The Last (Court) Battle of GamerGate: Feminists Lost, Free Speech Won

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Bruce I am impressed how you can say very little with so many words.

 

The function of austerity is to curb growth by cutting spending(usually on welfare programs) and raising taxes in order to build a surplus. Greece is currently in a depressed economy. Therefore austerity in Greece will result in less growth, less help for workers, more tax burden for citizens, in an economy that already has 20%+ unemployment. It is lunacy to believe that Greece will be able to sustainably pay off debts in this situation, rather it will see the standard of living decline while money from other EU states are funneled through Greece to pay off private entities. We have seen the effects of this already, with loans being used to pay off private banks while public airports are sold to German companies and Greek women selling themselves for cheese sandwiches because shockingly enough it's hard to find work in 20%+ unemployment.

 

If that is austerity working, anyone who supports it is either blinded by ideology or is willing to put their own self-interest above the well-being of others to an inhuman degree.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

In the greater scheme of SJ  and true equality if people like us didn't feel we were being discriminated against is irrelevant  but if large numbers of white, male gamers did feel this then we need to condone this as its wrong?

 

 

If, aside from dramatically underdeveloped reading comprehension skills, the gamer persecution complex that has been, over the decades, steadily fed by the complaints of right-wing moral guardians like Jack Thompson, and a negative bias against anything that has the whiff of social justice to it (causing it to be interpreted in the least charitable light possible), there is no reason for them to feel that way, I hardly see a need to condone it as wrong.

 

Has the article been written in a way that pretty much made it impossible for civil disagreement and mutual respect to dominate the tone of the discussion? Surely. Was it, perhaps, needlessly inflammatory? I can see that. But was it morally wrong? That's an interesting idea, which, I feel, is fundamentally at odds with the dominant perspective of GG that the creation of more content, by itself, can never be morally wrong.

 

 I hear you, this is a much better way for me to try to make my point as opposed to that long post as we need to agree on certain stages of the whole GG development in order for me to progress to my final point

 

And funny enough  I already share your view on most parts of this topic but I want to share something new with  you ...thats what this about for me. Just giving you a different perspective

 

But before I continue do you want to have this debate and I don't mean to sound condescending but maybe you just don't feel like debating this again in which case I wouldn't want to wast either of our time?

 

 

Go on, share your perspective.

 

Yeah I agree with your rejection and annoyance around this automatic knee-jerk reaction and dismissive nature we see from some people whenever anything they perceive as SJ related is discussed or raised. So sometimes people are more concerned with just undermining the core SJ idea than actually debating if the SJ suggestion makes sense 

 

And I'll take it even further, in South Africa there are some white people who claim they are victims of racism because of efforts to address the past and the economic imbalances Apartheid created  and trust me when I tell you they aren't really victims of racism

 

So for example an unemployed black person, and understand this person has been unemployed his whole life, will phone in on a radio station and say something like " South Africa belongs to Africans....why can't we get out land back and why dont we have access to our mineral resources" . Because the reality is most of the land in SA is owned either by the government, private companies or white farmers and the mines are owned by large global corporations like Anglo American. So you can understand the frustration from your average unemployed black South African..yet some white people will phone and act very " offended " and say things like " that guy is racist ...how can he say white people don't belong in South Africa " 

 

Anyway I think they are over reacting and not understanding where the criticism is coming from

 

But back to our debate, what is your definition of SJ?

 

For me it  is about an objective in society where all groups of people are treated equally and allowed equal opportunities to succeed and achieve economic success. You shouldn't marginalize one group at the expense of another but sometimes this may seem to be happening as we address historical injustice ...like affirmative action

 

So whats your definition because this is relevant to GG and what caused it

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the greater scheme of SJ and true equality if people like us didn't feel we were being discriminated against is irrelevant but if large numbers of white, male gamers did feel this then we need to condone this as its wrong?

 

If, aside from dramatically underdeveloped reading comprehension skills, the gamer persecution complex that has been, over the decades, steadily fed by the complaints of right-wing moral guardians like Jack Thompson, and a negative bias against anything that has the whiff of social justice to it (causing it to be interpreted in the least charitable light possible), there is no reason for them to feel that way, I hardly see a need to condone it as wrong.

 

Has the article been written in a way that pretty much made it impossible for civil disagreement and mutual respect to dominate the tone of the discussion? Surely. Was it, perhaps, needlessly inflammatory? I can see that. But was it morally wrong? That's an interesting idea, which, I feel, is fundamentally at odds with the dominant perspective of GG that the creation of more content, by itself, can never be morally wrong.

I hear you, this is a much better way for me to try to make my point as opposed to that long post as we need to agree on certain stages of the whole GG development in order for me to progress to my final point

 

And funny enough I already share your view on most parts of this topic but I want to share something new with you ...thats what this about for me. Just giving you a different perspective

 

But before I continue do you want to have this debate and I don't mean to sound condescending but maybe you just don't feel like debating this again in which case I wouldn't want to wast either of our time?

Go on, share your perspective.

Yeah I agree with your rejection and annoyance around this automatic knee-jerk reaction and dismissive nature we see from some people whenever anything they perceive as SJ related is discussed or raised. So sometimes people are more concerned with just undermining the core SJ idea than actually debating if the SJ suggestion makes sense

 

And I'll take it even further, in South Africa there are some white people who claim they are victims of racism because of efforts to address the past and the economic imbalances Apartheid created and trust me when I tell you they aren't really victims of racism

 

So for example an unemployed black person, and understand this person has been unemployed his whole life, will phone in on a radio station and say something like " South Africa belongs to Africans....why can't we get out land back and why dont we have access to our mineral resources" . Because the reality is most of the land in SA is owned either by the government, private companies or white farmers and the mines are owned by large global corporations like Anglo American. So you can understand the frustration from your average unemployed black South African..yet some white people will phone and act very " offended " and say things like " that guy is racist ...how can he say white people don't belong in South Africa "

 

Anyway I think they are over reacting and not understanding where the criticism is coming from

 

But back to our debate, what is your definition of SJ?

 

For me it is about an objective in society where all groups of people are treated equally and allowed equal opportunities to succeed and achieve economic success. You shouldn't marginalize one group at the expense of another but sometimes this may seem to be happening as we address historical injustice ...like affirmative action

 

So whats your definition because this is relevant to GG and what caused it

The problem in my experience is that most Social Justice advocates don't want equal opportunity, they want equal outcome.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

The problem in my experience is that most Social Justice advocates don't want equal opportunity, they want equal outcome.

 

 

Not quite.

 

They want equal opportunity while recognizing equal opportunity isn't going to be achievable just by giving everyone equal opportunity because societal inertia and subconscious biases still exist.

[Gromnir]

once every six month or so we check out one of these gamergate threads to see if there is anything new happening.  no such luck.

 

we will once again make two points and then disappear, kinda like swallows o' capistrano.  sadly, we will be back at some point, if only to take a peek.

 

1) naivete

 

am not sure why anybody takes game journalism serious.  is the pro wrestling o' journalism.  gamers rose up in anger when they discovered that game journalism were not maintaining any real ethical standards?   sudden discover that the personal and business relationships game journalists got is affecting their reviews and stories?  do some o' the unwashed gamers also still believe in elves, gremlins and eskimos?  we do not understand the hoopla.  makes no sense to us anymore than discovery that a particular pro wrestler uses hgh.

 

2) distraction

 

am admitted annoyed by many o' the sjw crowd and the gg crowd as well.  on its face, the original gamergate cause should have nothing to do with sjw issues.  nevertheless, in this day and age, everything becomes a sjw issue.  regardless o' initial point o' contention, one o' the underprivileged will be the target o' misogynist or racist comments, at which point the initial issue (as pointless as it were in this case) will be lost.  is an annoying predictable outcome in the current generation and gg and sjw folks is equal complicit.

 

the gg folks, as a whole, did not comport themselves with much dignity.  should come as no surprise that the admitted liberal media reacted poorly to gg given how much hate and vitriol were being spewed.  should gg be judged as a whole 'cause o' the actions o' a loud minority o' miscreants and reprobates 'mongst their ranks?  wake up. it's 2016 and that is the way the world works. if were only a small handful o' folks on the furthest flung edges o' al gore's interweb frothing and clawing like a tangle o' rabid squirrels, most sane folks would dismiss such nonsense.  unfortunately, as the internet provides a certain anonymity and insulation, those rabid and squirrelly misogynists and racists were all too common.  gg were a collection o' individuals.  as such, there were no obvious way to reign in the more extreme, and all too common, elements o' the movement. 

 

that being said, we got equal derision for the sjw folks who happily turned the game journalism issue into a platform to promote their own agendas.

 

...

 

as a minority, am am gonna concede that we initial feeling some sympathy for many sjw causes.  other than the true psychopaths amongst us, we all have some level o' natural empathy, yes? should be axiomatic that is easier to empathize with people who has similar backgrounds to our own... people who endured similar problems.  

 

...

 

the problem for Gromnir is that we feel like we have little common ground with the current sjw crowd.  anita sarkeesian and manveer heir doesn't have backgrounds similar to Gromnir.  we did not come from a similar place.  we did not fight similar battles.  am admitting that we is slight embarrassed by such folks even if we is compelled to fight for their right to speak. racism and misogyny exist in 2016 US, but the battles o' the sjw involved in the gg fight stain the real issues.  there is indeed still a legacy o' systemic racism that makes life more difficult for the average american black man than for the average white man.  and yeah, in some professions and fields, women doesn't get same opportunities as men, even in 2016.  that being said, it takes a special kinda idiot to believe that reducing the size o' b00bies in video games will make easier for women who is striving to become chief o' surgery at  the John H. Stroger, Jr. hospital of cook county.  have the new "commander shepherd" for mass effect 4 be a latino man or a black woman will not make one bit o' difference for the indian guy who is trying to get a loan from the bank.  yell "racist" at every guy who likes mass effect 3 or label any man who enjoyed tomb raider as misogynist is not helping the cause o' minorities and women.  

 

but again, is all so pointless, and six months from now we will be back to see if anything has changed.  gl.  am not certain what the fight is even about anymore, but am certain that we is mildly embarrassed by the pervasive... silliness. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps the eskimos reference were an admitted obscure nod to the simpsons.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Gromnir

[Zoraptor]

It is relativism because it puts a priori the opinion of SJWs on equal footing with everything else, as if they have a solid foundation to build moral judgements when they do not. For every link from Chomsky, Zizek to Zappa and Yiannopoulos, it is about highlighting the objective truth that they are wrong downright to a philosophical level.

 

I am not talking about those with innocent ideas like we should all be seen as one and everyone deserves to self-actualize their own souls, i am talking about the slippery slope of people who will commit evil acts on their own conscience because they believe they are doing something good. Relativism.

Well, that is an explanation at least. Not exactly a great one given that as Sakai said, the objective truths all to often are subjective truths instead but there's limited point arguing about that.

 

If I wanted to make some sort of cheap point myself I might just dismiss you as a rambling 'moral absolutist' due to your belief in those absolute truths, but that is of course a cheap tactic and it's unlikely you'd accept the parallel anyway, so I won't.

 

 

Lets talk about Zoraptor.

 

The guy posts here like anyone else and you talk he cannot read your post. That's just weird.

 

It's not weird, it's just designed to get someone ignoring him to re-engage rather than anything else.

[BruceVC]

 

 

The problem in my experience is that most Social Justice advocates don't want equal opportunity, they want equal outcome.

 

 

Not quite.

 

They want equal opportunity while recognizing equal opportunity isn't going to be achievable just by giving everyone equal opportunity because societal inertia and subconscious biases still exist.

 

Thats a good answer and I can proceed with my next point

 

Would you agree that a SJ objective can be achieved through a system changing but it doens't mean the people who support the system need to agree to it. So for example lets say in Hungary women weren't allowed to go into bars single, due to protests your government passes legislation that allows women to be able to visit bars alone even though some people would still object to this

 

But the outcome in this case is not about everyone agreeing as it was settled through legislation. Would you support this type of SJ  result? 

[BruceVC]

It's not weird, it's just designed to get someone ignoring him to re-engage rather than anything else.

 

Yes Zora I want you to re-engage with me, I have made this point several times. But I dont need to make a post like earlier to Meshugger in order to try to provoke or interest you in debating with me

 

Its makes no sense that you won't debate with me but end of the day as I keep saying I respect a persons right to ignore me or block me. I only want to engage with people who are sincere about having a debate

 

But yes come back to debating with me

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

The problem in my experience is that most Social Justice advocates don't want equal opportunity, they want equal outcome.

 

 

Not quite.

 

They want equal opportunity while recognizing equal opportunity isn't going to be achievable just by giving everyone equal opportunity because societal inertia and subconscious biases still exist.

 

Thats a good answer and I can proceed with my next point

 

Would you agree that a SJ objective can be achieved through a system changing but it doens't mean the people who support the system need to agree to it. So for example lets say in Hungary women weren't allowed to go into bars single, due to protests your government passes legislation that allows women to be able to visit bars alone even though some people would still object to this

 

But the outcome in this case is not about everyone agreeing as it was settled through legislation. Would you support this type of SJ  result? 

 

 

Well of course I would.

 

I mean, would this be any different from literally any other anti-discrimination law?

[Meshugger]

 

It is relativism because it puts a priori the opinion of SJWs on equal footing with everything else, as if they have a solid foundation to build moral judgements when they do not. For every link from Chomsky, Zizek to Zappa and Yiannopoulos, it is about highlighting the objective truth that they are wrong downright to a philosophical level.

 

I am not talking about those with innocent ideas like we should all be seen as one and everyone deserves to self-actualize their own souls, i am talking about the slippery slope of people who will commit evil acts on their own conscience because they believe they are doing something good. Relativism.

Well, that is an explanation at least. Not exactly a great one given that as Sakai said, the objective truths all to often are subjective truths instead but there's limited point arguing about that.

 

If I wanted to make some sort of cheap point myself I might just dismiss you as a rambling 'moral absolutist' due to your belief in those absolute truths, but that is of course a cheap tactic and it's unlikely you'd accept the parallel anyway, so I won't.

 

 

Lets talk about Zoraptor.

 

The guy posts here like anyone else and you talk he cannot read your post. That's just weird.

 

It's not weird, it's just designed to get someone ignoring him to re-engage rather than anything else.

 

 

That's even worse. Bruce, try to be decent for once.

 

But i will drop the discussion about truth and morality for the time being, it will only dwelve into philosophy and metaphysics, which will most likely leave us with quotes of mostly dead men. Been there, done that.

 

This discussion is a meta-reference to the overall discussion anyway, which is not much is really happening. The idiots have enclosed themselves at Polygon and Kotaku, which no one takes seriously anymore, and the professional victims have run to other ventures.

 

Well, there's one guy at Bioware being a special case of racist: https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Amanveerheir%20white%20men&src=typd

Edited January 24, 2016 by Meshugger

[Oerwinde]

Shows how far KiA has fallen. CBC edited an article to add details of the case including a paraphrase of the judges comments. KiA claims its slander and anyone informing them of the details of the judgement that shows the statement is just the judge's opinion is being downvoted.

[Fenixp]

RANT TIME:

 

Yeah, that's why I joined it originally. I saw this stuff first hand as a game dev. I left because that's not what it's about. Even if it used to be, it's no use even trying to discuss this on the hashtag. It gets ignored. Whenever I tried to bring the conversation back to this, the response came down to "who cares, a perpetually offended feminist said something stupid about us on twitter I should be equally perpetually offended about". Actual game talk gets consistently gets less talk than some white knight or tumblrina making nasty comments every single time. Hell, the hashtag was at its most busy when it was about a scientist's T-shirt and absolutely not about games. And the rare occassions when it finally did talk about games, it was always defending bad practices from publishers that practically abuse their game dev employees because otherwise you're "attacking gamers", taking the side of utter corporate ********s like Bethesda and UbiSoft over game devs that actually needed support. Even to most of those that claim it's about artistic freedom in games it's not really, and honestly judging by how much nonsense you have interjected about post-modernist bull**** I count you among those. Absolute tripe like Hatred doesn't become a runaway success because it has merit, but because politics. #GamerGate injects more arm-chair politics into gaming than feminists were ever able to, and companies are using it to promote games consumer lifestyle, not a promotion of game merit. Instead of paying GameSpot for Mountain Dew and Doritos ads, they've leveraged angry nerds to make viral memes about it while they pretend everyone else is a sheep. You can "no true scotsman" those "e-celebs" as much as you want, but guess what, they and their followers are the movement's majority and they think you're no true scotsman. And with them overflowing comment sections everywhere to the point comment sections in gaming media are going extinct, they're more annoying and pervasive than SJW tumblrinas could ever hope to be.

 

BasedGamer was the only good thing to come out of #GamerGate. The peepz behind that were smart in leveraging nerd rage for a good cause - killing metacritic, a tool highly abused by feminists and #GamerGate to bury and destroy anything that had a wiff of "badthink" about it, instead of on its own merit.

*clap clap clap* I'm done reasoning with people, I'm just linking this every time GamerGate is brought up. Anywhere. Ever. I'll put a printed version in my wallet.

[Volourn]

"They want equal opportunity while recognizing equal opportunity isn't going to be achievable just by giving everyone equal opportunity because societal inertia and subconscious biases still exist."
 

That's just not what JS Nazis want. if it was, they wouldn't be calling women and minorities nasty names when they disagree with them. EVIL.

[pmp10]

BasedGamer was the only good thing to come out of #GamerGate. The peepz behind that were smart in leveraging nerd rage for a good cause - killing metacritic, a tool highly abused by feminists and #GamerGate to bury and destroy anything that had a wiff of "badthink" about it, instead of on its own merit.

Did that really amount to anything?

I thought all gg related startups ended their life at beta.

[Blarghagh]

It's still in development and gaining traction. There was no way it could go straight into operation, because then it would be "that #GamerGate website" and not a game review platform.

[GhoulishVisage]

I'd say that the success of sites like Niche Gamer and TechRaptor is another positive.

[FlintlockJazz]

Normally I don't post on this kinda thing but I gotta ask: is the Gamergate/anti-Gamergate thing all over?  Finished?  Ran out of steam? 

[GhoulishVisage]

Normally I don't post on this kinda thing but I gotta ask: is the Gamergate/anti-Gamergate thing all over?  Finished?  Ran out of steam? 

 

It's been stagnant and rotting for a while. Recent events have pretty much just ensured that it's nothing but a hollowed out corpse.

 

Oh there will be those that use the tag as a community thing, and there will be others that hang onto it for every scrap of relevance they can muster, but as a driving force and a catalyst it is very much dead.

Edited January 26, 2016 by GhoulishVisage

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Shows how far KiA has fallen. 

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

[Sakai]

 

Shows how far KiA has fallen. 

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

 

It was an ok place when i first started reading it half a year ago. Plenty of idiots, but also a lot of reasonable people. Now though it seems that idiots took over and the sub turned into a bunch of fanatics whose sole purpose in life is to fight their "enemies", whoever they might be. Basically a mirror image of people like Harper. 

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Shows how far KiA has fallen. 

 

Oh my sweet summer child...

 

It was an ok place when i first started reading it half a year ago. Plenty of idiots, but also a lot of reasonable people. Now though it seems that idiots took over and the sub turned into a bunch of fanatics whose sole purpose in life is to fight their "enemies", whoever they might be. Basically a mirror image of people like Harper. 

 

 

I dunno, whenever I ventured there, even when it was purportedly decent, basically none of the front page topics had anything to do with ethics or journalism.

 

This, obviously, didn't quite give the impression of them upholding the so-called "pure" gamergate ethos.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Normally I don't post on this kinda thing but I gotta ask: is the Gamergate/anti-Gamergate thing all over?  Finished?  Ran out of steam?

 

It's dead Jim.

[Sakai]

I dunno, whenever I ventured there, even when it was purportedly decent, basically none of the front page topics had anything to do with ethics or journalism.

 

This, obviously, didn't quite give the impression of them upholding the so-called "pure" gamergate ethos.

Well, that's mostly due to the the fact that there wasn't really much to talk about when it came to journalism. Most of the legitimate concerns were adressed in the first few months. That's why imo the decision to center GG around journalism was wrong, since it's obviously not the case and can only lead to confusion and misunderstandings. 

[GhoulishVisage]

KiA took a sharp nosedive round about when the RedditRevolt was going on. It's only gotten worse since then.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Most of the legitimate concerns were adressed in the first few months. That's why imo the decision to center GG around journalism was wrong, since it's obviously not the case and can only lead to confusion and misunderstandings. 

 

 

Bu-bu-but I was told it's actually about ethics in gaming journalism!

Edited January 26, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid