GamerGate.
But a bunch of people want to talk about how we can shout at sexist people some more.
...
The point that I see is trying to be spoken about here was not whether we can fix sexism. It was trying to see whether we can fix how the topic gets talked about so that people who aren't sexist and unreasonable don't feel like they're being shouted at which causes more knee-jerk backlash ad infinitum.
I honestly don't understand where this is coming from. Like, who or what is accusing reasonable people who aren't sexist of sexism? Why is the response to such perceived accusations defensiveness? This is, as always, a classic problem with any kind of privilege-examining and @rustybroomhandle is completely right in saying that it gets dealt with through education.
Basically - How do people feel less "shouted at" by conversations of feminism and sexism that don't actually attack them personally in any way? Well, they need a better understanding of those methods of thought. It's either that or stop talking about it entirely. I hope I don't need to point out that that's not really an acceptable solution.
What's reasonable about constantly derailing a conversation about a topic in order to require others to tell you they know it's not about you personally? Like, I don't know much about art, but I don't stand up and insist that I'm not blind when people start talking about it... I don't know much about medicine, but I don't need doctors to keep telling me that I'm not stupid in order to try and listen to them about my health.
This whole desire to "not be shouted at" is simply an indication of how little value society places on this sort of discussion of privilege (be it racism, sexism or whatever) because that discussion has to pass through some sort of social acceptability standard that's way more harsh than any standard required of "more rigorous" fields. I really wish I could explain how the very thing you're requesting NOT be about sexism actually very much IS.
It might be an interesting idea to consider how much it sucks being told that you're NOT reasonable and that you're shouting at people for simply discussing a topic, no matter how much effort you put into trying to be rational and non-accusatory.
I don't really want to get dragged into this shouty match - which I suspect is precisely what @Blackships had declared not wanted to get dragged into.
Let me clarify this. I am not sexist, I do not wish ills on women, in or out of the industry.
Then why do I feel like I'm being made to feel that way whenever I get anywhere near this topic? Is it because I'm unreasonable and am secretly a nazi sexist? Gods I hope not. And if I am, then I suck.
I honestly don't understand where this is coming from. Like, who or what is accusing reasonable people who aren't sexist of sexism? Why is the response to such perceived accusations defensiveness? This is, as always, a classic problem with any kind of privilege-examining and @rustybroomhandle is completely right in saying that it gets dealt with through education.
Who's disagreeing with this? We need the world to be more educated. Cool.
Basically - How do people feel less "shouted at" by conversations of feminism and sexism that don't actually attack them personally in any way?
And this is exactly what the conversation was trying to be - your stating that the statements aren't harmful doesn't shout at anyone but pureblood sexists and dicks doesn't prevent perfectly reasonable people from feeling like they are being attacked. If we can't get past perceptions being reality, then we can't have this conversation. You can remain righteous and believe that you have no responsibility towards how people see this topic, and those who feel like they're being attacked can, well, remain feeling sore from being rubbed the wrong way because they're just unreasonable. And what would that accomplish? Not very much, I'm afraid.
Well, they need a better understanding of those methods of thought. It's either that or stop talking about it entirely. I hope I don't need to point out that that's not really an acceptable solution.
Yes we need a better understanding of how to talk about this stuff.
What's reasonable about constantly derailing a conversation about a topic
You're derailing what @Blackshipsfillthesky were trying to talk about so much that he stopped wanting to talk about it. And that feels like it's the norm around this kind of stuff.
in order to require others to tell you they know it's not about you personally? Like, I don't know much about art, but I don't stand up and insist that I'm not blind when people start talking about it... I don't know much about medicine, but I don't need doctors to keep telling me that I'm not stupid in order to try and listen to them about my health.
Not sure what this means, really.
This whole desire to "not be shouted at" is simply an indication of how little value society places on this sort of discussion of privilege (be it racism, sexism or whatever) because that discussion has to pass through some sort of social acceptability standard that's way more harsh than any standard required of "more rigorous" fields. I really wish I could explain how the very thing you're requesting NOT be about sexism actually very much IS.
One can talk about why people don't want to be shouted at, but it doesn't change the fact that people don't. And I do think that creating a friendlier conversation around what you want to be talked about would indeed HELP it being talked about. As opposed to what is/has happened up to this point - a lot of people NOT talking about it because of an escalation in "I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG BOOYA" all round.
It might be an interesting idea to consider how much it sucks being told that you're NOT reasonable and that you're shouting at people for simply discussing a topic, no matter how much effort you put into trying to be rational and non-accusatory.
Granted, and I bet it's pretty frustrating. Just as @Blackshipsfillthesky sounds... He's trying to talk about thing X, when he's constantly being told not to talk about thing X because everyone is shouting about thing Y, which is of course the better thing to talk about. Because it's more right.
I can't agree with you there. People are having these kinds of conversations over the watercooler all the time, so why can't we have one with the Cape Town people (who are able to attend one meetup). As you said yourself, talking to Rami and Evan made you think differently. What if Evan and Danny talking to each other makes other people think differently? Why would you want to prevent that just because you can't attend?
Also, I'll add that talking in person is less likely to end in tears because you have that other 70% of communication: body language, tone ect, that we just don't have online.
@dammit the reason I wrote this was because my 'talking' to Evan was online where he had time to write out a considered piece. When I was talking to Rami about it it was in my car driving back from MS to Braam. In both cases it was a duologue where the person I was speaking was fully able to form and express ideas without another person interrupting. This very discussion kinda shows why the forum format can be poor when it comes to things where a person needs time and space to give a considered response.
Also you are misinterpreting what I said in the post you quoted. I said that a meeting was "kinda exclusionary" all that is implied is that by doing so there would be a limitation of knowledge and ideas that would be spread. I realize that the most likely response to this is something along the lines of "But in your above conversations it was only you and the other person, can you get more exclusion?" Which is why I said that I want to sit down, when I have some more time, and write what I had gained by talking to them so that others may benefit.
Also "kinda exclusionary" by no means implies that I don't wan dialogue to happen in a variety of places! And really why would I even want to stop it? All I did was caution that there are flaws to the aforementioned format of discussion, and hoped that people would post their knowledge on a place where it is openly accessible so that all can benefit from it once you have had a chance to talk and think about it.
I'm really sorry if my post led you to believe that I was trying to stop dialogue when really I wanted to open it up, and I will try to convey my thoughts more clearly in the future. But as I said I am somewhat, very, busy I currently cannot give forum posts my utmost attention or else I would have simply written out the thoughts that are currently in my head about the issue.
@HermanTulleken I am well aware that we could do one in JHB. But I would advise against that. Such discussions are often dominated by the 5 loudest people in the room. And these arguments tend to be cyclical, and people can get lost over the smallest point because they did not have enough to to give a considered response because they are trying to get a word in between those 5 loudest people.
Ideally if we were to do something like this. A kind of panel discussion where 4 people who have done thorough research ahead of time and come in with thoughtful and prepared things to talk about with a person who can run such an event and keep everyone on track while allowing a bit of audience participation would be ideal. The reason I am saying this is the contrast between the Indie Marketing Panel at AMaze and the general mishmash that happens when people at the community night try and talk over each other.
I'm not saying be meek. More like, be aware of how the people you're speaking to see themselves, and see you, and try talk to them on terms that won't end up offending them.
... Actually, I feel like the point of what @Blackshipsfillthesky was trying to talk about is being entirely missed. He wanted to talk about how sensible and reasonable people could have handled #gamergate in such a way that didn't create a huge amount of lashing for other good people, OR to alienate those who didn't actively take a side. ...
These two points seem similar, except I really don't think a neutral stance is possible on the issue. I suspect the reason X and Y are so entwined in this discussion is because enough people can see that "didn't actively take a side" is taking a side.
How do we deal with it, as indies, as PR? Indies did what they could, the open letter, responding to individuals everywhere, every indie "news" outlet and "celeb" calling it unreasonable/childish. All of it largely only interpreted as "shouty" and to the wind at that. That pretty much proves how much of a farce it was, that the issue was and is larger, that discussion X is also discussion Y.
If you guys do decide to talk about this it would be cool if you could record it for those of us that are not able to attend the meetups. Its not ideal cause the peeps not at the meetup cant contribute to the discussion without posting on the forums about it. But I think its at least better than us knowing nothing about what was said.
I'm not saying be meek. More like, be aware of how the people you're speaking to see themselves, and see you, and try talk to them on terms that won't end up offending them.
... Actually, I feel like the point of what @Blackshipsfillthesky was trying to talk about is being entirely missed. He wanted to talk about how sensible and reasonable people could have handled #gamergate in such a way that didn't create a huge amount of lashing for other good people, OR to alienate those who didn't actively take a side. ...
These two points seem similar, except I really don't think a neutral stance is possible on the issue. I suspect the reason X and Y are so entwined in this discussion is because enough people can see that "didn't actively take a side" is taking a side.
How do we deal with it, as indies, as PR? Indies did what they could, the open letter, responding to individuals everywhere, every indie "news" outlet and "celeb" calling it unreasonable/childish. All of it largely only interpreted as "shouty" and to the wind at that. That pretty much proves how much of a farce it was, that the issue was and is larger, that discussion X is also discussion Y.
For some reason it is continually assumed that the only conversation being had here is between people who are dead set feminists and people who are dead sexists. So the argument seem to go "because people who are dead set sexists will always be dead set sexist dicks, there's no point in changing the way we talk".
What about all the people in the middle who are hearing the shouting match and feel like that both sides are shouting at them? Would it benefit everyone if people who are not dead set sexists weren't shouted at for potentially being one? Would it benefit everyone if people who are not dead set feminists weren't shouted at for potentially being one?
Who is making this assumption? I'm both sexist and feminist, I believe being the latter includes to a very large part acknowledging the first and actively correcting one's own bias. The two are not mutually exclusive, at least certainly not to me, so if you're interpreting my comment as such, perhaps it's not in the writing but the reading?
@Tuism: There's so much effort put into not being called sexist. Except that's magical bullshit - everyone is sexist. We live in a society that teaches us to be sexist, that rewards sexist thinking, that inculcates us all into sexist systems every day of our lives. Feminism is simply being aware of that and saying it sucks. I am sexist. I'm also a feminist, which is why I try to be less sexist.
Nobody gets to go "Oh no, not me, I'm NOT SEXIST!" and be taken seriously. At best, all that means is that someone can't see the sexism they've been indoctrinated into as part of living in society. At worst, that's an attempt to prevent discussion about someone's perception of sexism so that people don't learn from it... Either way, all it does is sustain the status quo - which is currently a pretty damn sexist way of existing. That doesn't mean that everyone is actively doing sexist things, no! There's a pretty big gulf between existing in a sexist system and, y'know, shouting that someone's a slut on the internet, but there's also a gulf between denying that sexism might have an impact on how we think and actively trying to challenge that impact when we notice its traces in ourselves.
I understand how that can feel like you're being assaulted, or being called names, but the simple fact is that there isn't really a neutral perspective on sexism because it's constantly ongoing and everyone's part of it whether they want to be or not. The best thing we can do is be aware of it and try to change what we do when we're made aware of it. Nobody is calling you a sexist because that's a stupid thing for someone to do, we're all sexist. We're sexist because of a bunch of decisions that we didn't get to make, that we didn't have a say in, so let's start having a say now, maybe?
The argument you're having about there being sides and structure and neutrality isn't reality, so of course it's frustrating to have. I'm trying to point out that you don't need to be having it. This is what is ALWAYS being pointed out. Every time.
As for there being a better way to talk about this stuff? Yeah, that exists. It's called feminism.
We are all sexist and racist and classcist and we are all brought up believing things x y and z and it's good for us to be aware of all those things so we can make better choices, choices that are ultimately our own.
Great. That's awesome. Does that change the way this is being spoken about?
So there's absolutely no need to talk about any of this stuff in any different way than everyone has been doing, because there's nothing wrong with the way people have been speaking about it, because we accept that people will be riled up the wrong way, period, because we accept that there's no better way to discuss this than the way it's been happening till now.
MANY people have disengaged from this discourse because of the way it's being handled, and if that's fine, cool. You can always argue that people who don't engage are either 1) already convinced that the good is good or 2) already dicks and dicks can't change anyway.
As for there being a better way to talk about this stuff? Yeah, that exists. It's called feminism.
I have no idea what that means. It means about as much to me as some inside joke/jargon that someone throws around to sound cooler than thou. In the very same way I keep hearing "check your privilege" without explanation - it makes me feel like I'm being patronised and gives me no context or explanation and makes me want to turn the other way and say "nevermind".
As for why this whole thing is veering so heavily towards talking about sexism/feminism:
Well... People like me and @rustybroomhandle seem to think that the bigger problem that's the cause of #gamergate is misogynistic attitudes in a very strange echo-chamber that's also anonymous AND self-selects for extreme behavior. Being a gamer is kinda secondary to #gamergate, except that gamer identity has been pulled into this because gamers are generally on the internet more, so if you're selecting from a pool of people on the internet, you're likely to get a large number of gamers...
Recap: #gamergate seems to be a sexist movement first.
That's been supported by what I've pointed out previously in the thread about how #gamergate hasn't really interacted with the PR activities of indies, which is why I asked if this discussion about our own PR and communications is going to be more or less impactful than that. So far nobody has actually addressed that point (@BlackShipsFilltheSky just said he disagreed, but didn't point out what the problem was with my reasons), nor really even gone "No D, you're an idiot, obviously this time that 4chan hyped up already debunked claims, they were clearly responding to what the media had written instead of cherry picking the parts they found most inflammatory!".
Recap 2: I'm not sure how indie PR/media even had an impact on #gamergate.
If this thread is now about how to talk to people about sexism AND maybe do better PR on that front, cool. But I do find it ironic that even just doing that - trying to talk about talking about sexism is already proving hard and divisive ;)
I can't agree with you there. People are having these kinds of conversations over the watercooler all the time, so why can't we have one with the Cape Town people (who are able to attend one meetup). As you said yourself, talking to Rami and Evan made you think differently. What if Evan and Danny talking to each other makes other people think differently? Why would you want to prevent that just because you can't attend?
Also, I'll add that talking in person is less likely to end in tears because you have that other 70% of communication: body language, tone ect, that we just don't have online.
@dammit the reason I wrote this was because my 'talking' to Evan was online where he had time to write out a considered piece. When I was talking to Rami about it it was in my car driving back from MS to Braam. In both cases it was a duologue where the person I was speaking was fully able to form and express ideas without another person interrupting. This very discussion kinda shows why the forum format can be poor when it comes to things where a person needs time and space to give a considered response.
Also you are misinterpreting what I said in the post you quoted. I said that a meeting was "kinda exclusionary" all that is implied is that by doing so there would be a limitation of knowledge and ideas that would be spread. I realize that the most likely response to this is something along the lines of "But in your above conversations it was only you and the other person, can you get more exclusion?" Which is why I said that I want to sit down, when I have some more time, and write what I had gained by talking to them so that others may benefit.
Also "kinda exclusionary" by no means implies that I don't wan dialogue to happen in a variety of places! And really why would I even want to stop it? All I did was caution that there are flaws to the aforementioned format of discussion, and hoped that people would post their knowledge on a place where it is openly accessible so that all can benefit from it once you have had a chance to talk and think about it.
I'm really sorry if my post led you to believe that I was trying to stop dialogue when really I wanted to open it up, and I will try to convey my thoughts more clearly in the future. But as I said I am somewhat, very, busy I currently cannot give forum posts my utmost attention or else I would have simply written out the thoughts that are currently in my head about the issue.
@HermanTulleken I am well aware that we could do one in JHB. But I would advise against that. Such discussions are often dominated by the 5 loudest people in the room. And these arguments tend to be cyclical, and people can get lost over the smallest point because they did not have enough to to give a considered response because they are trying to get a word in between those 5 loudest people.
Ideally if we were to do something like this. A kind of panel discussion where 4 people who have done thorough research ahead of time and come in with thoughtful and prepared things to talk about with a person who can run such an event and keep everyone on track while allowing a bit of audience participation would be ideal. The reason I am saying this is the contrast between the Indie Marketing Panel at AMaze and the general mishmash that happens when people at the community night try and talk over each other.
Whoops, I guess I did misunderstand you :P But, I guess that proves my point in that face to face can be better.
I do think a lot of the people who want to talk about this have put a lot of thought into what they want to say, so I don't think we need to necessarily limit this only to the forums. I also meant that having the discussion offline would add to the online discussion, because we could carry it on here and see what we might learn/not learn from each other.
And, I guess I wasn't clear in that I did want it to be a controlled conversation - like a panel, but not limited to only a few people. I volunteered to run this (with absolutely zero experience, but a willingness to try).
We are all sexist and racist and classcist and we are all brought up believing things x y and z and it's good for us to be aware of all those things so we can make better choices, choices that are ultimately our own.
Great. That's awesome. Does that change the way this is being spoken about?
Yes. It should completely change it! There shouldn't be any more feeling of accusation because "the neutrals" understand why "the feminists" sound the way they do AND aren't actually accusing them of being evil.
So there's absolutely no need to talk about any of this stuff in any different way than everyone has been doing, because there's nothing wrong with the way people have been speaking about it, because we accept that people will be riled up the wrong way, period, because we accept that there's no better way to discuss this than the way it's been happening till now.
Wha? ... The best I can make of this is that you're saying that there's no better way to talk about this because people will always get upset because of how we talk about this? That seems like really circular logic to me. If that's what you think, then maybe ask why I'm trying to point out why getting riled up and feeling self-accused aren't really good things to feel, nor what anyone WANTS people to feel.
MANY people have disengaged from this discourse because of the way it's being handled, and if that's fine, cool. You can always argue that people who don't engage are either 1) already convinced that the good is good or 2) already dicks and dicks can't change anyway.
I don't get where this binary distinction comes from. I don't think anyone's trying to make that true when it comes to talking amongst ourselves (it might be true for people that troll on twitter, for instance, because fuck those guys). I get that, somehow, feelings of being attacked and excluded from this conversation are relevant here (because we're being meta and talking about how people respond to the discussion of sexism online, right?) basically, a feminist perspective here says "Please, talk about how and why you feel that way" and I thank you for doing that. But please do listen to why I'm saying that feelings of being attacked aren't warranted - people haven't been attacked, as I explained above. You can keep feeling them (and it does seem like this reply is an attempt to keep them justified), but it's not a good idea. And I don't think I (or anyone else) actually wants you to feel that way.
As for there being a better way to talk about this stuff? Yeah, that exists. It's called feminism.
I have no idea what that means. It means about as much to me as some inside joke/jargon that someone throws around to sound cooler than thou. In the very same way I keep hearing "check your privilege" without explanation - it makes me feel like I'm being patronised and gives me no context or explanation and makes me want to turn the other way and say "nevermind".
Sorry. Maybe I should have quoted there...
You said in a previous post that there should be a better way to talk about this. I was trying to point out that feminist critique and dialog exists solely to talk about this. There's a lot of information out there about it, as well as a lot of history of conversations like this one being made to be about how the person being "accused" feels, instead of actually addressing other, potentially more relevant, points. Usually, those online conversations aren't about trying to engage people that might have disengaged already, they're about trying to silence someone that's saying feminist things... Way earlier in this thread, @Dammit said it's super-important that we don't stop talking about this stuff, and I agree, that's why I'm trying to listen to you and understand what you're saying as much as I can. Please don't tell me to shut up in return.
Whoops, I guess I did misunderstand you :P But, I guess that proves my point in that face to face can be better.
I do think a lot of the people who want to talk about this have put a lot of thought into what they want to say, so I don't think we need to necessarily limit this only to the forums. I also meant that having the discussion offline would add to the online discussion, because we could carry it on here and see what we might learn/not learn from each other.
And, I guess I wasn't clear in that I did want it to be a controlled conversation - like a panel, but not limited to only a few people. I volunteered to run this (with absolutely zero experience, but a willingness to try).
Haha, totally! But that's kinda the internet. Think I'm somewhat used to it by now. Though I think that's one of the core reasons why GG managed to get so out of control. It's really easy for things to get out of context and people to take offence from things where none was intended and you are just trying to give feedback. (Like I tend to get rather verbose when I see people are missing my points so I can try and convey things correctly. So that would never work on twitter were GG was such a force.)
I think all forms of discussion are really cool and important! But I like the idea that once you've had that like of discussion you think about it, and if you feel like you have taken something away from it then try and put it in a place where others can read about it. So that they can also thing about it. It's just me look at GG and going. What if we had better resources so that those who weren't just shithead trolls but got caught up in all of and honestly believe that GG was right could have just as easily be brought into a space where they saw what was going on?
The panel was rather cool since it was the panel giving keypoints which anchored the discussion and the audience could just ask questions and get into back, which I really enjoyed and I felt like I gained quite a bit from it where I was rather skeptical about how much use it would be. So best of luck with that and drop some notes of what you gain from it ;D!
You said in a previous post that there should be a better way to talk about this. I was trying to point out that feminist critique and dialog exists solely to talk about this. There's a lot of information out there about it, as well as a lot of history of conversations like this one being made to be about how the person being "accused" feels, instead of actually addressing other, potentially more relevant, points. Usually, those online conversations aren't about trying to engage people that might have disengaged already, they're about trying to silence someone that's saying feminist things... Way earlier in this thread, @Dammit said it's super-important that we don't stop talking about this stuff, and I agree, that's why I'm trying to listen to you and understand what you're saying as much as I can. Please don't tell me to shut up in return.
Maybe we need to back this whole conversation up a bit and start right here. A lot of people don't understand (or haven't had the chance to engage with) feminism as dialogue or critique. I think a lot of people believe feminism is about fighting where it is - at it's core - about creating opportunities to talk. And coming to understand everyone better through talking, communicating, listening, engaging.
@dislekcia - you might be able to define it better and give more history and context than I can offhand, and I'd appreciate the reminder and lesson in where it all came from etc.
It's from understanding what feminism is really about that it's easier to understand why it would be important to not stop talking about an issue like gamergate. Why it would be important to engage in conversations with people about gamergate. And why it's important for everyone that we all try and hear each other, even when we're feeling a bit attacked or defensive.
I think @dammit 's idea of discussing it at the meetup is important (and I really think we should do it in Jhb too.... what do other people think?) for several reasons:
While the black and white of the situation may be clear, many of us (I suspect; it's true for me) have to make practical decisions in the grey. I have been thinking about (and me and jono alias @jsgbailey have been discussing) my (our) own biases and thoughts, and there are quite a few zones of discomfort. I would be keen to hear other's thought's on these areas to help work out what I want to do in certain situations.
It's important that we can discuss these things among ourselves. If we can't do that, is that not an admission we cannot really do it at all?
Our local industry is so small, we literally (almost) all know each other. We have an opportunity to set the tone of game development in South Africa (with this and other issues) and we should take it up, because if all goes well, there may not be another chance. Discussion at meetups like these is a way to do it.
If developers like Quin or critics like Sarkeesian were part of our community, what support could we give them? Have there been women in our community that had experiences we would condemn if we knew about them? (Or that we should condemn but don't?) Are there women in the making looking at what environment we set up right now? I think a lot of our thinking is about the abstract issues, but it's important to remember that those issues are right here too. It's also important to build a platform to make sure stuff like this gets heard of. I read about a woman developer being surprised by her male colleagues ignorance of such harassment, even though it's quite common in her world. We should make sure we are open enough that such things can become known (and of course, meetup discussion is not the all of it, but it can serve a helpful and important part),
The PR angle is another one. The way I read @BlackShipsFillTheSky 's thoughts is - is there a "best practices" way of dealing publicly with these issues being true to yourself and minimising things such as miscommunication and needless agravation? (And I am not saying anyone brought harassment on themselves; I totally take @Dislekcia 's point that when the mob comes you are doomed).
(And I really I think we should do more than wish the CT guys luck and take notes :P If we have the discussion, worst case scenario is we have a total flop of a meeting. The fact that we *do* know each other should prevent this from shattering the industry if it goes bad. Format-wise, personally I'm not to keen on panel discussions, but eether yther.)
It's very easy to be unaware of such things going on. I got out of the train station one morning, and a guy handing out pamphlets tried to get my attention by yelling "Hey, whitey!" ... I thought it was funny and could not wait to get to the office to tell me colleagues. However, if I were to encounter that sort of thing all the time... hell yeah it would not be funny. And there are people who do, whether it be due to race, gender, age, whatever.
And for those of you who still are not convinced that "gamergate" is a gender issue, you need to go back and examine the material provided by the proponents of it.
Speculation: A large chunk of the goons are likely young boys aged 13/14. The ring leaders are usually older, but getting a gender-hate horde together is pretty easy within that demographic. This is the onset of puberty - getting hair in places one did not before, getting urges and "incidents" that you don't talk about because other boys ridicule you, even though they too are experiencing it. They also start getting more tribal. So you have a bunch of boys with a dose of sex-related self-loathing that are in need of a group to run with. It's easy to see how this can translate into masses of boys clumping together to try to make targeted women feel bad for being their gender.
I saw a research-grant pitch to study the differences in how people who play DOTA are online vs in the regular world. Preliminary research revealed that the most attention-seeking names, like "DonkeyDick2001" or whatever, tended to fall in that demographic.
So uhm, suggestion: In the interest of trying to understand crappy online behaviour and how to deal with it - does anyone know anyone who deals with behavioural studies? Might be worth getting someone to talk about it who actually has done the science.
It's very easy to be unaware of such things going on. I got out of the train station one morning, and a guy handing out pamphlets tried to get my attention by yelling "Hey, whitey!" ... I thought it was funny and could not wait to get to the office to tell me colleagues. However, if I were to encounter that sort of thing all the time... hell yeah it would not be funny. And there are people who do, whether it be due to race, gender, age, whatever.
And for those of you who still are not convinced that "gamergate" is a gender issue, you need to go back and examine the material provided by the proponents of it.
Speculation: A large chunk of the goons are likely young boys aged 13/14. The ring leaders are usually older, but getting a gender-hate horde together is pretty easy within that demographic. This is the onset of puberty - getting hair in places one did not before, getting urges and "incidents" that you don't talk about because other boys ridicule you, even though they too are experiencing it. They also start getting more tribal. So you have a bunch of boys with a dose of sex-related self-loathing that are in need of a group to run with. It's easy to see how this can translate into masses of boys clumping together to try to make targeted women feel bad for being their gender.
I saw a research-grant pitch to study the differences in how people who play DOTA are online vs in the regular world. Preliminary research revealed that the most attention-seeking names, like "DonkeyDick2001" or whatever, tended to fall in that demographic.
I DEMAND LINK. I want to read it - especially because my understanding was that players and the gamergate scandal might be people closer to their 30s.
So uhm, suggestion: In the interest of trying to understand crappy online behaviour and how to deal with it - does anyone know anyone who deals with behavioural studies? Might be worth getting someone to talk about it who actually has done the science.
I'm trying to be one of these people. My master's is going to be looking at DOTA players while my honours thesis (on TF2 and L4D2 players) got published last year :D
@dammit I was just speculating. I'm pretty sure those driving it are seasoned hatemongers, but they seem to run in a huge pack that I refuse to believe are made up of mature adults.
Sorry to res this, since you all seem to have exhausted yourselves in the discussion, and I'm sure you don't want any more.
No worries :) Seeing as you've replied here, I'm going to assume you'd like to discuss this sort of stuff yourself and, from the way you've made your points, it seems like you've only got access to a limited amount of information about this topic. That's not really a bad thing (we're going to get information through the channels we use the most, after all) but there are some assumptions and, well, downright lies underlying a lot of what you've brought up. Note that I don't think those are your fault, this is just what happens when there's an active misinformation campaign spreading falsehoods in the channels you collect your info from... So, with that in mind and all the love, here's what I thought when I read what you'd written:
Let me start with saying that #gamergate is not a movement. It's a tag being used to highlight a consumer outcry (as well as a sexist witch hunt.... unfortunately)
So there are two perceived sides of this. (But really it's way more complicated than that)
Let's look at them from their negative perceptions first. We have white male misogynistic pro harassment gamers and we have marxist anti-sex radical feminists (seemingly referred to as SJW's in alot of cases)
These perceptions are derogatory at best from both sides, aand people needa stop with that nonsense. It's crazy, and it dehumanizes the participants, because the world is not as simple as that.
Agreed that the world really isn't that simple. The "sides", like you said, aren't that simple either. In fact, there are loads of groups involved and I'm going to assume that you picked the two most ridiculous opposed groups to point out. The weird bit is that the one exists and is at the core of a movement (you seemed to be describing a movement pretty well in your argument for why GG isn't one, plus people who use the tag have self-identified it as a movement too) and the other is a caricature that doesn't have anything to do with the things GG is complaining about. I honestly don't know where to start with "marxist anti-sex radical feminists", it feels like a joke.
In reading about the gamergate issues, there are pleeeeeenty. Too many. Some of them freaking stupid. But to me, the clear message that gaming press made following some harassment cases that "gamers are dead" was freaking insulting to an entire consumer base, when the majority of gamers were just like "lol wtf". That's like saying 'white people are dead' because a small group of white people did something shitty. It's derogatory. And oppressive really... Not that I think it was wrong of them to speak out against the harassment. They just totally botched it, by 'othering' a significant demographic of their audience.
I don't think you're using "othering" correctly there. Many of the articles that said gamers are dead went out of their way to identify with and self-include themselves as gamers and active in the greater community around games that they're criticising.
"Insulting an entire consumer base" isn't true either, in a variety of ways. Firstly, "X is dead" is a common literary device that's been used for ages, it's not an insult, it's a construction designed to illustrate how removed from reality a concept is. If people decide to perceive it as an insult, then it's pointing out just how removed from reality their perceptions are. Secondly, there's an assumed homogeneity of "entire consumer base". Many people agreed with and even enjoyed loads of those articles (me included) who identify themselves as gamers. Are they all suddenly not part of the consumer base that we're talking about here? I mean, they buy games...
It's certainly not "oppressive". No, not by any stretch of the imagination is a collection of articles oppressive to anyone. Making that point is, I'm sorry to say, going to get the maker labeled as the worst sort of privileged, entitled prat. Oppression requires power and action: legislative control (like anti-birth control bullshit), restriction of rights (freedom of movement under apartheid/occupation), incitement to violence (anti-LGBT crap in Uganda) and/or active systemic persecution (like not being allowed to make as much money as another class of person) - there's a lot more to oppression, but none of them are true about a bunch of articles. Especially not when the article writers are actively trying to engage with the people they're supposedly deriding. I would not say that journalists are bastions of power in the games industry, nor would anyone reasonably make the claim that feminism contains keys to power either. It literally cannot be oppression if all that's going on is the powerful (the advantaged, the privileged, the comfortable with the status quo) maybe have to listen to a viewpoint that doesn't assume their own primacy.
The reason all these things are said though, is to push people who feel like they're gamers and don't understand why people are talking about these sorts of issues together into a group-think state. It's classic us-vs-them: First you define the group, then you point out how that group is being attacked, then you find people who feel uncomfortable about something, tell them that their discomfort means they're being attacked, so they must be members of your group! And then you go out and demonise other people as not being part of this group... Then bad shit happens.
The consumers have every right to be pissed about that kind of thing.
No. No they don't... I mean, I guess people can be annoyed about whatever they want to be annoyed about. But there's no "right" to be pissed off. There's certainly no basis for retribution. People can stop reading the articles, great. But they can't use their anger to try and prevent articles like that being written.
Also there's this radical idealist feminism being forced on gaming culture by a select group of journo's, and it's kinda messed up, because there are no other opinions being respected when so many at the heart of gaming press are pushing for such a clear political shift, that alot of people may not totally agree with.
An example of a contrary opinion would be socialist feminism, which has suggested that oppression has no hierarchy, and that in order for oppression to be truely affected, it needs to be considered as a whole. These radical feminism ideals do not coincide with that, and a significant amount of other political ideals.
An example of bringing rad fem into games, when it shouldn't be there would be Anita saying that, the perceived strength differences between men and women are a myth. This is objectively nonsense. Take that up with the medical, biological and scientific communities. They've proven the effects of testosterone on muscle development, it has nothing to do with games.
Do you know how many gaming articles even mentioned or referenced "feminism" in the last year? Morgan Ramsay did a study, you should read it but the bottom line is this: Of 130,524 articles from 23 game outlets in a 12-month period, only 0.41% referenced feminism, sexism, or misogyny.
Is that a takeover? I mean, if you look at the numbers for the breakdowns of publications across multiple outlets you see that there isn't really just one place where these things are being talked about, so I can kinda understand how it might seem to be "everywhere" instead of contained in its own little corner of the web, but we're still talking tiny percentages here. And this doesn't even start to address the idea of feeling threatened by something that is mentioned so little. Imagine if people were claiming that the OUYA was clearly taking over the games press because it appeared in such a low number of articles? Then imagine getting violently threatened by the idea of the OUYA "taking over" and you'll start to see why people are so freaked out by people that get defensive over the spectre of feminism...
Also, we can totally chat about feminism if you want, but this thread is probably not a good place for it. Again, I feel like your sources aren't super honest with you about their own agendas, so you seem to have some rather strange misconceptions about what feminism is and what it means. Especially about the concept of feminist critique and how to argue with that: Basically, Anita Sarkeesian isn't setting herself up as a morally sanctioned proclamationary authority on this topic. She's merely pointing out a series of observations and interpretations of situations that have specific meanings to different people. Each point she makes is supported and debated on its own, not like someone saying "I am a moral authority on what you should do in bed with other people because god tells me so" - in the latter case their authority is assailable through argument, which can undermine their statements. Sarkeesian isn't claiming authority, merely the right to a perspective and is using that perspective to logically construct arguments... I can't speak for the whole "testosterone myth" point you're making (beyond saying that women have testosterone too, it's not an exclusive hormone) but even if that single point might be misleading or even incorrect, that doesn't mean any of Sarkeesian's other logically supported points are dismissable without first addressing their logic.
Wow. That was a long paragraph. Sorry... Basically, feminism isn't scary and saying things like "rad fem" is a warning flag that your info comes from some dodgy places. But no, someone saying something about testosterone isn't an example of a bad consequence of bringing feminism into gaming, radical or otherwise.
On the other side of the fence, however, there are alot of women who are seeing oppressive behaviour, being harassed, in profession, and in personal circumstance. Alot of gamergaters are condemning this because it's screwed up. There are misogynists out there, undeniably, but they are not the majority of gamers. It also gets incredibly difficult to speak to someone when you get immediately lumped into the misogynist category for having an opinion contrary to their own. Personally, I find this to be heavily marxist, and in many ways counter oppressive. Stop doing that shit if you're doing it.
Anyway. My point is, there are issues from both sides here.
Totally agreed that people shouldn't be harassed. People shouldn't be afraid. People shouldn't feel like they can't express themselves or can't be who they are. That's a huge problem with GG and how it started... I'm afraid that, for a lot of people, saying that there's anything redeemable about GG marginalises and dismisses the problematic things that it started with - and the things it continues to do! When large numbers of people's problems with sexism and sexual assault and sexual determination are constantly dismissed and marginalised as "not important", can you blame them for disregarding people who're just disregarding their problems more?
The weird part is that GG doesn't have to be "everyone", people can totally discuss their opinions and worries about game journalism or representation without defending GG. There's a really loud group of people who refuse to do this though, because they have this strange concept of not wanting to "abandon" a term because it apparently represents a bunch of people... It's that us-vs-them groupthink going on again.
"There are issues from both sides" is a very weak point. Especially when the argument itself is based on a bunch of, at best, half-truths and misconstructed demonisations of "the other side". There aren't just two sides here, the only people who are claiming two sides are the GG stalwarts. The reason they're doing that isn't to have a debate or lead a fruitful discussion, it's so that "the other side" can be demonised and attacked.
This isn't something that'll be solved by hate and reductionary tactics though, and considering all the harassment coming from both sides, anyone who feels they are in a sensitive position professionally or otherwise, should try to retain anonymity in this discussion. People ON BOTH SIDES are doing effed up unethical shit.
So finally, we get to the conclusion. I'm afraid I really can't agree with your recommendation that people stay anonymous... It sounds like you're suggesting people not talk about the large and important issues around GG for fear of being attacked? That's pretty-much exactly what a lot of people are speaking out against, and what a lot of people are going to HAVE to KEEP speaking out against if we're going to make any kind of progress as a society.
Thanks for reading this far and I hope you don't take any of what I've said above as an attack on you personally. It isn't intended that way at all! I'm simply hoping to give you an alternate way to look at some of the arguments you've put forth and maybe see how their outcomes could be different for different people. Thanks for bringing this up :)
Just about that "testosterone myth" thing... Do you have references to the exact statement that Anita makes? I'm beginning to suspect that it might be a misconstrued argument, because there are lots of things that could be going on there.
For instance, "strength" is a term that can mean a lot in this context: A character can be strong in ways that are more than just physical ability to move weight around. The point could easily have been that emotionally strongly defined characters (strong characters) don't have to be male.
The point could also have been that game characters don't have to match biological expectations (they certainly don't when it comes to jumping) so any biological reasoning for female game characters to be physically weaker is a myth.
But you are attacking me mate. No matter whether you deny it, that's exactly what you're doing. Sure, you've given me some insight, but you're far from trying to be helpful for my sake here. Don't be ridiculous.
Sorry!
I can't continue until you're willing to take me at my word though :(
You guys might be interested to know that 4chan administration itself has taken a stand against GamerGate - moot has changed the mod team to a far more conservative group, and has purged a lot of the problem-causing threads in /v/. The accusation being of course that he was pressured into doing it, but it's more likely just because he has a sense of ethics.
You guys might be interested to know that 4chan administration itself has taken a stand against GamerGate - moot has changed the mod team to a far more conservative group, and has purged a lot of the problem-causing threads in /v/. The accusation being of course that he was pressured into doing it, but it's more likely just because he has a sense of ethics.
Yeah 4chan and reddit have been obliterating posts about the discussion.
People have posted a "leaked" convo between moot and mods talking about pro feminist hacker groups, and Anita telling him to just delete everything. Weird. I'm not claiming it's real, but that's what's doing the rounds.
Some perspective for you guys, if you're interested:
Escapist magazine posted an article of 7 female developers statements regarding #gamergate. They've said it's unedited, raw perspectives.
There are pro, there are anti. They all make good points that should be respected.
Can anyone tell me how this is supposed to be a good thing?
This is what happens when you otherise such a large demographic.
They have - every right - to initiate boycotts and message advertisers to voice their concerns.
You have to realise that as company, gamasutra has to be reasonable for the sake of their advertisers. They've made an enemy out of a culture, and Intel made the understandable decision to back out of the situation.
@eSculpt - They are crying about "journalistic ethics", but pressuring advertisers into leaving a site over its editorial content? Do you not see the hypocrisy/irony here?
They have a right to boycott, sure, but organising a petty campaign against a site that's for industry people over how they perceive themselves being spoken about is exactly that - petty. This is nothing to do with journalistic ethics - it's pure "us vs. them" tribal bullshit.
Also, they have not made "an enemy of a culture" - just of a bunch of immature brats.
If you're personally prepared to assign a statement like that to such a vast conglomerate of people, with a variety of views and political perspectives, that's on you buddy.
And "they" is gamasutra. I wasn't speaking about anyone except gamasutra. Stop trying to assign agendas to my statements.
This is what happens when you otherise such a large demographic.
They have - every right - to initiate boycotts and message advertisers to voice their concerns.
You have to realise that as company, gamasutra has to be reasonable for the sake of their advertisers. They've made an enemy out of a culture, and Intel made the understandable decision to back out of the situation.
No. I'm still not engaging with you, guy. You're not even answering the question I asked :)
This is what happens when you otherise such a large demographic.
They have - every right - to initiate boycotts and message advertisers to voice their concerns.
You have to realise that as company, gamasutra has to be reasonable for the sake of their advertisers. They've made an enemy out of a culture, and Intel made the understandable decision to back out of the situation.
No. I'm still not engaging with you, guy. You're not even answering the question I asked :)
It's a good thing because people are exercising their democratic rights. Freedom is a good thing.
Thanks to almost unprecedented levels of spite, immaturity and dizzying lack of perspective or self-awareness displayed by people on the GamerGate tag, I now feel more embarrassed than ever to be associated with video games.
Elements of GamerGate claim to be upset because they believe the press is being manipulated by businesses.
Gamasutra writes a piece that, due to its title, inflames a lot of deep-wired tribal affiliations. It gets flak from angry people who self-identify as gamers, but don't seem to've considered the point that the article was trying to make, or the context in which it was written.
Gamasutra, the press, is manipulated by Intel, a business, through the removal of ad revenue. Gamergate rejoices.
Thanks to almost unprecedented levels of spite, immaturity and dizzying lack of perspective or self-awareness displayed by people on the GamerGate tag, I now feel more embarrassed than ever to be associated with video games.
Same stuff coming from all over really. I'm presently embarrassed to be human for all that. But I'm not prepared to assign it exclusively to gamergate, or video games.
Elements of GamerGate claim to be upset because they believe the press is being manipulated by businesses.
Gamasutra writes a piece that, due to its title, inflames a lot of deep-wired tribal affiliations. It gets flak from angry people who self-identify as gamers, but don't seem to've considered the point that the article was trying to make, or the context in which it was written.
Gamasutra, the press, is manipulated by Intel, a business, through the removal of ad revenue. Gamergate rejoices.
I'm confused.
You could take up the accusation that Intel is manipulating press with Intel, but I'm not prepared to engage you on that.
Also, you can try to break everything down to tribalism if you want, but I'm not sure if you're aware that tribalism is a huge part of human social nature, and history? I have no issues with tribes.
If you're personally prepared to assign a statement like that to such a vast conglomerate of people, with a variety of views and political perspectives, that's on you buddy.
Ok - let's narrow it down then to just the people who thought it was a good idea to pressure Intel into pulling ads. Explain to me then how what they did was in any way mature.
Deep-wired instincts tend to result in irrational knee-jerk responses, is what I'm trying to imply. You see it with sports. You see it with politics. You see it with "Gamers are Dead".
Why not engage? Seems pretty clear-cut to me, because it's been done before. Company doesn't like what's said, company pulls funding to protest. Cutting off essential cash flow is a pretty blatant means of pressuring people.
It's a good thing because people are exercising their democratic rights. Freedom is a good thing.
I remain baffled... @eSculpt: If I was engaging with you I'd probably say something like the following, which you'd take as an attack and feel all justified belittling and attacking me in return. Good thing I'm not engaging!
For everyone else, the above quote makes me think the following: Democracy is a system of governance of an organisation by the majority of its members through representational decision making. I don't see how a site that caters to game developers should have decisions made for it by a minority that is not game developers, nor actively reads the site. That strikes me as the opposite of democracy.
If freedom is important, then which freedoms are paramount here? It seems to me that freedom of the press, which GamerGate has previously espoused as important, is totally undermined by this approach (as was pointed out when GG forums started trying to organise campaigns of targeting advertisers). Freedom of speech is also probably more important than imaginary freedoms to not see things that you don't like.
If you're personally prepared to assign a statement like that to such a vast conglomerate of people, with a variety of views and political perspectives, that's on you buddy.
Ok - let's narrow it down then to just the people who thought it was a good idea to pressure Intel into pulling ads. Explain to me then how what they did was in any way mature.
Go!
Calm down there rusty. This has nothing to do with maturity, or lack thereof.
People are allowed to address their concerns with advertisers on websites like this if they feel that continual dealings with the website in question is a problem. If you don't like that, feel free to take it up with someone (I can't imagine who) legally.
You know that people have done this before though right? In entirely different circumstances. It's not a new invention.
Deep-wired instincts tend to result in irrational knee-jerk responses, is what I'm trying to imply. You see it with sports. You see it with politics. You see it with "Gamers are Dead".
Why not engage? Seems pretty clear-cut to me, because it's been done before. Company doesn't like what's said, company pulls funding to protest. Cutting off essential cash flow is a pretty blatant means of pressuring people.
You're trying to assign a stance to Intel, when there isn't any. There's a controversy going on, and they wanted out of it. Simple as that.
Comments
I feel like focusing on one line about a comment on youtube misses a lot of the rest of his post, which addresses exactly what you're asking him: If their entire platform is based on blind hate and in some cases a very deeply rooted prejudice, how the heck do you remove that? It's not something that can just be gabbed away by some wannabe word-mages. In fact, it's probably something you can't fix unless you can go back and fix the way people have been raised. That's super well said. Also, wannabe word-mages is wonderfully juicy ;)
Also: https://twitter.com/purple_steve/status/512184740297072640
(Context for the above is that it's in response to a review posted on GoodGamer, a site that was started up by the #gamergate people wanting their own site after many people pointed out that the internet is a good place to do things like that with no money... The review is of Hatoful Boyfriend)
But a bunch of people want to talk about how we can shout at sexist people some more.
So that's the two sides of the "discussion" I'm seeing, and it feels to me the latter isn't engaging with the former. The point that I see is trying to be spoken about here was not whether we can fix sexism. It was trying to see whether we can fix how the topic gets talked about so that people who aren't sexist and unreasonable don't feel like they're being shouted at which causes more knee-jerk backlash ad infinitum.
---
After speaking to Rami and Evan I have to say my perspective on the matter has shifted quite a bit. So when I have a bit more time to sit down and really think out a post about this I will try and outline some thoughts on the matter, but right now the contract work is a calling.
Also, I'll add that talking in person is less likely to end in tears because you have that other 70% of communication: body language, tone ect, that we just don't have online.
I suggest a topic of discussion that goes: "What can we do to help produce better gamers?" - rather than mushing through the vile river of poo that is GamerGate.
Basically - How do people feel less "shouted at" by conversations of feminism and sexism that don't actually attack them personally in any way? Well, they need a better understanding of those methods of thought. It's either that or stop talking about it entirely. I hope I don't need to point out that that's not really an acceptable solution.
What's reasonable about constantly derailing a conversation about a topic in order to require others to tell you they know it's not about you personally? Like, I don't know much about art, but I don't stand up and insist that I'm not blind when people start talking about it... I don't know much about medicine, but I don't need doctors to keep telling me that I'm not stupid in order to try and listen to them about my health.
This whole desire to "not be shouted at" is simply an indication of how little value society places on this sort of discussion of privilege (be it racism, sexism or whatever) because that discussion has to pass through some sort of social acceptability standard that's way more harsh than any standard required of "more rigorous" fields. I really wish I could explain how the very thing you're requesting NOT be about sexism actually very much IS.
Let me clarify this. I am not sexist, I do not wish ills on women, in or out of the industry.
Then why do I feel like I'm being made to feel that way whenever I get anywhere near this topic? Is it because I'm unreasonable and am secretly a nazi sexist? Gods I hope not. And if I am, then I suck. Who's disagreeing with this? We need the world to be more educated. Cool. And this is exactly what the conversation was trying to be - your stating that the statements aren't harmful doesn't shout at anyone but pureblood sexists and dicks doesn't prevent perfectly reasonable people from feeling like they are being attacked. If we can't get past perceptions being reality, then we can't have this conversation. You can remain righteous and believe that you have no responsibility towards how people see this topic, and those who feel like they're being attacked can, well, remain feeling sore from being rubbed the wrong way because they're just unreasonable. And what would that accomplish? Not very much, I'm afraid. Yes we need a better understanding of how to talk about this stuff. You're derailing what @Blackshipsfillthesky were trying to talk about so much that he stopped wanting to talk about it. And that feels like it's the norm around this kind of stuff. Not sure what this means, really. One can talk about why people don't want to be shouted at, but it doesn't change the fact that people don't. And I do think that creating a friendlier conversation around what you want to be talked about would indeed HELP it being talked about. As opposed to what is/has happened up to this point - a lot of people NOT talking about it because of an escalation in "I'M RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG BOOYA" all round.
I've felt it too.
Also you are misinterpreting what I said in the post you quoted. I said that a meeting was "kinda exclusionary" all that is implied is that by doing so there would be a limitation of knowledge and ideas that would be spread. I realize that the most likely response to this is something along the lines of "But in your above conversations it was only you and the other person, can you get more exclusion?" Which is why I said that I want to sit down, when I have some more time, and write what I had gained by talking to them so that others may benefit.
Also "kinda exclusionary" by no means implies that I don't wan dialogue to happen in a variety of places! And really why would I even want to stop it? All I did was caution that there are flaws to the aforementioned format of discussion, and hoped that people would post their knowledge on a place where it is openly accessible so that all can benefit from it once you have had a chance to talk and think about it.
I'm really sorry if my post led you to believe that I was trying to stop dialogue when really I wanted to open it up, and I will try to convey my thoughts more clearly in the future. But as I said I am somewhat, very, busy I currently cannot give forum posts my utmost attention or else I would have simply written out the thoughts that are currently in my head about the issue.
@HermanTulleken I am well aware that we could do one in JHB. But I would advise against that. Such discussions are often dominated by the 5 loudest people in the room. And these arguments tend to be cyclical, and people can get lost over the smallest point because they did not have enough to to give a considered response because they are trying to get a word in between those 5 loudest people.
Ideally if we were to do something like this. A kind of panel discussion where 4 people who have done thorough research ahead of time and come in with thoughtful and prepared things to talk about with a person who can run such an event and keep everyone on track while allowing a bit of audience participation would be ideal. The reason I am saying this is the contrast between the Indie Marketing Panel at AMaze and the general mishmash that happens when people at the community night try and talk over each other.
How do we deal with it, as indies, as PR?
Indies did what they could, the open letter, responding to individuals everywhere, every indie "news" outlet and "celeb" calling it unreasonable/childish. All of it largely only interpreted as "shouty" and to the wind at that. That pretty much proves how much of a farce it was, that the issue was and is larger, that discussion X is also discussion Y.
What about all the people in the middle who are hearing the shouting match and feel like that both sides are shouting at them? Would it benefit everyone if people who are not dead set sexists weren't shouted at for potentially being one? Would it benefit everyone if people who are not dead set feminists weren't shouted at for potentially being one?
What a wonderful world that would be :)
Nobody gets to go "Oh no, not me, I'm NOT SEXIST!" and be taken seriously. At best, all that means is that someone can't see the sexism they've been indoctrinated into as part of living in society. At worst, that's an attempt to prevent discussion about someone's perception of sexism so that people don't learn from it... Either way, all it does is sustain the status quo - which is currently a pretty damn sexist way of existing. That doesn't mean that everyone is actively doing sexist things, no! There's a pretty big gulf between existing in a sexist system and, y'know, shouting that someone's a slut on the internet, but there's also a gulf between denying that sexism might have an impact on how we think and actively trying to challenge that impact when we notice its traces in ourselves.
I understand how that can feel like you're being assaulted, or being called names, but the simple fact is that there isn't really a neutral perspective on sexism because it's constantly ongoing and everyone's part of it whether they want to be or not. The best thing we can do is be aware of it and try to change what we do when we're made aware of it. Nobody is calling you a sexist because that's a stupid thing for someone to do, we're all sexist. We're sexist because of a bunch of decisions that we didn't get to make, that we didn't have a say in, so let's start having a say now, maybe?
The argument you're having about there being sides and structure and neutrality isn't reality, so of course it's frustrating to have. I'm trying to point out that you don't need to be having it. This is what is ALWAYS being pointed out. Every time.
As for there being a better way to talk about this stuff? Yeah, that exists. It's called feminism.
Great. That's awesome. Does that change the way this is being spoken about?
So there's absolutely no need to talk about any of this stuff in any different way than everyone has been doing, because there's nothing wrong with the way people have been speaking about it, because we accept that people will be riled up the wrong way, period, because we accept that there's no better way to discuss this than the way it's been happening till now.
MANY people have disengaged from this discourse because of the way it's being handled, and if that's fine, cool. You can always argue that people who don't engage are either 1) already convinced that the good is good or 2) already dicks and dicks can't change anyway. I have no idea what that means. It means about as much to me as some inside joke/jargon that someone throws around to sound cooler than thou. In the very same way I keep hearing "check your privilege" without explanation - it makes me feel like I'm being patronised and gives me no context or explanation and makes me want to turn the other way and say "nevermind".
Well... People like me and @rustybroomhandle seem to think that the bigger problem that's the cause of #gamergate is misogynistic attitudes in a very strange echo-chamber that's also anonymous AND self-selects for extreme behavior. Being a gamer is kinda secondary to #gamergate, except that gamer identity has been pulled into this because gamers are generally on the internet more, so if you're selecting from a pool of people on the internet, you're likely to get a large number of gamers...
Recap: #gamergate seems to be a sexist movement first.
That's been supported by what I've pointed out previously in the thread about how #gamergate hasn't really interacted with the PR activities of indies, which is why I asked if this discussion about our own PR and communications is going to be more or less impactful than that. So far nobody has actually addressed that point (@BlackShipsFilltheSky just said he disagreed, but didn't point out what the problem was with my reasons), nor really even gone "No D, you're an idiot, obviously this time that 4chan hyped up already debunked claims, they were clearly responding to what the media had written instead of cherry picking the parts they found most inflammatory!".
Recap 2: I'm not sure how indie PR/media even had an impact on #gamergate.
If this thread is now about how to talk to people about sexism AND maybe do better PR on that front, cool. But I do find it ironic that even just doing that - trying to talk about talking about sexism is already proving hard and divisive ;)
I do think a lot of the people who want to talk about this have put a lot of thought into what they want to say, so I don't think we need to necessarily limit this only to the forums. I also meant that having the discussion offline would add to the online discussion, because we could carry it on here and see what we might learn/not learn from each other.
And, I guess I wasn't clear in that I did want it to be a controlled conversation - like a panel, but not limited to only a few people. I volunteered to run this (with absolutely zero experience, but a willingness to try).
You said in a previous post that there should be a better way to talk about this. I was trying to point out that feminist critique and dialog exists solely to talk about this. There's a lot of information out there about it, as well as a lot of history of conversations like this one being made to be about how the person being "accused" feels, instead of actually addressing other, potentially more relevant, points. Usually, those online conversations aren't about trying to engage people that might have disengaged already, they're about trying to silence someone that's saying feminist things... Way earlier in this thread, @Dammit said it's super-important that we don't stop talking about this stuff, and I agree, that's why I'm trying to listen to you and understand what you're saying as much as I can. Please don't tell me to shut up in return.
I think all forms of discussion are really cool and important! But I like the idea that once you've had that like of discussion you think about it, and if you feel like you have taken something away from it then try and put it in a place where others can read about it. So that they can also thing about it. It's just me look at GG and going. What if we had better resources so that those who weren't just shithead trolls but got caught up in all of and honestly believe that GG was right could have just as easily be brought into a space where they saw what was going on?
The panel was rather cool since it was the panel giving keypoints which anchored the discussion and the audience could just ask questions and get into back, which I really enjoyed and I felt like I gained quite a bit from it where I was rather skeptical about how much use it would be. So best of luck with that and drop some notes of what you gain from it ;D!
@dislekcia - you might be able to define it better and give more history and context than I can offhand, and I'd appreciate the reminder and lesson in where it all came from etc.
It's from understanding what feminism is really about that it's easier to understand why it would be important to not stop talking about an issue like gamergate. Why it would be important to engage in conversations with people about gamergate. And why it's important for everyone that we all try and hear each other, even when we're feeling a bit attacked or defensive.
While the black and white of the situation may be clear, many of us (I suspect; it's true for me) have to make practical decisions in the grey. I have been thinking about (and me and jono alias @jsgbailey have been discussing) my (our) own biases and thoughts, and there are quite a few zones of discomfort. I would be keen to hear other's thought's on these areas to help work out what I want to do in certain situations.
It's important that we can discuss these things among ourselves. If we can't do that, is that not an admission we cannot really do it at all?
Our local industry is so small, we literally (almost) all know each other. We have an opportunity to set the tone of game development in South Africa (with this and other issues) and we should take it up, because if all goes well, there may not be another chance. Discussion at meetups like these is a way to do it.
If developers like Quin or critics like Sarkeesian were part of our community, what support could we give them? Have there been women in our community that had experiences we would condemn if we knew about them? (Or that we should condemn but don't?) Are there women in the making looking at what environment we set up right now? I think a lot of our thinking is about the abstract issues, but it's important to remember that those issues are right here too. It's also important to build a platform to make sure stuff like this gets heard of. I read about a woman developer being surprised by her male colleagues ignorance of such harassment, even though it's quite common in her world. We should make sure we are open enough that such things can become known (and of course, meetup discussion is not the all of it, but it can serve a helpful and important part),
The PR angle is another one. The way I read @BlackShipsFillTheSky 's thoughts is - is there a "best practices" way of dealing publicly with these issues being true to yourself and minimising things such as miscommunication and needless agravation? (And I am not saying anyone brought harassment on themselves; I totally take @Dislekcia 's point that when the mob comes you are doomed).
(And I really I think we should do more than wish the CT guys luck and take notes :P If we have the discussion, worst case scenario is we have a total flop of a meeting. The fact that we *do* know each other should prevent this from shattering the industry if it goes bad. Format-wise, personally I'm not to keen on panel discussions, but eether yther.)
And for those of you who still are not convinced that "gamergate" is a gender issue, you need to go back and examine the material provided by the proponents of it.
Speculation: A large chunk of the goons are likely young boys aged 13/14. The ring leaders are usually older, but getting a gender-hate horde together is pretty easy within that demographic. This is the onset of puberty - getting hair in places one did not before, getting urges and "incidents" that you don't talk about because other boys ridicule you, even though they too are experiencing it. They also start getting more tribal. So you have a bunch of boys with a dose of sex-related self-loathing that are in need of a group to run with. It's easy to see how this can translate into masses of boys clumping together to try to make targeted women feel bad for being their gender.
I saw a research-grant pitch to study the differences in how people who play DOTA are online vs in the regular world. Preliminary research revealed that the most attention-seeking names, like "DonkeyDick2001" or whatever, tended to fall in that demographic.
So uhm, suggestion: In the interest of trying to understand crappy online behaviour and how to deal with it - does anyone know anyone who deals with behavioural studies? Might be worth getting someone to talk about it who actually has done the science.
Oh wait, it was LoL, not DOTA, but this was the bit of text https://twitter.com/mtrc/status/512221358651375616
"Insulting an entire consumer base" isn't true either, in a variety of ways. Firstly, "X is dead" is a common literary device that's been used for ages, it's not an insult, it's a construction designed to illustrate how removed from reality a concept is. If people decide to perceive it as an insult, then it's pointing out just how removed from reality their perceptions are. Secondly, there's an assumed homogeneity of "entire consumer base". Many people agreed with and even enjoyed loads of those articles (me included) who identify themselves as gamers. Are they all suddenly not part of the consumer base that we're talking about here? I mean, they buy games...
It's certainly not "oppressive". No, not by any stretch of the imagination is a collection of articles oppressive to anyone. Making that point is, I'm sorry to say, going to get the maker labeled as the worst sort of privileged, entitled prat. Oppression requires power and action: legislative control (like anti-birth control bullshit), restriction of rights (freedom of movement under apartheid/occupation), incitement to violence (anti-LGBT crap in Uganda) and/or active systemic persecution (like not being allowed to make as much money as another class of person) - there's a lot more to oppression, but none of them are true about a bunch of articles. Especially not when the article writers are actively trying to engage with the people they're supposedly deriding. I would not say that journalists are bastions of power in the games industry, nor would anyone reasonably make the claim that feminism contains keys to power either. It literally cannot be oppression if all that's going on is the powerful (the advantaged, the privileged, the comfortable with the status quo) maybe have to listen to a viewpoint that doesn't assume their own primacy.
The reason all these things are said though, is to push people who feel like they're gamers and don't understand why people are talking about these sorts of issues together into a group-think state. It's classic us-vs-them: First you define the group, then you point out how that group is being attacked, then you find people who feel uncomfortable about something, tell them that their discomfort means they're being attacked, so they must be members of your group! And then you go out and demonise other people as not being part of this group... Then bad shit happens. No. No they don't... I mean, I guess people can be annoyed about whatever they want to be annoyed about. But there's no "right" to be pissed off. There's certainly no basis for retribution. People can stop reading the articles, great. But they can't use their anger to try and prevent articles like that being written. Do you know how many gaming articles even mentioned or referenced "feminism" in the last year? Morgan Ramsay did a study, you should read it but the bottom line is this: Of 130,524 articles from 23 game outlets in a 12-month period, only 0.41% referenced feminism, sexism, or misogyny.
Is that a takeover? I mean, if you look at the numbers for the breakdowns of publications across multiple outlets you see that there isn't really just one place where these things are being talked about, so I can kinda understand how it might seem to be "everywhere" instead of contained in its own little corner of the web, but we're still talking tiny percentages here. And this doesn't even start to address the idea of feeling threatened by something that is mentioned so little. Imagine if people were claiming that the OUYA was clearly taking over the games press because it appeared in such a low number of articles? Then imagine getting violently threatened by the idea of the OUYA "taking over" and you'll start to see why people are so freaked out by people that get defensive over the spectre of feminism...
Also, we can totally chat about feminism if you want, but this thread is probably not a good place for it. Again, I feel like your sources aren't super honest with you about their own agendas, so you seem to have some rather strange misconceptions about what feminism is and what it means. Especially about the concept of feminist critique and how to argue with that: Basically, Anita Sarkeesian isn't setting herself up as a morally sanctioned proclamationary authority on this topic. She's merely pointing out a series of observations and interpretations of situations that have specific meanings to different people. Each point she makes is supported and debated on its own, not like someone saying "I am a moral authority on what you should do in bed with other people because god tells me so" - in the latter case their authority is assailable through argument, which can undermine their statements. Sarkeesian isn't claiming authority, merely the right to a perspective and is using that perspective to logically construct arguments... I can't speak for the whole "testosterone myth" point you're making (beyond saying that women have testosterone too, it's not an exclusive hormone) but even if that single point might be misleading or even incorrect, that doesn't mean any of Sarkeesian's other logically supported points are dismissable without first addressing their logic.
Wow. That was a long paragraph. Sorry... Basically, feminism isn't scary and saying things like "rad fem" is a warning flag that your info comes from some dodgy places. But no, someone saying something about testosterone isn't an example of a bad consequence of bringing feminism into gaming, radical or otherwise. Totally agreed that people shouldn't be harassed. People shouldn't be afraid. People shouldn't feel like they can't express themselves or can't be who they are. That's a huge problem with GG and how it started... I'm afraid that, for a lot of people, saying that there's anything redeemable about GG marginalises and dismisses the problematic things that it started with - and the things it continues to do! When large numbers of people's problems with sexism and sexual assault and sexual determination are constantly dismissed and marginalised as "not important", can you blame them for disregarding people who're just disregarding their problems more?
The weird part is that GG doesn't have to be "everyone", people can totally discuss their opinions and worries about game journalism or representation without defending GG. There's a really loud group of people who refuse to do this though, because they have this strange concept of not wanting to "abandon" a term because it apparently represents a bunch of people... It's that us-vs-them groupthink going on again.
"There are issues from both sides" is a very weak point. Especially when the argument itself is based on a bunch of, at best, half-truths and misconstructed demonisations of "the other side". There aren't just two sides here, the only people who are claiming two sides are the GG stalwarts. The reason they're doing that isn't to have a debate or lead a fruitful discussion, it's so that "the other side" can be demonised and attacked. So finally, we get to the conclusion. I'm afraid I really can't agree with your recommendation that people stay anonymous... It sounds like you're suggesting people not talk about the large and important issues around GG for fear of being attacked? That's pretty-much exactly what a lot of people are speaking out against, and what a lot of people are going to HAVE to KEEP speaking out against if we're going to make any kind of progress as a society.
Thanks for reading this far and I hope you don't take any of what I've said above as an attack on you personally. It isn't intended that way at all! I'm simply hoping to give you an alternate way to look at some of the arguments you've put forth and maybe see how their outcomes could be different for different people. Thanks for bringing this up :)
For instance, "strength" is a term that can mean a lot in this context: A character can be strong in ways that are more than just physical ability to move weight around. The point could easily have been that emotionally strongly defined characters (strong characters) don't have to be male.
The point could also have been that game characters don't have to match biological expectations (they certainly don't when it comes to jumping) so any biological reasoning for female game characters to be physically weaker is a myth.
I just felt as though you were trying to assign something to my statements that I personally didn't think was fair
I can't continue until you're willing to take me at my word though :(
People have posted a "leaked" convo between moot and mods talking about pro feminist hacker groups, and Anita telling him to just delete everything. Weird. I'm not claiming it's real, but that's what's doing the rounds.
Some perspective for you guys, if you're interested:
Escapist magazine posted an article of 7 female developers statements regarding #gamergate. They've said it's unedited, raw perspectives.
There are pro, there are anti. They all make good points that should be respected.
Anyway, link http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/12306-Female-Game-Developers-Make-Statements-on-GamerGate
This tweet pretty much summarises how I feel about this new wrinkle.
Can anyone tell me how this is supposed to be a good thing?
They have - every right - to initiate boycotts and message advertisers to voice their concerns.
You have to realise that as company, gamasutra has to be reasonable for the sake of their advertisers. They've made an enemy out of a culture, and Intel made the understandable decision to back out of the situation.
They have a right to boycott, sure, but organising a petty campaign against a site that's for industry people over how they perceive themselves being spoken about is exactly that - petty. This is nothing to do with journalistic ethics - it's pure "us vs. them" tribal bullshit.
Also, they have not made "an enemy of a culture" - just of a bunch of immature brats.
* "they" - whomever they may be.
And "they" is gamasutra. I wasn't speaking about anyone except gamasutra. Stop trying to assign agendas to my statements.
Let's deconstruct this a tad.
Elements of GamerGate claim to be upset because they believe the press is being manipulated by businesses.
Gamasutra writes a piece that, due to its title, inflames a lot of deep-wired tribal affiliations. It gets flak from angry people who self-identify as gamers, but don't seem to've considered the point that the article was trying to make, or the context in which it was written.
Gamasutra, the press, is manipulated by Intel, a business, through the removal of ad revenue. Gamergate rejoices.
I'm confused.
I'm presently embarrassed to be human for all that. But I'm not prepared to assign it exclusively to gamergate, or video games.
You could take up the accusation that Intel is manipulating press with Intel, but I'm not prepared to engage you on that.
Also, you can try to break everything down to tribalism if you want, but I'm not sure if you're aware that tribalism is a huge part of human social nature, and history? I have no issues with tribes.
Go!
Why not engage? Seems pretty clear-cut to me, because it's been done before. Company doesn't like what's said, company pulls funding to protest. Cutting off essential cash flow is a pretty blatant means of pressuring people.
For everyone else, the above quote makes me think the following:
Democracy is a system of governance of an organisation by the majority of its members through representational decision making. I don't see how a site that caters to game developers should have decisions made for it by a minority that is not game developers, nor actively reads the site. That strikes me as the opposite of democracy.
If freedom is important, then which freedoms are paramount here? It seems to me that freedom of the press, which GamerGate has previously espoused as important, is totally undermined by this approach (as was pointed out when GG forums started trying to organise campaigns of targeting advertisers). Freedom of speech is also probably more important than imaginary freedoms to not see things that you don't like.
This has nothing to do with maturity, or lack thereof.
People are allowed to address their concerns with advertisers on websites like this if they feel that continual dealings with the website in question is a problem. If you don't like that, feel free to take it up with someone (I can't imagine who) legally.
You know that people have done this before though right? In entirely different circumstances. It's not a new invention. You're trying to assign a stance to Intel, when there isn't any. There's a controversy going on, and they wanted out of it. Simple as that.