But in terms of there not being anything worth paying attention to, that's my point. There wasn't any reasonable coverage of opposing views regarding her assertions by journalists
That's what I'm asking though, where are the opposing views coming from and which ones are worth taking into account? In my experience, which is admittedly fairly limited, there are a lot of opposing views, but none worth the time it'd take to read/watch/listen to their arguments. Also, did journalists neglect to cover this reasonable opposition because of whatever reasons, or did they not cover it because it just doesn't exist?
Can't deny that most of the opposition weren't absolute twunts about it. (See thunderf00t)
But it seems plausible to me that despite the disagreement, alot of people are in a way kept silent by the social stigma surrounding the criticism of feminists. Fear of being labelled misogynists etc. Hence the extremist bastardly types are the only ones to really do it. :/
Even in gg coverage, for the most part loud voices (totalbiscuit et al) are avoiding the topic of feminism like it's a live grenade. Because it could easily blow up on them.
Can't say I know of a way to remedy that situation though.
(The stats are mildly interesting, but I don't think one can read toooooo much in them. Look for example how the image here differs from the one @eSculpt posted. Mining tweets for data like this is quite difficult to do properly, so you have to be careful with any conclusions. I did a few tests using Topsy, and it's quite easy to get the graphs to say different things.)
Those are some good stats, thanks! This graph is particularly telling:
Roughly 25% of all Gamergate activity is coming from accounts created in the last two months.
There might be a fair amount of sockpuppet accounts there, just to get the messages signal-boosted. I saw a similar thing when looking into a SA retailer chain's twitter promotion - lots of fake accounts were registered to artificially inflate follower and retweet counts.
The main reason the green/purple graph looks different is that @eSculpt's graph will be looking at message reach, and your graph is looking at number of people. So in the 72 hour window that the sample was run, the number of people/accounts on each side of the debate looks more balanced, but when you look at the virality of the messages coming out of the GG camp (over a different time scale too, probably), they reach a wider audience.
I don't totally agree on that.
Considering the contraversial nature of it all, most people made fresh accounts to speak on the issue, and many of them weren't even twitterfolk before the thing, and wouldn't have had accounts to start off with.
They went to twitter following the thread graveyards on reddit and other forums afaik.
I genuinely would be interested in engaging with good criticism of her work.
By which you mean the Tropes vs Women in Video Games series? I found it fascinating myself - very densely researched, tons of good examples, excellent editing and post-production. If there's one criticism I have, it's that her work doesn't really include the views of game developers - some interviews/discussions would have been nice, instead of a dense, whistle-stop tour about everything bad that's ever happened to a female character in a video game.
Unless if you were referring to some other work I'm not aware of :P
That's the one! Sarkeesian's analyses are undoubtedly post-structuralist/postmodern in their conceptualisation of ontology and epistemology. One of the key texts that informed postmodern literary theory and cultural criticism is Roland Barthes' The Death of the Author (the 'Death of Gamers' articles draw on his ideas to varying extents). Barthes proposes that the author's intention is essentially irrelevant in reading a text, and the reader's interpretation is just as valid, if not more so, than any statement the author might give on the meaning of the work. I'm not sure to what extent Tropes vs Women in Video Games draws from that particular paradigm, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that Sarkeesian agrees with the notion.
I subscribe to this idea, so I don't actually feel that neglecting to interview the developers is a weakness of her work. Though I do think it would be a thoroughly fascinating independent project to see how developers respond to Sarkeesian's criticisms. :)
Considering the contraversial nature of it all, most people made fresh accounts to speak on the issue, and many of them weren't even twitterfolk before the thing, and wouldn't have had accounts to start off with.
The irony is that the creator of that graph said that Gamergaters would use that exact justification to explain away the data :D
That's the one! Sarkeesian's analyses are undoubtedly post-structuralist/postmodern in their conceptualisation of ontology and epistemology. One of the key texts that informed postmodern literary theory and cultural criticism is Roland Barthes' The Death of the Author (the 'Death of Gamers' articles draw on his ideas to varying extents). Barthes proposes that the author's intention is essentially irrelevant in reading a text, and the reader's interpretation is just as valid, if not more so, than any statement the author might give on the meaning of the work. I'm not sure to what extent Tropes vs Women in Video Games draws from that particular paradigm, but I wouldn't be surprised to find that Sarkeesian agrees with the notion.
I subscribe to this idea, so I don't actually feel that neglecting to interview the developers is a weakness of her work. Though I do think it would be a thoroughly fascinating independent project to see how developers respond to Sarkeesian's criticisms. :)
Oh, it's not a weakness - the work stands on its own merit. I'm just saying that there's obviously a lot more to be said (and heard) on this issue, and we'll probably get more of it as we go. Sarkeesian was just trailblazing here, now it's up to the rest of us to walk along it :)
I admit I found the idea of an author(/developer) not having final say on the meaning of their work, extremely intriguing. That was one of the bigger things I learned from her videos (and to a lesser extent, Hideo Kuze from GitS:2nd GIG): That people will unconsciously internalize the things that they already agree with, and discard the rest. So in that context, imposing a contrary meaning is difficult, if not impossible.
All the more reason to ensure that the work itself is integral, and inspiring, something that intends for people to draw their own meanings from it. Or at least, that's the lesson I'm taking away from all this :P
That's meant to be rhetorical right? Because the article talked about that in some detail, and it's safe to assume that @eSculpt would just tell you what the article already said because he said he mostly agreed with it (with an exception he pointed out).
Okay, I get how @eSculpt might simply have repeated the article's points in answer to my question. To clarify, I'm honestly asking how giving in to those demands and following the actions outlined by that Slate article achieves the things the author says it's going to:
"Steps like these will show moderates that the press is aware of its deficiencies and is working to address them, and thus the ostensible goal of their movement is not sufficient to justify its continued existence."
This doesn't follow for me. I don't see how these moderates who are already downplaying concerns they might have over accusations of sexism are going to suddenly start worrying about that stuff. How are those moderates not going to assume that GG was actually correct if that happens? How are they not going to get even more upset at attempted discussion of sexism (even only mild attempts at those discussions) if said discussion wasn't necessary for GG to have success in the first place?
And, in re-reading that article, I noticed that he completely left out the way The Escapist was pilloried by GG over the changes that were made to the follow up Escapist article showing "game developer perspectives on GamerGate" (the all-male one with all those glaring issues). I can only conclude that he left that out because it undermined his point, it's not like it happened after this article was written. That either points to willfully misleading readers or to a reasoned conclusion that doesn't take into account some important contrary information. Both sorts of conclusion are flawed, which is why I don't agree with the article ;)
"After gaming journalism, tech journalism, and Gawker have begun to clean up their acts, after there’s some real admission of bad faith and hypocrisy on the part of some of these journalists, and after there’s some good conversation going with the moderates, the movement will start to fracture, as moderates will feel that a) the press is coming to terms with its own shortcomings and b) there are some unpleasant extremists in Gamergate. At that point, the only force keeping moderates in the movement will be inertia."
Again, I am curious as to how these changes are supposed to happen, especially given that inertia is often the prime reason moderates already say they'll stick with GG instead of creating a new hashtag/movement to address their ethics concerns without the baggage of the harassment/misogyny. If they cared enough about the extremists, and if inertia wasn't a major force for coherence in GG, then they'd already have started a new tag. The only way that actually even happens is if those moderates start to understand why the extremists in GG are unpleasant in the first place, which implies education but is strangely never brought up in the article...
I'd also quite like to hear about this. Not convinced it'd be of much help now, GG is unlikely to actually engage with any text presented to them, but even as a hypothetical discussion about future preventative measures to try to stop this sort of thing from happening again, do you think it'd be possible to compile a sort of 'anti-GG 101' syllabus, and what would that entail?
I don't know. That's pretty-much why I asked for good solutions from other people... I'm really afraid that something even more horrible is going to happen. A killing spree, an extremely violent murder, something jarring enough to make people reconsider their own role in this thing. Although, even then, I'm not sure that would "be enough" - some of the communities that are aligning behind GG (and being welcomed with open arms) like Return of Kings and their ilk are experts are flipping blame back onto victims, it's practically what they exist to do.
I think a campaign for education around these concepts would need to start small and be a constant part of peoples interactions. For instance, I think that we, as a group, can try to provide an environment that doesn't reinforce the sorts of thinking that leads to the misconceptions that drive GG. This isn't a complete list, but here's the kind of thing that I'm thinking about (and I'd love it if people could add to this):
1 - Provide positive examples of how defensiveness and being quick to counter-attack aren't useful. We see it on this forum a lot, mostly because of how game dev criticism works, but we can give concrete examples of how assuming that something is a personal attack is a bad idea. It's easy to point out designers that aren't defensive about their work and how that directly helps them make better games. It also seems to carry over into discussions on other topics, but I have no idea how to extend that into other parts of the internet that don't have the helpful framework of "If you don't start doing these things you'll be a shit game designer!".
2 - Give things a larger context than just winning or losing a debate. In fact, totally remove the stupid spectre of "winning" a debate entirely by having a greater goal in mind. Again, this is easier here on this community because generally people want to make their games better, so that's an easy goal. In a debate about GG, it's way harder to come up with a problem that everyone agrees exists, let alone a goal that everyone is willing to aim for in that context. If you're not trying to "win" an argument, then a ton of the shitty tactics that get used online die out - they're simply not useful anymore.
3 - Try to promote greater understanding by saying what you've just heard. A friend of mine always says that you can't have a discussion without first getting into the same headspace as the other person. Sometimes you can go all the way to where their head is at on your own, more often you need them to want to come to you as well. One of the best tools to try and make that happen is to echo back what you're hearing someone saying so that they get the chance to confirm or support the logic you're exhibiting. This often seems tedious to many inexperienced internet interlocutors, but it's pretty crucial. If we could help more people see that, it would be great... It's not possible without point 1 though, you can't echo back if someone is just going to take any misconceptions as an attack against them personally.
4 - Provide simple examples of defusing misconceptions, misunderstandings and miscommunications. The final thing that I think is important is being able to let someone go "Oh, I didn't mean it that way, I meant this instead..." and listen to that graciously without holding them to some misunderstood point that rapidly becomes a straw man. By the same token, we need to be able to all go "Oh I see, well that means I was totally wrong about X, thanks!" when a misunderstanding is revealed by a good argument. I don't think that's easy to do without all 3 of the above things operating in harmony though.
And I honestly have no idea how to get that to happen in the context of the greater internet. At best, I've barely managed to state those goals in the forums I've been involved in starting over the years. I can testify to how different the community those interactions create is and how much can come out of that community, but it's a very very long game to run and not something that's easy to apply to something like twitter.
So no, I have no idea how to apply that stuff to GG. Lord knows that I haven't even been able to convince @eSculpt that he's not under constant attack from me, he still seems to believe that's going on, I have no idea how to deflate the misunderstandings that arise from his defensiveness. The whole "Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't necessarily mean they're uneducated" thing is a case in point - that's not what I said at all, yet there's no way I can argue that to him :(
-edit- Goddamn these things are long :( I meant to say how much I appreciated the Film-Critic Hulk article and how much that thinking resonated with me. Also, I have no idea what movie Hulk is talking about at the end of it...
Lord knows that I haven't even been able to convince @eSculpt that he's not under constant attack from me, he still seems to believe that's going on, I have no idea how to deflate the misunderstandings that arise from his defensiveness.
You can't. You just can't. There is no way, none that I have ever seen or heard of, that you can convince someone to change their point of view if they don't want to. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and that's that. If they're open to change, if they're asking questions and trying to learn new things, then you have a chance, but there are certain people (call it genetics if you want) that are just fundamentally incapable of seeing another point of view.
It's delusional, actually, to think that the strength of your own argument is enough to convince someone that they're wrong and you're right. You can spent the next hundred years stating it and get precisely nowhere, and there's nothing you can do to change that dynamic. The most productive thing you can do is acknowledge that there are some arguments you will never win, and learn to be OK with that. Rather go talk to people that want to listen, you'll get far more done that way.
It's delusional, actually, to think that the strength of your own argument is enough to convince someone that they're wrong and you're right. You can spent the next hundred years stating it and get precisely nowhere, and there's nothing you can do to change that dynamic.
You can't. You just can't. There is no way, none that I have ever seen or heard of, that you can convince someone to change their point of view if they don't want to. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and that's that. If they're open to change, if they're asking questions and trying to learn new things, then you have a chance, but there are certain people (call it genetics if you want) that are just fundamentally incapable of seeing another point of view.
A (different) friend of mine made a very interesting point about exactly this sort of problem. Long story short: Dude in a skatepark hit a kid, I got involved verbally, dude threatened me physically. At least the kid was safe... Anyway, the idea that came out of that event was that, in order to really change that dude's approach to people (huge predisposition to violence and intimidation to get his way) you would have to play an extremely long game: Make friends with him, get to the point where he honestly respects you and you respect him, start talking about topics like violence - probably based on one or two shared events that you experienced in the course of your friendship. Hopefully present a different way to react to the situations that would have made him violent before.
Essentially, this means talking about the thing that someone might be defensive about in a completely different setting, preferably one which completely sidesteps the hostility. Now, I'm super not invested enough in one asshole's problems with violence, nor am I manipulative enough to spend time trying to befriend a person I have no positive regard for, so this sort of looooong game wasn't relevant in that case, but it was an interesting idea and something that's stuck with me. Because, to work, it has to be 100% genuine - it's honestly about changing someone through love and respect. It's why I'm all for talking about things like feminism in settings like this one (because I consider this place really important) which might allow people to approach them in less confrontational ways... It's really easy to do that with things like feminism and science, because they're thankfully both really broad, extremely useful and generally applicable.
I find it really interesting how GG has demonised any discussion of feminism at all (that's one of its chief complaints, after all). That sort of overarching automatic reaction is almost cult-like. I think that's one of the reasons people have been calling GG an extinction event. In order to end GG, we need to make the rest of the internet a place where someone can't demonstrate the sorts of thinking that fuels GG without being challenged in some way. Maybe one of those challenges will eventually get past the automatic defenses and result in a positive change :)
It's delusional, actually, to think that the strength of your own argument is enough to convince someone that they're wrong and you're right. You can spent the next hundred years stating it and get precisely nowhere, and there's nothing you can do to change that dynamic. The most productive thing you can do is acknowledge that there are some arguments you will never win, and learn to be OK with that. Rather go talk to people that want to listen, you'll get far more done that way.
I disagree. This is only true if you're arguing with someone that is taking your information in bad faith, someone that doesn't have the 4 habits I wrote about above. It can be incredibly educational arguing with someone in good faith - for both the arguers and spectators. I feel like the assumption that someone can never change their perspective based on information presented by someone they're arguing with is a bit problematic... Arguing isn't bad, arguing is interrogating different sources of information, it really doesn't have to be a train smash :)
A fascinating thing that @TheFuntastic linked a while back that basically talks about how we actually aren't capable of thinking about things rationally when they differ too much from what we already believe
Making the trick, then, to dismantle the concept of belief itself. It's confirmation bias, I think - a basic filtering mechanism everyone has, that they use to constantly evaluate new information, but the goal isn't to learn, the goal is to reinforce what you already "know" to be true. It's just one of the things people tend to take for granted, as normal.
But I don't think it is normal. The fact of the matter is, every other person you meet is as infinitely complicated as you are. The domain of knowledge itself stretches further than any of us can comprehend. It's physically, fundamentally impossible to have an absolute answer to anything (ANYTHING). Pick any subject imaginable and you'll find differing, even contradictory interpretations.
And I think that's a good thing. It's precisely that variety that makes life worth living. If you spend your life building a framework through which you view the world, eventually it will collapse (we learn new things about our world, and ourselves, all the time). But if you live a life where nothing is set in stone, everything is open to change, and you acknowledge that your knowledge will forever be incomplete, I think you'd be happier for it. I know I am, anyway.
Because, to work, it has to be 100% genuine - it's honestly about changing someone through love and respect.
Why change them at all? Who, or what, gives you the right to judge someone else as "in need of change", and yourself as the agent of that change? Who's to say that your answer is any better than the one they already have?
There are millions of people that think the same way you do, and as far as I'm concerned they're responsible for all the bad things in the world - wars, religions, Herbalife. The very idea that you can look at someone else, quietly judge them as incomplete, and appoint yourself their savior, reeks of arrogance. Unless if they're actually asking for it, I don't see how anyone has the right (or even the capability) to interfere.
Why change them at all? Who, or what, gives you the right to judge someone else as "in need of change", and yourself as the agent of that change? Who's to say that your answer is any better than the one they already have?
There are millions of people that think the same way you do, and as far as I'm concerned they're responsible for all the bad things in the world - wars, religions, Herbalife. The very idea that you can look at someone else, quietly judge them as incomplete, and appoint yourself their savior, reeks of arrogance. Unless if they're actually asking for it, I don't see how anyone has the right (or even the capability) to interfere.
Welp. That's not what I said at all. I'm going to assume that you're not trying to demonise me here.
Are you saying that, in a thread where people are actively talking about what to do about GamerGate, about a situation in which people are being harmed in very real ways for no actual positive outcome, in a conversation where people (including you yourself) are talking about ways to stop that from happening, that this is exactly the same as agitating for war? I'm afraid I don't see the usefulness of accusing me of arrogance here, the conversation was about changing people's ideas through education and how people actively refuse new ideas.
If anything, being friends with someone like I outlined above is about them finding reasons to change their own behavior given the information your friendship allows them to collect. Does that mean people are changing? Yes. Have you or I changed because of our friends? Yes. Does that mean I'm judging people as incomplete and summarily deciding that they should cease to exist in such a fashion? No.
Do I think GamerGaters should stop behaving the way they have been? Fuck yes. Do I think that the world would be a better place if people were more willing to change themselves in the face of information that showed them how their actions hurt others? Hell yeah.
May I ask why your argument supporting my apparent arrogance doesn't apply to you? You are, after all, arguing with me, presumably in order to change my point of view. Or at least, if you despair of changing my point of view, changing at least someone's point of view - how are you not judging that PoV? How are you not deciding that you know better - specifically that you know better about how to react to violent threats against your person? How is that not the same arrogance you're accusing me of? How, in essence, are you not responsible for Herbalife? Eh? Eh?!
C'mon dude. If you want to score points, I'm not playing.
You are, after all, arguing with me, presumably in order to change my point of view. Or at least, if you despair of changing my point of view, changing at least someone's point of view - how are you not judging that PoV?
Ahhh, yes, presumptions. No, I'm not trying to change anything. Did I say I was trying to change anything? Did I call your point of view wrong, and my own right? No, I did not. You automatically infer that I'm your opponent, and that I'm playing the game by your rules - which I never have been.
I honestly couldn't care less how you perceive the world around you, as it currently has very little effect on me. I'm just stating my opinion that the idea that it's okay to try and change other people (for who's benefit, anyway?) is arrogant in nature.
I know that this concept must not fit into the very narrow box through which you view the world. Believe me, I used to think the way you did - that there is right and wrong, that everything was either won or lost, that there was a clear answer to every question. I've since learned that the world is really painted in every conceivable shade of color, not just white or black, and I'm sharing that observation in this thread to try and inject another viewpoint into the discussion.
That viewpoint being: Ideological wars are fruitless at best, dangerous at worst, some people are fundamentally immutable, and there are some arguments you just can't resolve. If it were possible, truly possible, for two groups with opposing viewpoints to reconcile through debate, the Middle East wouldn't have been on fire for the last 5000 years.
You, me, and everyone here just has to accept that, inevitably, some people are gonna be dicks, and there's nothing you can do about that. Not every battle has to be fought, not every disagreement is worth arguing over, there's more to life than this.
I know that this concept must not fit into the very narrow box through which you view the world. Believe me, I used to think the way you did - that there is right and wrong, that everything was either won or lost, that there was a clear answer to every question. I've since learned that the world is really painted in every conceivable shade of color, not just white or black, and I'm sharing that observation in this thread to try and inject another viewpoint into the discussion.
And yet you seem unaware of your own presumptions. Just 2 posts ago I spoke about how the ability to make a discussion not be about winning or losing, but about a shared greater goal. You can continue presuming that I don't view the world as complex shades of grey in massively different contexts but you'd be wrong (provably so).
How are you not just being contrarian? (And, TBH, incredibly patronising) Why should I spend my time engaging with you instead of engaging with people that are trying to achieve an end to the worst outcomes of GG?
How are you not just being contrarian? (And, TBH, incredibly patronising) Why should I spend my time engaging with you instead of engaging with people that are trying to achieve an end to the worst outcomes of GG?
Right! Why indeed? And what achievements do you have here, exactly?
So far there's roughly 400 comments that seem to mainly be link-swopping and people pointing out that other people are dolts. It's a gross summary, but I think it captures the spirit of this debate.
Everyone's on board with the idea that the harassment/threats are real, far as I can tell. People are also keen on the whole ethics/transparency thing. So what have you (and anyone else in this thread) actually done? For instance:
* Has anyone come up with a plan to lobby the respective lawmakers in these countries to recognize cyberbullying as a criminal offense? * Has anyone set up support lines, or aid groups, or social awareness initiatives that inform/enlighten the general public as to the very real dangers? * Has anyone started work on games, programs, websites, stories, movies, books or audio of any sort that illustrates these issues, and gives people a medium through which to engage and understand this complex issue? * Has anyone checked in with the various media integrity boards around the various countries about the gaming press? What do they think of all this, are there guidelines that can be established, rules that can be followed? * Is anyone working on an ethics/accountability accreditation that will validate journalists as being fair and impartial, and gotten the game blogs on board? Essentially creating the legal framework to fire a journalist for acting unethically? * How many new sites/blogs/documents/articles have been created that explain what ethics in game journalism should look like? Given that freebies and inside access are key components of the gaming press, how do you draw the line? How's that discussion going?
Is there any of that? Because all I'm seeing in this thread is basically a bunch of name-calling and handwaving and people trying to tell other people that they're fundamentally missing the issue. How that's "achieving an end to the worst outcomes" is completely beyond me.
And to be clear, I'm not doing any of those things, and I'm not going to try to claim some moral high-ground by implying that my time could be better spent elsewhere. But then again I'm not on a one-man crusade to fix what is essentially a design flaw in the human condition. I'll content myself with making and playing games, and being of use to those who ask.
And to be clear, I'm not doing any of those things, and I'm not going to try to claim some moral high-ground by implying that my time could be better spent elsewhere. But then again I'm not on a one-man crusade to fix what is essentially a design flaw in the human condition. I'll content myself with making and playing games, and being of use to those who ask.
You didn't answer my questions though... As for not being on a crusade, why are you saying this to anyone? I mean, I could shit-test you the same way you're approaching this thread by asking what games you've made, what use you've been, etc. But that's not cool. Just be aware that what you're doing here is obvious.
Right! Why indeed? And what achievements do you have here, exactly?
So far there's roughly 400 comments that seem to mainly be link-swopping and people pointing out that other people are dolts. It's a gross summary, but I think it captures the spirit of this debate.
Everyone's on board with the idea that the harassment/threats are real, far as I can tell. People are also keen on the whole ethics/transparency thing. So what have you (and anyone else in this thread) actually done? For instance:
* Has anyone come up with a plan to lobby the respective lawmakers in these countries to recognize cyberbullying as a criminal offense? * Has anyone set up support lines, or aid groups, or social awareness initiatives that inform/enlighten the general public as to the very real dangers? * Has anyone started work on games, programs, websites, stories, movies, books or audio of any sort that illustrates these issues, and gives people a medium through which to engage and understand this complex issue? * Has anyone checked in with the various media integrity boards around the various countries about the gaming press? What do they think of all this, are there guidelines that can be established, rules that can be followed? * Is anyone working on an ethics/accountability accreditation that will validate journalists as being fair and impartial, and gotten the game blogs on board? Essentially creating the legal framework to fire a journalist for acting unethically? * How many new sites/blogs/documents/articles have been created that explain what ethics in game journalism should look like? Given that freebies and inside access are key components of the gaming press, how do you draw the line? How's that discussion going?
Is there any of that? Because all I'm seeing in this thread is basically a bunch of name-calling and handwaving and people trying to tell other people that they're fundamentally missing the issue. How that's "achieving an end to the worst outcomes" is completely beyond me.
Okay.
I can't claim full responsibility for the outcomes of this thread, nor would I want to, but if we're evaluating what this discussion so far has achieved, it's actually been pretty useful:
It's caused a bunch of really interesting conversations about GG from different people IRL, it's also exposed people to different viewpoints on GG (including some very pro-GG views outside of the sea-lion-fest that is twitter).
It's given people whose voices are directly attacked by GG hope to continue engaging and talking about GG in their own way. We're not good enough (yet) at making them feel welcome here again, but we're getting there.
It's directly led to the discussion of GG at a developer meetup, which sounded like it went pretty well.
It's given people who were on the periphery of GG, including people who were essentially GG moderates, more information about the movement and allowed them to make more informed decisions about how they want to associate with it - by my count there have been at least 3 publicly thanking this thread for that, privately who knows how many more?
It's been, at some points, a ray of hope for developers that are despairing about what GG means for this industry and their place in it.
It has acted as a repository for links and information that people have used in further GG discussions outside of this forum, on FB, Twitter, IRC and the like, in order to achieve the same things I've already mentioned above in a brand new group of people.
I know that at least 2 game projects that address GG (and the issues that underlie it) have been begun by people that have seen this thread.
None of those achievements are unimportant and all of them go at least some of the way towards addressing the worst outcomes of GG, even if only in small ways. "It made a difference to THAT starfish" after all.
Thanks for that list of potential actions. I hope that this thread continues and maybe even discusses some of those things you've raised (some of them are pretty worrying, others are not actions that we can take here in SA), but you're free to stop involving yourself in a thread you clearly consider useless. Perhaps this thread itself is less black and white than you assumed.
I agree with this post, and captures my feeling on gg-bashing in general for a while now - it has been long, arduous to watch, and non-productive to any end.
I feel that at some point, it is in everyone's best interest to stop simply pointing fingers and laughing (that's what it really looks like), and try to actually do something about it.
That's why I think the Slate article has merit. It's trying something. That's why I tried for a bit to go on twitter and appeal to the hashtag to find a list of youtubers involved in the mordor deal. It didn't work, but I bet it had a higher chance of success than tweeting how shit the tag supporters are and what's effectively endless provocation at: 1. A bunch of people who clearly like to troll. 2. Another bunch of people who actually believe in something that isn't wrong (NOT talking about the harassment) 3. A bunch of people who do not condone and actively seek out harassers (re: harasser patrol)
You didn't answer my questions though... As for not being on a crusade, why are you saying this to anyone? I mean, I could shit-test you the same way you're approaching this thread by asking what games you've made, what use you've been, etc. But that's not cool. Just be aware that what you're doing here is obvious
If I'm doing anything, it's completely unintentional. This conversation is actually the best proof I can think of for that concept in one of the Sarkeesian videos, that the intent of the author is essentially meaningless. You're looking at the stuff I'm writing and inferring that I'm trying to "shit-test" (new phrase, for me) people, when my intention is to rather point out all of the things that I think could be done, that would actually make progress in the real world.
And maybe that's part of the problem. People take things too personally. I avoided answering your questions because they weren't actually questions - you're trying to provoke a tit-for-tat argument so you can prove all of my points wrong and somehow win this battle that only exists in your mind. Well I can save you the trouble there: It's not about winning, for me. I'm more interested in changing the conversation to one where we actually talk about things we can do.
(And I can only do that by continuing to post in this thread, so I accept your suggestion that I bugger off, and I'll disregard it.)
I feel that at some point, it is in everyone's best interest to stop simply pointing fingers and laughing (that's what it really looks like), and try to actually do something about it.
It's actually pretty funny. I completely agree with this sentiment. There's only room for so much talking before you actually have to go out and do something. Since it seems that "talking about stuff" counts as doing, I opened a thread on this forum to surface the positive learnings out of this debacle, in an attempt to focus the discussion towards the things we can actually change.
Zero responses.
So it's pretty clear to me, at any rate, that the people engaged in this discussion aren't all that interested in moving beyond it. The instigators and harassers have set the tone and the content of this conversation, and we're continuing to have it, as if in deference to their authority on the matter. Why are we playing this game by their rules? I really don't understand: The conversation belongs to those participating in it, and we could turn it into anything we want. Why is it still this?
Just because you say someone is attacking you, doesn't make it true. No matter how many times that's repeated.
Well then, have some irony! Or at least look on the bright side - @eSculpt is not the only one in this thread who irrationally feels they're being attacked ;)
It's actually pretty funny. I completely agree with this sentiment. There's only room for so much talking before you actually have to go out and do something. Since it seems that "talking about stuff" counts as doing, I opened a thread on this forum to surface the positive learnings out of this debacle, in an attempt to focus the discussion towards the things we can actually change.
Zero responses.
So it's pretty clear to me, at any rate, that the people engaged in this discussion aren't all that interested in moving beyond it. The instigators and harassers have set the tone and the content of this conversation, and we're continuing to have it, as if in deference to their authority on the matter. Why are we playing this game by their rules? I really don't understand: The conversation belongs to those participating in it, and we could turn it into anything we want. Why is it still this?
I actually have a draft saved over there. GG isn't over, so I don't want to try to sum up my feelings about it just yet, but seeing as it's important to you, I'll summarise my thoughts thus far (in that thread).
I think a campaign for education around these concepts would need to start small and be a constant part of peoples interactions. For instance, I think that we, as a group, can try to provide an environment that doesn't reinforce the sorts of thinking that leads to the misconceptions that drive GG. This isn't a complete list, but here's the kind of thing that I'm thinking about (and I'd love it if people could add to this):
1 - Provide positive examples of how defensiveness and being quick to counter-attack aren't useful. We see it on this forum a lot, mostly because of how game dev criticism works, but we can give concrete examples of how assuming that something is a personal attack is a bad idea. It's easy to point out designers that aren't defensive about their work and how that directly helps them make better games. It also seems to carry over into discussions on other topics, but I have no idea how to extend that into other parts of the internet that don't have the helpful framework of "If you don't start doing these things you'll be a shit game designer!".
2 - Give things a larger context than just winning or losing a debate. In fact, totally remove the stupid spectre of "winning" a debate entirely by having a greater goal in mind. Again, this is easier here on this community because generally people want to make their games better, so that's an easy goal. In a debate about GG, it's way harder to come up with a problem that everyone agrees exists, let alone a goal that everyone is willing to aim for in that context. If you're not trying to "win" an argument, then a ton of the shitty tactics that get used online die out - they're simply not useful anymore.
3 - Try to promote greater understanding by saying what you've just heard. A friend of mine always says that you can't have a discussion without first getting into the same headspace as the other person. Sometimes you can go all the way to where their head is at on your own, more often you need them to want to come to you as well. One of the best tools to try and make that happen is to echo back what you're hearing someone saying so that they get the chance to confirm or support the logic you're exhibiting. This often seems tedious to many inexperienced internet interlocutors, but it's pretty crucial. If we could help more people see that, it would be great... It's not possible without point 1 though, you can't echo back if someone is just going to take any misconceptions as an attack against them personally.
4 - Provide simple examples of defusing misconceptions, misunderstandings and miscommunications. The final thing that I think is important is being able to let someone go "Oh, I didn't mean it that way, I meant this instead..." and listen to that graciously without holding them to some misunderstood point that rapidly becomes a straw man. By the same token, we need to be able to all go "Oh I see, well that means I was totally wrong about X, thanks!" when a misunderstanding is revealed by a good argument. I don't think that's easy to do without all 3 of the above things operating in harmony though.
Interesting how different our approaches to this are. I was thinking of a literal syllabus, like 'week 1: read this bell hooks chapter and watch this video on harassment'. But yeah, the idea that a reading list in and of itself is enough to have theoretically stopped Gamergate is incredibly naive. :) Though I do think there needs to be some sort of pedagogical approach to issues around feminism, because there are a lot of GG's concerns are propagated by a lack of understanding of what feminism and critical theory more broadly are about, and why their appearance in gaming journalism and criticism are not necessarily a bad thing. I like that your suggestions are applicable to a lot of situations and settings outside of GG or gaming in general. I think, especially in the case of GG, trying to educate anyone using examples from that particular context might make them shut down and refuse to listen to what you're saying. Not sure what to add at this point, but I'll definitely contribute if things come to mind. :)
As I said before, I mostly stay clear of this topic, however it pops up on my radar from time to time. As far as I have seen, mainstream news has mostly stayed clear of the topic, I have only seen it mentioned on CNN and BBC a handful of times. Here is an article from BBC, it's pretty unbiased, discusses both sides of the story and includes a somewhat rare video interview with Zoe Quinn.
Just because you say someone is attacking you, doesn't make it true. No matter how many times that's repeated.
Well then, have some irony! Or at least look on the bright side - @eSculpt is not the only one in this thread who irrationally feels they're being attacked ;)
You're completely wrong. I just think you're not making much sense, mostly because you keep making points in direct contradiction of existing information in the thread. I'm not sure what painting me as being in stalwart opposition to you gets you, other than more reasons to keep posting in a thread you already believe is useless. Why not just stop posting in it and allow others who do see value here (value which you haven't addressed yet, BTW) to do so without having to worry about further derailment? You have already started another thread to discuss what you want to discuss, after all.
And maybe that's part of the problem. People take things too personally. I avoided answering your questions because they weren't actually questions - you're trying to provoke a tit-for-tat argument so you can prove all of my points wrong and somehow win this battle that only exists in your mind. Well I can save you the trouble there: It's not about winning, for me. I'm more interested in changing the conversation to one where we actually talk about things we can do.
Once again, you remain completely wrong. Thanks for assuming that my reason for asking you questions is not to norm and understand where you're coming from, while echoing back what your arguments sound like to me. I posted about both those things in this very thread and why they're useful. If you're perceiving antagonism in that re-statement, feel free to dispel the misunderstandings underneath them. Or you could continue to paint me as arguing in bad faith and merely trying to "win" instead of fostering greater understanding.
I'm not convinced that the irrelevance of author intent in artistic works as perceived by an audience is that relevant to forum posts made specifically to convey an idea to a limited number of people. Generally that only comes into consideration when a completed, presented work reaches a large audience and it begins having a life of its own, independent of the artist. Forum posts are not independent in the same way, although I can understand how arguments could be made that specific wording or concepts could be interpreted in ways that the author did not intend - I actually view that as a problem in a communication medium like this, which is about trying to convey ideas clearly, hence why I spoke about echoing back and allowing space for corrections of misunderstandings in my posts above.
Interesting how different our approaches to this are. I was thinking of a literal syllabus, like 'week 1: read this bell hooks chapter and watch this video on harassment'. But yeah, the idea that a reading list in and of itself is enough to have theoretically stopped Gamergate is incredibly naive. :) Though I do think there needs to be some sort of pedagogical approach to issues around feminism, because there are a lot of GG's concerns are propagated by a lack of understanding of what feminism and critical theory more broadly are about, and why their appearance in gaming journalism and criticism are not necessarily a bad thing. I like that your suggestions are applicable to a lot of situations and settings outside of GG or gaming in general. I think, especially in the case of GG, trying to educate anyone using examples from that particular context might make them shut down and refuse to listen to what you're saying. Not sure what to add at this point, but I'll definitely contribute if things come to mind. :)
Hey, that syllabus would be pretty interesting. And it would serve as a great resource for that point in a GG discussion where people start asking "Well, what does X mean anyway?" - you could just start them on the most relevant intro from the syllabus and if they asked for more, point them at the syllabus itself.
You're definitely right about need for critical theory, I think that's a huge problem in most internet discussion and GG in particular. I think that should probably be added to the list. I'd also like to add another skill that's related:
Awareness of personal politics: One of the core things about GG is this idea that only people you disagree with are "pushing an agenda". In light of recent interactions in this thread about how people are apparently wasting their time talking about an issue that bothers them greatly and how the current positive outcomes of this discussion are marginalised because they're not the specific outcomes people imagine, I think that the key point that all action carries political motivation is sorely needed here.
As I said before, I mostly stay clear of this topic, however it pops up on my radar from time to time. As far as I have seen, mainstream news has mostly stayed clear of the topic, I have only seen it mentioned on CNN and BBC a handful of times.
I can't remember all the outlets that have covered this, but MSNBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and last night the goddamned Colbert Report had a segment on it (was hoping for Last Week Tonight, but I'll take it). Sure, the mainstream media isn't reporting on it as frequently as gaming media (which is to be expected), but they've noticed what's going on.
The Colbert Report clip, if anyone's interested (from an unofficial source, so it might be taken down, the official ones can't be viewed in SA):
Hey, that syllabus would be pretty interesting. And it would serve as a great resource for that point in a GG discussion where people start asking "Well, what does X mean anyway?" - you could just start them on the most relevant intro from the syllabus and if they asked for more, point them at the syllabus itself.
At some point I'd like to put something together. I'd have to do a lot of searching for publicly accessible articles, because, if I'm not mistaken, academic articles usually aren't, at least not for a price that isn't prohibitively expensive. Geek Feminism's wiki actually has a ton of useful stuff, and Rational Wiki is usually a good place to go if the GF article isn't as helpful as you'd like it to be. But yeah, I would like to compile some sort of list of articles that address specific topics that are obviously misunderstood.
You're definitely right about need for critical theory, I think that's a huge problem in most internet discussion and GG in particular. I think that should probably be added to the list. I'd also like to add another skill that's related:
Awareness of personal politics: One of the core things about GG is this idea that only people you disagree with are "pushing an agenda". In light of recent interactions in this thread about how people are apparently wasting their time talking about an issue that bothers them greatly and how the current positive outcomes of this discussion are marginalised because they're not the specific outcomes people imagine, I think that the key point that all action carries political motivation is sorely needed here.
Yeah, this is such a big problem. I've been seeing a lot of criticism of reviews lately, where GG keeps going 'these shouldn't be political, just talk about the games', as if not talking about race/gender/sexuality isn't a politically informed choice. It's this assumption that talking about the lived experience of marginalised groups is political while anything to do with straight, white, able-bodied cis men is somehow apolitical. Which obviously feeds into this weird sense of entitlement, that games should be for and about the aforementioned 'default' identities. They want reviewers to criticise faulty mechanics that could hinder their enjoyment of a game, but it's somehow this heinous violation of ethics to talk about how sexist or racist content might hinder a woman or person of colour's enjoyment of a game. But obviously they're just the hurt consumer fighting for their right to be catered to and not have vicious ideologues say mean things about them or their toys.
Yeah, this is such a big problem. I've been seeing a lot of criticism of reviews lately, where GG keeps going 'these shouldn't be political, just talk about the games', as if not talking about race/gender/sexuality isn't a politically informed choice. It's this assumption that talking about the lived experience of marginalised groups is political while anything to do with straight, white, able-bodied cis men is somehow apolitical. Which obviously feeds into this weird sense of entitlement, that games should be for and about the aforementioned 'default' identities. They want reviewers to criticise faulty mechanics that could hinder their enjoyment of a game, but it's somehow this heinous violation of ethics to talk about how sexist or racist content might hinder a woman or person of colour's enjoyment of a game. But obviously they're just the hurt consumer fighting for their right to be catered to and not have vicious ideologues say mean things about them or their toys.
This is one of the most surprising aspects of GG to me. I never realised how seriously some players take these reviews (most possibly because I hardly ever read them... I mean just how interesting is some else's opinion (for buy / non-buy purposes, not analysis) of a game anyways?). It's also surprising that people get so upset when reviews don't match their own experience. I guess I am very naive about certain things in our world.
I'm not sure what painting me as being in stalwart opposition to you gets you, other than more reasons to keep posting in a thread you already believe is useless.
I'm more interested in changing the conversation to one where we actually talk about things we can do.
(And I can only do that by continuing to post in this thread, so I accept your suggestion that I bugger off, and I'll disregard it.)
I'm more confused than I was before now - I'm not sure where you're coming from with the "I think this thread is useless" angle. I certainly didn't say it, and in fact I said the exact opposite in my reply. Is this another case of, I write X, you read Y, and then accuse me of Z, when it was never even in my response?
And the funny thing is here, I'm not even "painting you as being in stalwart opposition" - you're doing that all on your own. Not once have I actually said that I think your point of view is wrong, or that I think my point of view is better than yours (and if I have, please point it out so I can retract it, as it would have been said in error). All I've been doing is (as objectively as I can) stating my opinion, and asking questions of the floor in general.
I'm honestly not sure how, from that, you're interpreting that I'm trying to corner you, or that I even have an agenda beyond what I've explicitly said I want out of this conversation, and I'll quote it again:
I'm more interested in changing the conversation to one where we actually talk about things we can do.
Is it possible that I'm just upsetting you on a personal level, because I hold a contrary opinion that you seem unable to decipher and dismantle? That I'm not making sense to you in a way that you want, and by default that means I'm incoherent? As far as I'm concerned, I've been very consistent: I'm tired of the arguments, I want to focus on tangible things we can discuss and do as a community, to bring about something positive from all of this.
You seem to be more interested in making me the bad guy here, the irrational and belligerent one, that's simultaneously failing to see any of your arguments, or your point of view, and that cannot keep his own arguments straight. I believe that's the 'scoring points' mentality, which is ironic since:
It's also surprising that people get so upset when reviews don't match their own experience. I guess I am very naive about certain things in our world.
Games are their religion, reviews are their bible.
I think it really comes down to that, more than anything else. There's a lot about this quagmire that's irrational - chief among them, the idea that "It's just a game, play something else if you don't like it" is apparently beyond most of the instigators involved.
Lets just move on and try discuss some things a bit.
Like @Tuism said a while back, let's stick to the issues.
So this video from yesterday (I think) featured Stephen Totilo and Total Biscuit.
They were talking about press ethics. Honestly I think it was great. Both guys were being quite reasonable, and despite there being some disagreements it seemed to be pretty civil.
(Loooooong discussion though, so if you don't have time, sorry)
This is the kinda thing I meant when referring to open discussion btw.
If this happened like... Months ago. That would've been good. But retrospect gets us nowhere. I would like for more of these to happen. Hopefully TB keeps it up
And I have to ask, is anybody going to be offended if I post archive.today links? I know there's a bout of illegality allegations doing the rounds, so I'll ask before posting those.
You can't. You just can't. There is no way, none that I have ever seen or heard of, that you can convince someone to change their point of view if they don't want to. People are going to believe what they want to believe, and that's that. If they're open to change, if they're asking questions and trying to learn new things, then you have a chance, but there are certain people (call it genetics if you want) that are just fundamentally incapable of seeing another point of view.
Yeah. I think it's to do with subconscious political affiliations. So my political affiliations are based on an ocean of experiences, and any discussion I have with anyone is a drop in said ocean. It won't make a difference.
All information is processed through a political lens.
My lens is just libertarian, egalitarian, and that won't change, ever.
This is one of the most surprising aspects of GG to me. I never realised how seriously some players take these reviews (most possibly because I hardly ever read them... I mean just how interesting is some else's opinion (for buy / non-buy purposes, not analysis) of a game anyways?). It's also surprising that people get so upset when reviews don't match their own experience. I guess I am very naive about certain things in our world.
I havne't seen that much of GG saying they want politics out. But I do think that alot of people would feel less marginalised if there was more intellectual diversity regarding certain topics. At least, that's what I could gather.
It's not great for the demographics of the audience to be told that a game is evil, and that they're evil if they like it. People can say that but it would be better if there was intellectual discussion about it
Yeah. I think it's to do with subconscious political affiliations. So my political affiliations are based on an ocean of experiences, and any discussion I have with anyone is a drop in said ocean. It won't make a difference.
All information is processed through a political lens.
My lens is just libertarian, egalitarian, and that won't change, ever.
And that's 100%, totally, completely fine. It's good, even. It's not my job (or anyone else's) to tell you that your worldview is wrong, or try to convince you that I'm right. Nobody has the authority to tell anyone else that their experiences are meaningless or their conclusions incorrect. I think we'd get a lot more done as a group if we can all just acknowledge that we're on the same team, we come from different places, we see things differently, and that's okay.
So my political affiliations are based on an ocean of experiences, and any discussion I have with anyone is a drop in said ocean. It won't make a difference.
I think that was kind of what I understood @Dislekcia meant with his (long-term) strategy of getting somebody to change... basically be part of an ocean of experiences.
I think most definitely people can change their viewpoints (I mean it's happened in the past). About people wanting to change; that is most definitely one aspect. So part is to make (help, inspire) people to want to change. But there is also a separate issue, and that is where the educational part comes in. It's not enough to want to be good (by some measure), you also need to know and understand how to be good. Many people already want equal rights and opportunities for all. So they don't need to "want to change". Some, however, are misguided about how their actions are against these goals, or how the actions of others promote these goals (for example, how feminism is not about the oppression of or hate for men).
So my political affiliations are based on an ocean of experiences, and any discussion I have with anyone is a drop in said ocean. It won't make a difference.
I think that was kind of what I understood @Dislekcia meant with his (long-term) strategy of getting somebody to change... basically be part of an ocean of experiences.
I think most definitely people can change their viewpoints (I mean it's happened in the past). About people wanting to change; that is most definitely one aspect. So part is to make (help, inspire) people to want to change. But there is also a separate issue, and that is where the educational part comes in. It's not enough to want to be good (by some measure), you also need to know and understand how to be good. Many people already want equal rights and opportunities for all. So they don't need to "want to change". Some, however, are misguided about how their actions are against these goals, or how the actions of others promote these goals (for example, how feminism is not about the oppression of or hate for men).
I disagree. But I don't want to engage you too much about it, if you simply think that someone is wrong for seeing things in a different way to you.
In my opinion intellectual diversity is as important as any other diversity.
I think that was kind of what I understood @Dislekcia meant with his (long-term) strategy of getting somebody to change... basically be part of an ocean of experiences.
Formless oceans that drown people? :)
I frankly think it's a bad thing if everyone in a community thinks, feels, and acts along the same lines. Especially in a community that's built around a creative art. You need opposing viewpoints, disagreements, and challenges, because that's what you're going to face in the real world. And it's healthier, anyway - when you come up against something you disagree with, it gives you an opportunity to learn more about yourself, and about the issue at hand. If there are never any disagreements, there can never be any growth.
I'm more confused than I was before now - I'm not sure where you're coming from with the "I think this thread is useless" angle. I certainly didn't say it
Yes, you did. There's also your subsequent argument for the point that people should "just go make games instead of talking about this." Admittedly, those comments were made a month ago, but you have argued for the idea that posting in this thread isn't worthwhile.
So what have you (and anyone else in this thread) actually done? For instance: [list redacted for space]
Is there any of that? Because all I'm seeing in this thread is basically a bunch of name-calling and handwaving and people trying to tell other people that they're fundamentally missing the issue. How that's "achieving an end to the worst outcomes" is completely beyond me.
And to be clear, I'm not doing any of those things, and I'm not going to try to claim some moral high-ground by implying that my time could be better spent elsewhere. But then again I'm not on a one-man crusade to fix what is essentially a design flaw in the human condition. I'll content myself with making and playing games, and being of use to those who ask.
Here you are saying that the thread has achieved nothing, positioning @dislekcia as someone on a 'crusade', and saying that you'll be of use to anyone who asks, which comes with the obvious implication that the opinions in this thread are both unsolicited and useless.
I can't quite see why you think talking about these issues is of little value. The social sciences are devoted to discussing topics like this, and the ideas that come out of discussions inform activist work, you know, the people who do things to try to make society better. And you still haven't addressed the list of this thread's achievements that @dislekcia posted.
And that's 100%, totally, completely fine. It's good, even. It's not my job (or anyone else's) to tell you that your worldview is wrong, or try to convince you that I'm right. Nobody has the authority to tell anyone else that their experiences are meaningless or their conclusions incorrect. I think we'd get a lot more done as a group if we can all just acknowledge that we're on the same team, we come from different places, we see things differently, and that's okay.
Good point, I also totally agree that we should stop arguing with white supremacists and MRAs, their views that people of colour and women are naturally inferior as human beings are totally legit and we should actually listen to their ideas. Who knows, we might learn something!
I havne't seen that much of GG saying they want politics out. But I do think that alot of people would feel less marginalised if there was more intellectual diversity regarding certain topics. At least, that's what I could gather.
I used the word evil to avoid a different kind of discussion.
And like I said, not much... 2 images proving your point doesn't disprove me saying not much.
This kinda speak from anti-gg side comparing them to white supremacists and MRA's is really what's radicalising them though. You should really consider not doing that.
@eSculpt, nobody is saying that games are evil or that you're evil for enjoying them. I am trying to figure out how you came to this conclusion, because it is wrong.
Those are manifestos that were widely circulated within GG, and just the first few I had on hand. I can definitely link to more if you want?
I wasn't comparing GG to white supremacists or MRAs (although support from those two groups really speaks for itself), I was pointing out the slippery slope we find ourselves on if we accept @wogan's view that nobody has the right to try to change someone's opinion of something or tell them that their worldview is wrong.
In my opinion intellectual diversity is as important as any other diversity.
I frankly think it's a bad thing if everyone in a community thinks, feels, and acts along the same lines.
Of course, I'm not talking about total intellectual homogeneity, just about changing aspects that cause the harmful behaviour we see in GG. That's what we are talking about, right?
Yes, you did. There's also your subsequent argument for the point that people should "just go make games instead of talking about this." Admittedly, those comments were made a month ago, but you have argued for the idea that posting in this thread isn't worthwhile.
I have? Really? Where? Even in the posts where I explicitly say that I think the conversation should carry on, and not just be about GG itself? That we should rather talk about the things we can do, than the way things currently are?
I've literally, EXPLICITLY said, "We should talk about this", and that gets interpreted as "This thread isn't worthwhile". I'm beyond words at this point. Is it a normal thing, in internet discussions, to infer things that are never said?
I think what you (and @dislekcia) are missing here is: I don't think the thread is useless, I think the current conversation inside it, is. I don't see how there's any more to be gained from stating and re-stating the same stuff we've been talking about for almost 2 months now.
Here you are saying that the thread has achieved nothing, positioning @dislekcia as someone on a 'crusade', and saying that you'll be of use to anyone who asks, which comes with the obvious implication that the opinions in this thread are both unsolicited and useless.
Christ on a cracker, more implications. Why is everyone inferring and implying instead of looking at the words that are actually on the screen? How can you infer something as obvious when IT'S NEVER STATED. It's this sort of thing that's now gotten me to disengage completely. After this, I honestly don't care what the rest of you get up to in this thread anymore.
I can't quite see why you think talking about these issues is of little value. The social sciences are devoted to discussing topics like this, and the ideas that come out of discussions inform activist work, you know, the people who do things to try to make society better. And you still haven't addressed the list of this thread's achievements that @dislekcia posted.
Sure, I'll address them. There are 7 points in his list:
It's caused a bunch of really interesting conversations about GG from different people IRL, it's also exposed people to different viewpoints on GG (including some very pro-GG views outside of the sea-lion-fest that is twitter).
It's given people whose voices are directly attacked by GG hope to continue engaging and talking about GG in their own way. We're not good enough (yet) at making them feel welcome here again, but we're getting there.
It has acted as a repository for links and information that people have used in further GG discussions outside of this forum, on FB, Twitter, IRC and the like, in order to achieve the same things I've already mentioned above in a brand new group of people.
It's given people who were on the periphery of GG, including people who were essentially GG moderates, more information about the movement and allowed them to make more informed decisions about how they want to associate with it - by my count there have been at least 3 publicly thanking this thread for that, privately who knows how many more?
It's been, at some points, a ray of hope for developers that are despairing about what GG means for this industry and their place in it.
Achievement: Not sure, really. GG created a shitstorm that made developers unsure about this industry in the first place - how is it now a good thing that all the talking around GG has partially, inconsistently reversed it? Would it not have been better if this controversy had been muted from the start, so that devs would not have had to despair in the first place? Do you also claim credit for putting out fires that you start? Mindboggling.
I know that at least 2 game projects that address GG (and the issues that underlie it) have been begun by people that have seen this thread.
Finally, something that's actually tangible, and I'm glad that there is. Would have been nice to have the names of the devs/games being built, but they'll probably share with us in due course. And if those devs ask for help, or reviews, or to buy, share and spread their games, I'll absolutely do that, because 10 years from now, those games will still be around, and these conversation threads will be relegated to the history bins.
Good point, I also totally agree that we should stop arguing with white supremacists and MRAs, their views that people of colour and women are naturally inferior as human beings are totally legit and we should actually listen to their ideas. Who knows, we might learn something!
You should, actually. You're not going to change their views by arguing with them - if anything, you're going to put them on the defensive and they'll get even more belligerent. Instead, why not focus yourself on rallying everyone who doesn't have shit for brains, and get them behind these people of colour and women?
And if you listen to their ideas, you will learn something - mainly, how they think. And armed with that, you can educate the people who actually do the work of supporting the victims of their shortsightedness, as well as the victims themselves. You can show up their ideologies for what they really are, and educate the people that are still on the fence about these issues - not using wild conjecture or embellished anecdote, but the real facts of the matter that you've now learned, because you took the time to listen.
But I'm done with this thread now. It's become clear that "action", has magically been translated through the lens of the internet into "endlessly talking about the same thing over and over". If history has taught us anything, it's that talking is fundamentally pointless (see: UN, the ISIL crisis, apartheid, climate change, and so on) if there is no drive for action to support it.
So enjoy your talking, and the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you think you're actually making a difference in the world. I wish I could feel the same way about it.
In my opinion intellectual diversity is as important as any other diversity.
[quote]I frankly think it's a bad thing if everyone in a community thinks, feels, and acts along the same lines.
Of course, I'm not talking about total intellectual homogeneity, just about changing aspects that cause the harmful behaviour we see in GG. That's what we are talking about, right?[/quote]
Are you somehow insinuating that convincing me of something is gonna change the behaviour of anarchist online trolls who cause trouble to watch the outcry burn? You're pretty wrong.
In my opinion intellectual diversity is as important as any other diversity.
[quote]I frankly think it's a bad thing if everyone in a community thinks, feels, and acts along the same lines.
Of course, I'm not talking about total intellectual homogeneity, just about changing aspects that cause the harmful behaviour we see in GG. That's what we are talking about, right?
Are you somehow insinuating that convincing me of something is gonna change the behaviour of anarchist online trolls who cause trouble to watch the outcry burn? You're pretty wrong.[/quote]
In some sense, I do believe that. Offline trolls are not such a problem because of the societal pressures upheld there. Those pressures are upheld by moderate, average people, not (usually) extremists. When the pressures go online (with the necessary infrastructure from law and technology), the trolls will go away; or at least become less a problem. For that average people need to change, not extremists.
I would be sad if we have to put up with that kind of thing forever.
In some sense, I do believe that. Offline trolls are not such a problem because of the societal pressures upheld there. Those pressures are upheld by moderate, average people, not (usually) extremists. When the pressures go online (with the necessary infrastructure from law and technology), the trolls will go away; or at least become less a problem. For that average people need to change, not extremists.
I would be sad if we have to put up with that kind of thing forever.
So... You're supportive of governmental control of the internet? I don't want to assume that's what you're saying, but that's all I can make of it.
If so, this is one of those politically at odds things that I'll never be able to agree with you on.
Gets my libertarian senses tingling when people call for controlled internet.
So... You're supportive of governmental control of the internet? I don't want to assume that's what you're saying, but that's all I can make of it.
If so, this is one of those politically at odds things that I'll never be able to agree with you on.
Gets my libertarian senses tingling when people call for controlled internet.
If laws can help with online harassment, then that is what I mean. People are already being prosecuted for things they do online, so it's not entirely new. For all I know, no new laws may be necessary (I am not an expert in this). I merely added that as I think that social pressure, law and tech are all necessary to stop such behaviours.
(Government control of the Internet is a big step from that...not what I meant at all.)
I kinda agree. Although I don't see how social pressure would do much, since there is already significant social pressure against threatening and harassment online. Recently a UK law was updated for this kind of thing to be punishable from 6 months to 2 years. Which is certainly the right kind of thing I think.
Twitter sure as hell could do things better.
In the process of reporting several harassing accounts on twitter, I received several email responses saying they wouldn't do anything because the target had to report it.
They since changed this, because gamergate went on a fury mentioning @twitter and @support regarding that. Maybe a step forward.
Their harassment report system has entirely been updated throughout the whole thing, and bad accounts are actually being taken down properly now. They probably still need more people on that so they can deal with it faster.
It's caused a bunch of really interesting conversations about GG from different people IRL, it's also exposed people to different viewpoints on GG (including some very pro-GG views outside of the sea-lion-fest that is twitter).
Achievement: Talking.
How is this particular talking different to the talking needed to: "listen to their ideas, you will learn something - mainly, how they think. And armed with that, you can educate the people who actually do the work of supporting the victims of their shortsightedness, as well as the victims themselves. You can show up their ideologies for what they really are, and educate the people that are still on the fence about these issues - not using wild conjecture or embellished anecdote, but the real facts of the matter that you've now learned, because you took the time to listen."
You advocate talking in order to understand other viewpoints and where individuals are coming from. But you dismiss talking done in order to understand other viewpoints and where individuals are coming from.
It's given people whose voices are directly attacked by GG hope to continue engaging and talking about GG in their own way. We're not good enough (yet) at making them feel welcome here again, but we're getting there.
Achievement: More talking.
This is quite troubling. GG has explicitly targeted marginalised minorities in gaming, so much so that many of those minorities feel they can't participate in the games industry anymore. You're really going to dismiss trying to get those people back (and maybe even encourage more people by letting them know that their voices are valuable) - don't you see how not caring about those voices drives them away?
It's directly led to the discussion of GG at a developer meetup, which sounded like it went pretty well.
Achievement: Talking offline.
I, and several others here, seem to think that talking about this offline is a very important step in both getting consensus on actions to take as well as educating the sorts of people that you seem to advocate educating in your reply to Brondin's send-up of your point about not trying to convince people of anything ever.
It has acted as a repository for links and information that people have used in further GG discussions outside of this forum, on FB, Twitter, IRC and the like, in order to achieve the same things I've already mentioned above in a brand new group of people.
Achievement: More ammunition for talking.
To people who did not have that information, people who only had the GG perspective, people who were being actively lied to, people who had reached conclusions that were actively shutting down minorities in gaming.
It's given people who were on the periphery of GG, including people who were essentially GG moderates, more information about the movement and allowed them to make more informed decisions about how they want to associate with it - by my count there have been at least 3 publicly thanking this thread for that, privately who knows how many more?
Achievement: Even more ammunition for talking.
Yes, it's a bad thing that the talking those people did happened. Especially the way they asked questions and engaged with a topic they wanted to know more about. Curse that stuff they learned though *spit* talking. Curse it.
It's been, at some points, a ray of hope for developers that are despairing about what GG means for this industry and their place in it.
Achievement: Not sure, really. GG created a shitstorm that made developers unsure about this industry in the first place - how is it now a good thing that all the talking around GG has partially, inconsistently reversed it? Would it not have been better if this controversy had been muted from the start, so that devs would not have had to despair in the first place? Do you also claim credit for putting out fires that you start? Mindboggling.
People who were trying to make games (an activity you seem to think is important) are feeling hounded out of the industry by the shit that is GG. If you care about more games being made, you should want those people to stay hopeful that GG isn't going to constantly be making their lives worse... Heck, people are afraid to talk about this stuff because of the gender makeup of the local community. This thread has let them know that there are allies who understand the value of their voices, meaning they didn't give up and leave games behind. That's worth a ton.
I know that at least 2 game projects that address GG (and the issues that underlie it) have been begun by people that have seen this thread.
Finally, something that's actually tangible, and I'm glad that there is. Would have been nice to have the names of the devs/games being built, but they'll probably share with us in due course. And if those devs ask for help, or reviews, or to buy, share and spread their games, I'll absolutely do that, because 10 years from now, those games will still be around, and these conversation threads will be relegated to the history bins.
It's sad that you think talking is not tangible. One of the best ways to counteract GG is simply to listen better, seeing you so easily dismiss the talking needed for the other side of that equation is... well, unhelpful to say the least.
And armed with that, you can educate the people who actually do the work of supporting the victims of their shortsightedness, as well as the victims themselves. You can show up their ideologies for what they really are, and educate the people that are still on the fence about these issues - not using wild conjecture or embellished anecdote, but the real facts of the matter that you've now learned, because you took the time to listen.
But all those people that require educating had their own views and perceptions before that point! You must be judging all those views as wrong in order to want to educate them differently. Isn't that the same arrogance you pointed out earlier? Even then what hope do you have of actually changing those views in the first place - they're things that are in other people's minds and you know that you can't change those, ever. No matter how good your argument or how unsullied your true facts are by not being conjecture or anecdote, you're still going to be arguing with them, by talking. And that's bad. All that talking.
... Do you maybe understand why your arguments don't make sense to me? They're inconsistent as all hell.
So enjoy your talking, and the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you think you're actually making a difference in the world. I wish I could feel the same way about it.
I would be sad if we have to put up with that kind of thing forever.
I believe that unfortunately this will be the status quo until our physical evolution catches up with the pace of society (which has been changing exponentially in the last few centuries). Bullies, misogynists, etc. All these things are not due to a poor society or lawmaking, but rather due to people struggling to cope and keep up with the pressures of society (in the sense of society wanting to become more "feministic" and tolerant), because simple things like hormones (yes, testosterone makes men aggressive.. go figure) and instincts (think reptile brain) are not so easily overridden by cognitive awareness.
I don't think we have to wait for evolution to get rid of the status quo. Hormones is just one aspect that influences our behaviour, and even where they (or some other biological component) are the principle driver, society need not suffer the behaviour if it does not want to.
Here are a few points:
We (most of us?) can already successfully override many of our biological impulses (think of hunger strikes, for example).
We already have things to de-incentivise our murderous impulses (which is one piece of the puzzle in the decline of violence that we have seen in humanity's history).
We have already developed therapies and medication to deal with situations where our biology falls short. (Think of mental illness, for example).
We have already found strategies to protect society from biology that cannot be otherwise controlled (quarantine in the case of disease, confinement for harmful psychotics).
Important: I give these as examples of how we can overcome biological barriers and don't have to wait for something to evolve out of us. I am not saying we should quarantine harassers. Milder strategies can be used for milder problems.
@hermantulleken: I fully agree. But not everyone is capable of those basic overrides yet. For a more clear example just refer to any standard prison population.. not all impulses are easily repressed. That does not mean we shouldn't try, just that some people will not be salvaged until these flaws are bred out of our species. Enlightenment does not come cheap and needs to be earned.
Comments
But it seems plausible to me that despite the disagreement, alot of people are in a way kept silent by the social stigma surrounding the criticism of feminists. Fear of being labelled misogynists etc. Hence the extremist bastardly types are the only ones to really do it. :/
Even in gg coverage, for the most part loud voices (totalbiscuit et al) are avoiding the topic of feminism like it's a live grenade. Because it could easily blow up on them.
Can't say I know of a way to remedy that situation though.
Considering the contraversial nature of it all, most people made fresh accounts to speak on the issue, and many of them weren't even twitterfolk before the thing, and wouldn't have had accounts to start off with.
They went to twitter following the thread graveyards on reddit and other forums afaik.
I subscribe to this idea, so I don't actually feel that neglecting to interview the developers is a weakness of her work. Though I do think it would be a thoroughly fascinating independent project to see how developers respond to Sarkeesian's criticisms. :)
I admit I found the idea of an author(/developer) not having final say on the meaning of their work, extremely intriguing. That was one of the bigger things I learned from her videos (and to a lesser extent, Hideo Kuze from GitS:2nd GIG): That people will unconsciously internalize the things that they already agree with, and discard the rest. So in that context, imposing a contrary meaning is difficult, if not impossible.
All the more reason to ensure that the work itself is integral, and inspiring, something that intends for people to draw their own meanings from it. Or at least, that's the lesson I'm taking away from all this :P
"Steps like these will show moderates that the press is aware of its deficiencies and is working to address them, and thus the ostensible goal of their movement is not sufficient to justify its continued existence."
This doesn't follow for me. I don't see how these moderates who are already downplaying concerns they might have over accusations of sexism are going to suddenly start worrying about that stuff. How are those moderates not going to assume that GG was actually correct if that happens? How are they not going to get even more upset at attempted discussion of sexism (even only mild attempts at those discussions) if said discussion wasn't necessary for GG to have success in the first place?
And, in re-reading that article, I noticed that he completely left out the way The Escapist was pilloried by GG over the changes that were made to the follow up Escapist article showing "game developer perspectives on GamerGate" (the all-male one with all those glaring issues). I can only conclude that he left that out because it undermined his point, it's not like it happened after this article was written. That either points to willfully misleading readers or to a reasoned conclusion that doesn't take into account some important contrary information. Both sorts of conclusion are flawed, which is why I don't agree with the article ;)
"After gaming journalism, tech journalism, and Gawker have begun to clean up their acts, after there’s some real admission of bad faith and hypocrisy on the part of some of these journalists, and after there’s some good conversation going with the moderates, the movement will start to fracture, as moderates will feel that a) the press is coming to terms with its own shortcomings and b) there are some unpleasant extremists in Gamergate. At that point, the only force keeping moderates in the movement will be inertia."
Again, I am curious as to how these changes are supposed to happen, especially given that inertia is often the prime reason moderates already say they'll stick with GG instead of creating a new hashtag/movement to address their ethics concerns without the baggage of the harassment/misogyny. If they cared enough about the extremists, and if inertia wasn't a major force for coherence in GG, then they'd already have started a new tag. The only way that actually even happens is if those moderates start to understand why the extremists in GG are unpleasant in the first place, which implies education but is strangely never brought up in the article... I don't know. That's pretty-much why I asked for good solutions from other people... I'm really afraid that something even more horrible is going to happen. A killing spree, an extremely violent murder, something jarring enough to make people reconsider their own role in this thing. Although, even then, I'm not sure that would "be enough" - some of the communities that are aligning behind GG (and being welcomed with open arms) like Return of Kings and their ilk are experts are flipping blame back onto victims, it's practically what they exist to do.
I think a campaign for education around these concepts would need to start small and be a constant part of peoples interactions. For instance, I think that we, as a group, can try to provide an environment that doesn't reinforce the sorts of thinking that leads to the misconceptions that drive GG. This isn't a complete list, but here's the kind of thing that I'm thinking about (and I'd love it if people could add to this):
1 - Provide positive examples of how defensiveness and being quick to counter-attack aren't useful. We see it on this forum a lot, mostly because of how game dev criticism works, but we can give concrete examples of how assuming that something is a personal attack is a bad idea. It's easy to point out designers that aren't defensive about their work and how that directly helps them make better games. It also seems to carry over into discussions on other topics, but I have no idea how to extend that into other parts of the internet that don't have the helpful framework of "If you don't start doing these things you'll be a shit game designer!".
2 - Give things a larger context than just winning or losing a debate. In fact, totally remove the stupid spectre of "winning" a debate entirely by having a greater goal in mind. Again, this is easier here on this community because generally people want to make their games better, so that's an easy goal. In a debate about GG, it's way harder to come up with a problem that everyone agrees exists, let alone a goal that everyone is willing to aim for in that context. If you're not trying to "win" an argument, then a ton of the shitty tactics that get used online die out - they're simply not useful anymore.
3 - Try to promote greater understanding by saying what you've just heard. A friend of mine always says that you can't have a discussion without first getting into the same headspace as the other person. Sometimes you can go all the way to where their head is at on your own, more often you need them to want to come to you as well. One of the best tools to try and make that happen is to echo back what you're hearing someone saying so that they get the chance to confirm or support the logic you're exhibiting. This often seems tedious to many inexperienced internet interlocutors, but it's pretty crucial. If we could help more people see that, it would be great... It's not possible without point 1 though, you can't echo back if someone is just going to take any misconceptions as an attack against them personally.
4 - Provide simple examples of defusing misconceptions, misunderstandings and miscommunications. The final thing that I think is important is being able to let someone go "Oh, I didn't mean it that way, I meant this instead..." and listen to that graciously without holding them to some misunderstood point that rapidly becomes a straw man. By the same token, we need to be able to all go "Oh I see, well that means I was totally wrong about X, thanks!" when a misunderstanding is revealed by a good argument. I don't think that's easy to do without all 3 of the above things operating in harmony though.
And I honestly have no idea how to get that to happen in the context of the greater internet. At best, I've barely managed to state those goals in the forums I've been involved in starting over the years. I can testify to how different the community those interactions create is and how much can come out of that community, but it's a very very long game to run and not something that's easy to apply to something like twitter.
So no, I have no idea how to apply that stuff to GG. Lord knows that I haven't even been able to convince @eSculpt that he's not under constant attack from me, he still seems to believe that's going on, I have no idea how to deflate the misunderstandings that arise from his defensiveness. The whole "Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't necessarily mean they're uneducated" thing is a case in point - that's not what I said at all, yet there's no way I can argue that to him :(
-edit- Goddamn these things are long :( I meant to say how much I appreciated the Film-Critic Hulk article and how much that thinking resonated with me. Also, I have no idea what movie Hulk is talking about at the end of it...
It's delusional, actually, to think that the strength of your own argument is enough to convince someone that they're wrong and you're right. You can spent the next hundred years stating it and get precisely nowhere, and there's nothing you can do to change that dynamic. The most productive thing you can do is acknowledge that there are some arguments you will never win, and learn to be OK with that. Rather go talk to people that want to listen, you'll get far more done that way.
Essentially, this means talking about the thing that someone might be defensive about in a completely different setting, preferably one which completely sidesteps the hostility. Now, I'm super not invested enough in one asshole's problems with violence, nor am I manipulative enough to spend time trying to befriend a person I have no positive regard for, so this sort of looooong game wasn't relevant in that case, but it was an interesting idea and something that's stuck with me. Because, to work, it has to be 100% genuine - it's honestly about changing someone through love and respect. It's why I'm all for talking about things like feminism in settings like this one (because I consider this place really important) which might allow people to approach them in less confrontational ways... It's really easy to do that with things like feminism and science, because they're thankfully both really broad, extremely useful and generally applicable.
I find it really interesting how GG has demonised any discussion of feminism at all (that's one of its chief complaints, after all). That sort of overarching automatic reaction is almost cult-like. I think that's one of the reasons people have been calling GG an extinction event. In order to end GG, we need to make the rest of the internet a place where someone can't demonstrate the sorts of thinking that fuels GG without being challenged in some way. Maybe one of those challenges will eventually get past the automatic defenses and result in a positive change :) I disagree. This is only true if you're arguing with someone that is taking your information in bad faith, someone that doesn't have the 4 habits I wrote about above. It can be incredibly educational arguing with someone in good faith - for both the arguers and spectators. I feel like the assumption that someone can never change their perspective based on information presented by someone they're arguing with is a bit problematic... Arguing isn't bad, arguing is interrogating different sources of information, it really doesn't have to be a train smash :)
But I don't think it is normal. The fact of the matter is, every other person you meet is as infinitely complicated as you are. The domain of knowledge itself stretches further than any of us can comprehend. It's physically, fundamentally impossible to have an absolute answer to anything (ANYTHING). Pick any subject imaginable and you'll find differing, even contradictory interpretations.
And I think that's a good thing. It's precisely that variety that makes life worth living. If you spend your life building a framework through which you view the world, eventually it will collapse (we learn new things about our world, and ourselves, all the time). But if you live a life where nothing is set in stone, everything is open to change, and you acknowledge that your knowledge will forever be incomplete, I think you'd be happier for it. I know I am, anyway.
There are millions of people that think the same way you do, and as far as I'm concerned they're responsible for all the bad things in the world - wars, religions, Herbalife. The very idea that you can look at someone else, quietly judge them as incomplete, and appoint yourself their savior, reeks of arrogance. Unless if they're actually asking for it, I don't see how anyone has the right (or even the capability) to interfere.
Are you saying that, in a thread where people are actively talking about what to do about GamerGate, about a situation in which people are being harmed in very real ways for no actual positive outcome, in a conversation where people (including you yourself) are talking about ways to stop that from happening, that this is exactly the same as agitating for war? I'm afraid I don't see the usefulness of accusing me of arrogance here, the conversation was about changing people's ideas through education and how people actively refuse new ideas.
If anything, being friends with someone like I outlined above is about them finding reasons to change their own behavior given the information your friendship allows them to collect. Does that mean people are changing? Yes. Have you or I changed because of our friends? Yes. Does that mean I'm judging people as incomplete and summarily deciding that they should cease to exist in such a fashion? No.
Do I think GamerGaters should stop behaving the way they have been? Fuck yes. Do I think that the world would be a better place if people were more willing to change themselves in the face of information that showed them how their actions hurt others? Hell yeah.
May I ask why your argument supporting my apparent arrogance doesn't apply to you? You are, after all, arguing with me, presumably in order to change my point of view. Or at least, if you despair of changing my point of view, changing at least someone's point of view - how are you not judging that PoV? How are you not deciding that you know better - specifically that you know better about how to react to violent threats against your person? How is that not the same arrogance you're accusing me of? How, in essence, are you not responsible for Herbalife? Eh? Eh?!
C'mon dude. If you want to score points, I'm not playing.
I honestly couldn't care less how you perceive the world around you, as it currently has very little effect on me. I'm just stating my opinion that the idea that it's okay to try and change other people (for who's benefit, anyway?) is arrogant in nature.
I know that this concept must not fit into the very narrow box through which you view the world. Believe me, I used to think the way you did - that there is right and wrong, that everything was either won or lost, that there was a clear answer to every question. I've since learned that the world is really painted in every conceivable shade of color, not just white or black, and I'm sharing that observation in this thread to try and inject another viewpoint into the discussion.
That viewpoint being: Ideological wars are fruitless at best, dangerous at worst, some people are fundamentally immutable, and there are some arguments you just can't resolve. If it were possible, truly possible, for two groups with opposing viewpoints to reconcile through debate, the Middle East wouldn't have been on fire for the last 5000 years.
You, me, and everyone here just has to accept that, inevitably, some people are gonna be dicks, and there's nothing you can do about that. Not every battle has to be fought, not every disagreement is worth arguing over, there's more to life than this.
How are you not just being contrarian? (And, TBH, incredibly patronising) Why should I spend my time engaging with you instead of engaging with people that are trying to achieve an end to the worst outcomes of GG? I hope the irony of that line doesn't escape you... Please at least own up to your intention of continuing the argument ;)
So far there's roughly 400 comments that seem to mainly be link-swopping and people pointing out that other people are dolts. It's a gross summary, but I think it captures the spirit of this debate.
Everyone's on board with the idea that the harassment/threats are real, far as I can tell. People are also keen on the whole ethics/transparency thing. So what have you (and anyone else in this thread) actually done? For instance:
* Has anyone come up with a plan to lobby the respective lawmakers in these countries to recognize cyberbullying as a criminal offense?
* Has anyone set up support lines, or aid groups, or social awareness initiatives that inform/enlighten the general public as to the very real dangers?
* Has anyone started work on games, programs, websites, stories, movies, books or audio of any sort that illustrates these issues, and gives people a medium through which to engage and understand this complex issue?
* Has anyone checked in with the various media integrity boards around the various countries about the gaming press? What do they think of all this, are there guidelines that can be established, rules that can be followed?
* Is anyone working on an ethics/accountability accreditation that will validate journalists as being fair and impartial, and gotten the game blogs on board? Essentially creating the legal framework to fire a journalist for acting unethically?
* How many new sites/blogs/documents/articles have been created that explain what ethics in game journalism should look like? Given that freebies and inside access are key components of the gaming press, how do you draw the line? How's that discussion going?
Is there any of that? Because all I'm seeing in this thread is basically a bunch of name-calling and handwaving and people trying to tell other people that they're fundamentally missing the issue. How that's "achieving an end to the worst outcomes" is completely beyond me.
And to be clear, I'm not doing any of those things, and I'm not going to try to claim some moral high-ground by implying that my time could be better spent elsewhere. But then again I'm not on a one-man crusade to fix what is essentially a design flaw in the human condition. I'll content myself with making and playing games, and being of use to those who ask.
I can't claim full responsibility for the outcomes of this thread, nor would I want to, but if we're evaluating what this discussion so far has achieved, it's actually been pretty useful:
- It's caused a bunch of really interesting conversations about GG from different people IRL, it's also exposed people to different viewpoints on GG (including some very pro-GG views outside of the sea-lion-fest that is twitter).
- It's given people whose voices are directly attacked by GG hope to continue engaging and talking about GG in their own way. We're not good enough (yet) at making them feel welcome here again, but we're getting there.
- It's directly led to the discussion of GG at a developer meetup, which sounded like it went pretty well.
- It's given people who were on the periphery of GG, including people who were essentially GG moderates, more information about the movement and allowed them to make more informed decisions about how they want to associate with it - by my count there have been at least 3 publicly thanking this thread for that, privately who knows how many more?
- It's been, at some points, a ray of hope for developers that are despairing about what GG means for this industry and their place in it.
- It has acted as a repository for links and information that people have used in further GG discussions outside of this forum, on FB, Twitter, IRC and the like, in order to achieve the same things I've already mentioned above in a brand new group of people.
- I know that at least 2 game projects that address GG (and the issues that underlie it) have been begun by people that have seen this thread.
None of those achievements are unimportant and all of them go at least some of the way towards addressing the worst outcomes of GG, even if only in small ways. "It made a difference to THAT starfish" after all.Thanks for that list of potential actions. I hope that this thread continues and maybe even discusses some of those things you've raised (some of them are pretty worrying, others are not actions that we can take here in SA), but you're free to stop involving yourself in a thread you clearly consider useless. Perhaps this thread itself is less black and white than you assumed.
I feel that at some point, it is in everyone's best interest to stop simply pointing fingers and laughing (that's what it really looks like), and try to actually do something about it.
That's why I think the Slate article has merit. It's trying something. That's why I tried for a bit to go on twitter and appeal to the hashtag to find a list of youtubers involved in the mordor deal. It didn't work, but I bet it had a higher chance of success than tweeting how shit the tag supporters are and what's effectively endless provocation at:
1. A bunch of people who clearly like to troll.
2. Another bunch of people who actually believe in something that isn't wrong (NOT talking about the harassment)
3. A bunch of people who do not condone and actively seek out harassers (re: harasser patrol)
And maybe that's part of the problem. People take things too personally. I avoided answering your questions because they weren't actually questions - you're trying to provoke a tit-for-tat argument so you can prove all of my points wrong and somehow win this battle that only exists in your mind. Well I can save you the trouble there: It's not about winning, for me. I'm more interested in changing the conversation to one where we actually talk about things we can do.
(And I can only do that by continuing to post in this thread, so I accept your suggestion that I bugger off, and I'll disregard it.) It's actually pretty funny. I completely agree with this sentiment. There's only room for so much talking before you actually have to go out and do something. Since it seems that "talking about stuff" counts as doing, I opened a thread on this forum to surface the positive learnings out of this debacle, in an attempt to focus the discussion towards the things we can actually change.
Zero responses.
So it's pretty clear to me, at any rate, that the people engaged in this discussion aren't all that interested in moving beyond it. The instigators and harassers have set the tone and the content of this conversation, and we're continuing to have it, as if in deference to their authority on the matter. Why are we playing this game by their rules? I really don't understand: The conversation belongs to those participating in it, and we could turn it into anything we want. Why is it still this?
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29821050
I'm not convinced that the irrelevance of author intent in artistic works as perceived by an audience is that relevant to forum posts made specifically to convey an idea to a limited number of people. Generally that only comes into consideration when a completed, presented work reaches a large audience and it begins having a life of its own, independent of the artist. Forum posts are not independent in the same way, although I can understand how arguments could be made that specific wording or concepts could be interpreted in ways that the author did not intend - I actually view that as a problem in a communication medium like this, which is about trying to convey ideas clearly, hence why I spoke about echoing back and allowing space for corrections of misunderstandings in my posts above.
You're definitely right about need for critical theory, I think that's a huge problem in most internet discussion and GG in particular. I think that should probably be added to the list. I'd also like to add another skill that's related:
Awareness of personal politics: One of the core things about GG is this idea that only people you disagree with are "pushing an agenda". In light of recent interactions in this thread about how people are apparently wasting their time talking about an issue that bothers them greatly and how the current positive outcomes of this discussion are marginalised because they're not the specific outcomes people imagine, I think that the key point that all action carries political motivation is sorely needed here.
The Colbert Report clip, if anyone's interested (from an unofficial source, so it might be taken down, the official ones can't be viewed in SA):
And the funny thing is here, I'm not even "painting you as being in stalwart opposition" - you're doing that all on your own. Not once have I actually said that I think your point of view is wrong, or that I think my point of view is better than yours (and if I have, please point it out so I can retract it, as it would have been said in error). All I've been doing is (as objectively as I can) stating my opinion, and asking questions of the floor in general.
I'm honestly not sure how, from that, you're interpreting that I'm trying to corner you, or that I even have an agenda beyond what I've explicitly said I want out of this conversation, and I'll quote it again: Is it possible that I'm just upsetting you on a personal level, because I hold a contrary opinion that you seem unable to decipher and dismantle? That I'm not making sense to you in a way that you want, and by default that means I'm incoherent? As far as I'm concerned, I've been very consistent: I'm tired of the arguments, I want to focus on tangible things we can discuss and do as a community, to bring about something positive from all of this.
You seem to be more interested in making me the bad guy here, the irrational and belligerent one, that's simultaneously failing to see any of your arguments, or your point of view, and that cannot keep his own arguments straight. I believe that's the 'scoring points' mentality, which is ironic since: I think you're just playing with yourself here.
I think it really comes down to that, more than anything else. There's a lot about this quagmire that's irrational - chief among them, the idea that "It's just a game, play something else if you don't like it" is apparently beyond most of the instigators involved.
Let's all take a sip of kool aid... And relax.
Lets just move on and try discuss some things a bit.
Like @Tuism said a while back, let's stick to the issues.
So this video from yesterday (I think) featured Stephen Totilo and Total Biscuit.
They were talking about press ethics.
Honestly I think it was great. Both guys were being quite reasonable, and despite there being some disagreements it seemed to be pretty civil.
(Loooooong discussion though, so if you don't have time, sorry)
This is the kinda thing I meant when referring to open discussion btw.
If this happened like... Months ago. That would've been good. But retrospect gets us nowhere.
I would like for more of these to happen. Hopefully TB keeps it up
And I have to ask, is anybody going to be offended if I post archive.today links?
I know there's a bout of illegality allegations doing the rounds, so I'll ask before posting those. Yeah. I think it's to do with subconscious political affiliations. So my political affiliations are based on an ocean of experiences, and any discussion I have with anyone is a drop in said ocean. It won't make a difference.
All information is processed through a political lens.
My lens is just libertarian, egalitarian, and that won't change, ever. I havne't seen that much of GG saying they want politics out. But I do think that alot of people would feel less marginalised if there was more intellectual diversity regarding certain topics. At least, that's what I could gather.
It's not great for the demographics of the audience to be told that a game is evil, and that they're evil if they like it.
People can say that but it would be better if there was intellectual discussion about it
I think most definitely people can change their viewpoints (I mean it's happened in the past). About people wanting to change; that is most definitely one aspect. So part is to make (help, inspire) people to want to change. But there is also a separate issue, and that is where the educational part comes in. It's not enough to want to be good (by some measure), you also need to know and understand how to be good. Many people already want equal rights and opportunities for all. So they don't need to "want to change". Some, however, are misguided about how their actions are against these goals, or how the actions of others promote these goals (for example, how feminism is not about the oppression of or hate for men).
In my opinion intellectual diversity is as important as any other diversity.
I frankly think it's a bad thing if everyone in a community thinks, feels, and acts along the same lines. Especially in a community that's built around a creative art. You need opposing viewpoints, disagreements, and challenges, because that's what you're going to face in the real world. And it's healthier, anyway - when you come up against something you disagree with, it gives you an opportunity to learn more about yourself, and about the issue at hand. If there are never any disagreements, there can never be any growth.
I can't quite see why you think talking about these issues is of little value. The social sciences are devoted to discussing topics like this, and the ideas that come out of discussions inform activist work, you know, the people who do things to try to make society better. And you still haven't addressed the list of this thread's achievements that @dislekcia posted. Good point, I also totally agree that we should stop arguing with white supremacists and MRAs, their views that people of colour and women are naturally inferior as human beings are totally legit and we should actually listen to their ideas. Who knows, we might learn something! Here you go:
I used the word evil to avoid a different kind of discussion.
And like I said, not much... 2 images proving your point doesn't disprove me saying not much.
This kinda speak from anti-gg side comparing them to white supremacists and MRA's is really what's radicalising them though.
You should really consider not doing that.
Those are manifestos that were widely circulated within GG, and just the first few I had on hand. I can definitely link to more if you want?
I wasn't comparing GG to white supremacists or MRAs (although support from those two groups really speaks for itself), I was pointing out the slippery slope we find ourselves on if we accept @wogan's view that nobody has the right to try to change someone's opinion of something or tell them that their worldview is wrong.
I've literally, EXPLICITLY said, "We should talk about this", and that gets interpreted as "This thread isn't worthwhile". I'm beyond words at this point. Is it a normal thing, in internet discussions, to infer things that are never said?
I think what you (and @dislekcia) are missing here is: I don't think the thread is useless, I think the current conversation inside it, is. I don't see how there's any more to be gained from stating and re-stating the same stuff we've been talking about for almost 2 months now. Christ on a cracker, more implications. Why is everyone inferring and implying instead of looking at the words that are actually on the screen? How can you infer something as obvious when IT'S NEVER STATED. It's this sort of thing that's now gotten me to disengage completely. After this, I honestly don't care what the rest of you get up to in this thread anymore. Sure, I'll address them. There are 7 points in his list: Achievement: Talking. Achievement: More talking. Achievement: Talking offline. Achievement: More ammunition for talking. Achievement: Even more ammunition for talking. Achievement: Not sure, really. GG created a shitstorm that made developers unsure about this industry in the first place - how is it now a good thing that all the talking around GG has partially, inconsistently reversed it? Would it not have been better if this controversy had been muted from the start, so that devs would not have had to despair in the first place? Do you also claim credit for putting out fires that you start? Mindboggling. Finally, something that's actually tangible, and I'm glad that there is. Would have been nice to have the names of the devs/games being built, but they'll probably share with us in due course. And if those devs ask for help, or reviews, or to buy, share and spread their games, I'll absolutely do that, because 10 years from now, those games will still be around, and these conversation threads will be relegated to the history bins. You should, actually. You're not going to change their views by arguing with them - if anything, you're going to put them on the defensive and they'll get even more belligerent. Instead, why not focus yourself on rallying everyone who doesn't have shit for brains, and get them behind these people of colour and women?
And if you listen to their ideas, you will learn something - mainly, how they think. And armed with that, you can educate the people who actually do the work of supporting the victims of their shortsightedness, as well as the victims themselves. You can show up their ideologies for what they really are, and educate the people that are still on the fence about these issues - not using wild conjecture or embellished anecdote, but the real facts of the matter that you've now learned, because you took the time to listen.
But I'm done with this thread now. It's become clear that "action", has magically been translated through the lens of the internet into "endlessly talking about the same thing over and over". If history has taught us anything, it's that talking is fundamentally pointless (see: UN, the ISIL crisis, apartheid, climate change, and so on) if there is no drive for action to support it.
So enjoy your talking, and the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you think you're actually making a difference in the world. I wish I could feel the same way about it.
Are you somehow insinuating that convincing me of something is gonna change the behaviour of anarchist online trolls who cause trouble to watch the outcry burn? You're pretty wrong.
In some sense, I do believe that. Offline trolls are not such a problem because of the societal pressures upheld there. Those pressures are upheld by moderate, average people, not (usually) extremists. When the pressures go online (with the necessary infrastructure from law and technology), the trolls will go away; or at least become less a problem. For that average people need to change, not extremists.
I would be sad if we have to put up with that kind of thing forever.
If so, this is one of those politically at odds things that I'll never be able to agree with you on.
Gets my libertarian senses tingling when people call for controlled internet.
(Government control of the Internet is a big step from that...not what I meant at all.)
Ah I see then. Apologies for misunderstanding.
I kinda agree. Although I don't see how social pressure would do much, since there is already significant social pressure against threatening and harassment online.
Recently a UK law was updated for this kind of thing to be punishable from 6 months to 2 years. Which is certainly the right kind of thing I think.
Twitter sure as hell could do things better.
In the process of reporting several harassing accounts on twitter, I received several email responses saying they wouldn't do anything because the target had to report it.
They since changed this, because gamergate went on a fury mentioning @twitter and @support regarding that.
Maybe a step forward.
Their harassment report system has entirely been updated throughout the whole thing, and bad accounts are actually being taken down properly now. They probably still need more people on that so they can deal with it faster.
I see what you mean now.
I had a different picture of what you meant when you said social pressure first time round. har.
You advocate talking in order to understand other viewpoints and where individuals are coming from. But you dismiss talking done in order to understand other viewpoints and where individuals are coming from. This is quite troubling. GG has explicitly targeted marginalised minorities in gaming, so much so that many of those minorities feel they can't participate in the games industry anymore. You're really going to dismiss trying to get those people back (and maybe even encourage more people by letting them know that their voices are valuable) - don't you see how not caring about those voices drives them away? I, and several others here, seem to think that talking about this offline is a very important step in both getting consensus on actions to take as well as educating the sorts of people that you seem to advocate educating in your reply to Brondin's send-up of your point about not trying to convince people of anything ever. To people who did not have that information, people who only had the GG perspective, people who were being actively lied to, people who had reached conclusions that were actively shutting down minorities in gaming. Yes, it's a bad thing that the talking those people did happened. Especially the way they asked questions and engaged with a topic they wanted to know more about. Curse that stuff they learned though *spit* talking. Curse it. People who were trying to make games (an activity you seem to think is important) are feeling hounded out of the industry by the shit that is GG. If you care about more games being made, you should want those people to stay hopeful that GG isn't going to constantly be making their lives worse... Heck, people are afraid to talk about this stuff because of the gender makeup of the local community. This thread has let them know that there are allies who understand the value of their voices, meaning they didn't give up and leave games behind. That's worth a ton. It's sad that you think talking is not tangible. One of the best ways to counteract GG is simply to listen better, seeing you so easily dismiss the talking needed for the other side of that equation is... well, unhelpful to say the least. But all those people that require educating had their own views and perceptions before that point! You must be judging all those views as wrong in order to want to educate them differently. Isn't that the same arrogance you pointed out earlier? Even then what hope do you have of actually changing those views in the first place - they're things that are in other people's minds and you know that you can't change those, ever. No matter how good your argument or how unsullied your true facts are by not being conjecture or anecdote, you're still going to be arguing with them, by talking. And that's bad. All that talking.
... Do you maybe understand why your arguments don't make sense to me? They're inconsistent as all hell. I wish you could too.
I don't think we have to wait for evolution to get rid of the status quo. Hormones is just one aspect that influences our behaviour, and even where they (or some other biological component) are the principle driver, society need not suffer the behaviour if it does not want to.
Here are a few points:
We (most of us?) can already successfully override many of our biological impulses (think of hunger strikes, for example).
We already have things to de-incentivise our murderous impulses (which is one piece of the puzzle in the decline of violence that we have seen in humanity's history).
We have already developed therapies and medication to deal with situations where our biology falls short. (Think of mental illness, for example).
We have already found strategies to protect society from biology that cannot be otherwise controlled (quarantine in the case of disease, confinement for harmful psychotics).
Important: I give these as examples of how we can overcome biological barriers and don't have to wait for something to evolve out of us. I am not saying we should quarantine harassers. Milder strategies can be used for milder problems.