#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

[werepossum]

I tend to see "your job is to play video games" a lot, and I think people are missing the mark. Streamers on Twitch may play games, but that's not their job. That may sound strange, but you have to keep in mind... it's their job to entertain. Popular streamers end up attaining a following and fostering a community, and that's what separates them from those that fail to make their mark. In some cases, playing games badly can actually be a shtick that works well for them, and there are other Internet personalities that use a persona as part of their appeal (e.g. KaceyTron and Jim Sterling).

I watched a video of a talk between Sterling and Colin Moriarty (from Kinda Funny), and one interesting tidbit came out. Apparently, Sterling didn't have much luck when he first came onto the video scene. He replaced Lisa Foiles on The Escapist, and most people didn't care for that. Although, looking at the two, it might not be hard to see why. Anyway, he never gained a ton of traction until he decided to joke around with that self-entitled personality ("I'm Jim-fucking-Sterling, son!" "Thank God for me!"), and people loved it.

Ah, I think the bit about reaction speed might have been in the Dead or Alive video. I've seen both of those, and they were certainly interesting, but I don't think I'd consider Matthew Patrick to be anti-SJW. I don't think I'd consider him to be on either side of that debacle. The awkward restrictions on sex compared to violence has been a longtime point of contention for some as it just doesn't make sense. The Dead or Alive restrictions are just one of the latest issues along with Twitch banning certain games from streaming.

Good points. Women who get paid to play games are getting paid because their employers believe the women's presence will ultimately make them more money than they are paying. This is simple capitalism and is based solely on women's relative scarcity in gaming. If gamers were overwhelmingly female, we would see attractive and personable men being paid to game. Makes me wonder if, as gamer women become more numerous, the desirable group will eventually be the androgynous and/or transgendered. Anybody else remember David Bowie and Lou Reed? When gaming becomes as mixed and as prevalent as music, companies will once again struggle to differentiate themselves with the exotic.

I love the bonus of this turning the notion of social justice into a derogatory term. That's a smart agenda.

Social justice SHOULD be a derogatory term. It is based completely on group identity, which is antithetical to the concept of Western liberalism and it's "cult of individualism". The amount and type of justice one receives should not be a matter of which group one falls into.

While I am not invested in either side and in fact often have trouble remembering which is which, there are things here which warm the crusty old cockles of my heart, such as Gawker being hit hard. That is a horrendous bunch of people. Full disclosure: I did not even know Gawker was a party to this kerfuffle until at lunch today I read one of OrooOroo's links. I share BoberFett's aversion to videos, these walls o'text tend to disencourage my examining them, and I far too often can't tell which whiny hot mess is which. I think it's smart to not allow the SJWs to be the only voice heard, but I also think that far too often the people opposing them are so virulent and/or whiny that people don't bother to distinguish between the two groups.

 

[werepossum]

Most reasonable people find social justice an admirable goal. Even those horrible GamerGate types have no problem with that.

Social Justice Warriors is derogatory because these freaks have no real interest in social justice, only the warrior part. Social justice is just their impenetrable facade for being horrible human beings.

"You can't criticize me, I'm fighting for social justice! Now crawl in a hold die you cishet shitlord!"

SJWs seem to think GamerGate is an evil movement because of the actions of a few. Why can't social justice be held to the same standard? Sorry if a few assholes ruined the real social justice movement, but that's the way it goes.

Well said.

Who has attempted to censor Anita Sarkeesian? Or am I misinterpreting you?

He's using a loose interpretation, meaning that the vitriolic attacks on Anita Sarkeesian have granted her far more visibility than her own efforts would normally accord her. This is true. It's also worth noting that those who oppose her with personal attacks and threats actually bolster her side, because to people without any opinions or vested interest in either side, the side that is presented as being vicious attack dogs will probably be assumed to be the wrong side.

 

[BoberFett]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=streisand+effect

I'm well aware of that, but even absent GamerGate these SJWs have picked up a lot of steam and a lot of press. It's easy to do when you're a sympathetic "victim". The media will genuflect to any girl who carries her mattress all over campus because she was "raped". Nevermind that her story has been largely debunked and it appears just as likely that she's the aggressor as she the "victim". But how many articles have been written about "campus rape culture" because she's a poor helpless girl and the big bad male and his patriarchy are keeping her down...

It's all a part of the same toxic culture, and even if they don't have power now they will eventually. Just look at comedians who won't go to universities anymore because they can't make any jokes without being accused of hatred. The current crop of college graduates are coming out so overly sensitive and in a decade or two when they start gaining some power, even the most left wing person might not like what happens.

 

[Exophase]

He's using a loose interpretation, meaning that the vitriolic attacks on Anita Sarkeesian have granted her far more visibility than her own efforts would normally accord her. This is true. It's also worth noting that those who oppose her with personal attacks and threats actually bolster her side, because to people without any opinions or vested interest in either side, the side that is presented as being vicious attack dogs will probably be assumed to be the wrong side.

I agree with all of that, but I think there should be a different syndrome name for that.

Because while some harassment might be done in an attempt to scare the person into stopping I doubt most of it is. It's really hard to believe that most people sending out harassment wouldn't have realized by now that it only makes her more sympathetic and popular. If anything I'd sooner believe that they're trolls who thrive off of the consequence-free attention, or maybe that it somehow seethes their anger in a base and hard to understand fashion.

I'm actually all for calling this Sarkeesian Syndrome because it's really not the sort of thing that can apply to just anyone. I'd say Streisand Effect is more universal.

 

[werepossum]

I agree with all of that, but I think there should be a different syndrome name for that.

Because while some harassment might be done in an attempt to scare the person into stopping I doubt most of it is. It's really hard to believe that most people sending out harassment wouldn't have realized by now that it only makes her more sympathetic and popular. If anything I'd sooner believe that they're trolls who thrive off of the consequence-free attention, or maybe that it somehow seethes their anger in a base and hard to understand fashion.

I'm actually all for calling this Sarkeesian Syndrome because it's really not the sort of thing that can apply to just anyone. I'd say Streisand Effect is more universal.

I kinda like that, but it also spreads her name recognition and therefore her appeal. In a society where Kim Kardashian has over thirty million Twitter followers, all publicity is good publicity.

 

[Exophase]

I kinda like that, but it also spreads her name recognition and therefore her appeal. In a society where Kim Kardashian has over thirty million Twitter followers, all publicity is good publicity.

I don't think it's really going to make a difference at this point, she's pretty well entrenched in the minds of people who love her and hate her.

But okay, maybe we'll start calling it this 30 years from now

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I kinda like that, but it also spreads her name recognition and therefore her appeal. In a society where Kim Kardashian has over thirty million Twitter followers, all publicity is good publicity.

Yeah, because everyone who talks about the Streisand Effect is such a huge fan of Babs.

 

[werepossum]

I don't think it's really going to make a difference at this point, she's pretty well entrenched in the minds of people who love her and hate her.

But okay, maybe we'll start calling it this 30 years from now

Agreed.

Yeah, because everyone who talks about the Streisand Effect is such a huge fan of Babs.

Um, no. But the more people who know of her, the more who will be fans of hers. Even if the net affect is negative, she still comes out ahead.

EDIT: As Exophase points out, the Streisand Effect really isn't a good description since everyone already knew about Streisand, what became more widespread were the actual photos she was trying to stop. But in named effects, it will broadly do to illustrate a point.

 

[jackstar7]

Most reasonable people find social justice an admirable goal. Even those horrible GamerGate types have no problem with that.

Social Justice Warriors is derogatory because these freaks have no real interest in social justice, only the warrior part. Social justice is just their impenetrable facade for being horrible human beings.

"You can't criticize me, I'm fighting for social justice! Now crawl in a hold die you cishet shitlord!"

SJWs seem to think GamerGate is an evil movement because of the actions of a few. Why can't social justice be held to the same standard? Sorry if a few assholes ruined the real social justice movement, but that's the way it goes.

And here's where I say the same thing about gun owners, Tea Party, environmentalists, etc.,... a few ruin it for everyone.

The reason I lament the denigration of "social justice"--and I do think it is derided because of the "SJW" branding--is because, like you say, there's value in the struggle. We should aspire to justice for all.

Instead we get this kind of trollathon.

 

[jackstar7]

Social justice SHOULD be a derogatory term. It is based completely on group identity, which is antithetical to the concept of Western liberalism and it's "cult of individualism". The amount and type of justice one receives should not be a matter of which group one falls into.

That is not my understanding of social justice at all.

I had a whole thing here that I've deleted. I don't want to get sucked into this outhouse of terrible ideas. I see several people posting in here and I cannot figure out why just on the basis that they are better than the average of this thread by a wide margin, yourself included.

 

[MagickMan]

"Sexist gamers are losers" study is bogus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK8NwZPLqBw

 

[MagickMan]

its pretty funny because hes basically just talking to himself

i am amazed by how much 0roo0roo cares about this topic.

He thinks people read his posts.

We care and we do read them, apparently you do too since you visit this thread so often.

 

[Blue_Max]

And here's where I say the same thing about gun owners, Tea Party, environmentalists, etc.,... a few ruin it for everyone.

The reason I lament the denigration of "social justice"--and I do think it is derided because of the "SJW" branding--is because, like you say, there's value in the struggle. We should aspire to justice for all.

The big problem is that they may be using the word "justice", but it certainly isn't. The "justice" being demanded is only given to a handful of people - the few they feel deserve it because they're "more oppressed than others". (And quietly to themselves as well, since the moderators of justice NEED that power to get the job done more effectively, y'know.)

The biggest problem is in the methodology which usually feeds its members with BS propaganda to stir emotion, especially hatred toward its opponents - whoever they may be. They will then aggressively fight these "oppressors" using any methods available to them - no holds barred. They've proven to lie at every opportunity and will hurl slanderous insults and accusations at will without a second thought. Anything to cause more rage and animosity towards anyone who dares disagree with one of their theories, causes, methods, etc.

There can be no discussion - only one opinion is allowed. Theirs.

 

[MrPickins]

He's using a loose interpretation, meaning that the vitriolic attacks on Anita Sarkeesian have granted her far more visibility than her own efforts would normally accord her. This is true.

:thumbsup:

It's also worth noting that those who oppose her with personal attacks and threats actually bolster her side, because to people without any opinions or vested interest in either side, the side that is presented as being vicious attack dogs will probably be assumed to be the wrong side.

I can't disagree with that.

I'm actually all for calling this Sarkeesian Syndrome because it's really not the sort of thing that can apply to just anyone. I'd say Streisand Effect is more universal.

:biggrin:

 

[Anubis]

We care and we do read them, apparently you do too since you visit this thread so often.

i actually dont read any of his posts, i only click in here when i noticed its bumped, im almost always at work and all his images and links are blocked

 

[jackstar7]

The big problem is that they may be using the word "justice", but it certainly isn't. The "justice" being demanded is only given to a handful of people - the few they feel deserve it because they're "more oppressed than others". (And quietly to themselves as well, since the moderators of justice NEED that power to get the job done more effectively, y'know.)

The biggest problem is in the methodology which usually feeds its members with BS propaganda to stir emotion, especially hatred toward its opponents - whoever they may be. They will then aggressively fight these "oppressors" using any methods available to them - no holds barred. They've proven to lie at every opportunity and will hurl slanderous insults and accusations at will without a second thought. Anything to cause more rage and animosity towards anyone who dares disagree with one of their theories, causes, methods, etc.

There can be no discussion - only one opinion is allowed. Theirs.

Except that the one using the word 'justice' is you. You're the one mashing it into a slur because it's easier to put down people when you can group them under a convenient banner. And it just so happens to put down the notion of social justice as a convenient byproduct for people that lament many groups that won't stay under heel.

But do tell me more about their terrible tactics that only they use against you, the truth-tellers.

 

[brycejones]

Except that the one using the word 'justice' is you. You're the one mashing it into a slur because it's easier to put down people when you can group them under a convenient banner. And it just so happens to put down the notion of social justice as a convenient byproduct for people that lament many groups that won't stay under heel.

But do tell me more about their terrible tactics that only they use against you, the truth-tellers.

Careful you'll be called a radical feminist next.

 

[BoberFett]

Except that the one using the word 'justice' is you. You're the one mashing it into a slur because it's easier to put down people when you can group them under a convenient banner. And it just so happens to put down the notion of social justice as a convenient byproduct for people that lament many groups that won't stay under heel.

But do tell me more about their terrible tactics that only they use against you, the truth-tellers.

You were asking Blue, but I'll respond anyway.

These Social Justice Warriors use exactly the same tactics as the people they try to claim are harassers. They they send death threats, they attempt to get your fire, they SWAT.

How are ANY of those actions furthering social justice? Just look at one of their favorite sayings "There are no bad tactics, only bad targets". These people are only against harassment when it's them being harassed.

Christ, look at Sam Biddle and his "Bring back bullying" and "Nerds should be bullied" posts. And this is a guy with an audience, not some sad nerd playing CoD in his basement, but someone with actual influence.

If you're upset about social justice getting a bad rap, then take it up with the people who are hiding behind social justice so they can harass people unopposed.

 

[jackstar7]

You were asking Blue, but I'll respond anyway.

These Social Justice Warriors use exactly the same tactics as the people they try to claim are harassers. They they send death threats, they attempt to get your fire, they SWAT.

How are ANY of those actions furthering social justice? Just look at one of their favorite sayings "There are no bad tactics, only bad targets". These people are only against harassment when it's them being harassed.

Christ, look at Sam Biddle and his "Bring back bullying" and "Nerds should be bullied" posts. And this is a guy with an audience, not some sad nerd playing CoD in his basement, but someone with actual influence.

If you're upset about social justice getting a bad rap, then take it up with the people who are hiding behind social justice so they can harass people unopposed.

I will and do. I also think how things are labeled and the use of language is important. If it wasn't, then politicians wouldn't employ consultants specifically for choosing words.

In this instance I am saying that there are fucking terrible actors on both sides. But one side adopted a label and uses it to paint the entirety of the opposition with it, AND it has the side-effect of showing a distaste for the very notion of social justice. Given the most vocal among the anti-SJW crowd, it isn't too surprising.

 

[werepossum]

That is not my understanding of social justice at all.

I had a whole thing here that I've deleted. I don't want to get sucked into this outhouse of terrible ideas. I see several people posting in here and I cannot figure out why just on the basis that they are better than the average of this thread by a wide margin, yourself included.

It's not most people's understanding of social justice. It is however the Social Justice Warrior movement, which is purely about group identities and results based purely on those group identities. Traditional Western liberalism, based on the rights of the individual, simply cannot coexist with the Social Justice Warrior system based on the rights of the group, because satisfying the rights of the group requires denying the rights of the individual.

 

[jackstar7]

It's not most people's understanding of social justice. It is however the Social Justice Warrior movement, which is purely about group identities and results based purely on those group identities. Traditional Western liberalism, based on the rights of the individual, simply cannot coexist with the Social Justice Warrior system based on the rights of the group, because satisfying the rights of the group requires denying the rights of the individual.

Wait...what?

I'm truly confused by this.

Whose rights are being denied here? I might be completely out of my depth on the issue, but can you help me out?


Also, the whole point I am making is that using the label of SJW is the same shitty behavior that results in all other de-humanizations that people require to then treat each other like complete assholes. And on top of that, it slanders the very notion of social justice, which apparently is a problem for you...somehow?

I have no idea how you are defining social justice. That seems clear.

 

[BoberFett]

I will and do. I also think how things are labeled and the use of language is important. If it wasn't, then politicians wouldn't employ consultants specifically for choosing words.

In this instance I am saying that there are fucking terrible actors on both sides. But one side adopted a label and uses it to paint the entirety of the opposition with it, AND it has the side-effect of showing a distaste for the very notion of social justice. Given the most vocal among the anti-SJW crowd, it isn't too surprising.

Only one side is generalizing and painting with broad strokes? Is that really what you believe?

https://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Gamers_Are_Dead

The message, almost simultaneously from multiple sites was "Stop making games for gamers, gamers are sexist, racist pigs."

These articles are when GamerGate really exploded, by painting the entirety of a group as misogynists.

 

[jackstar7]

Only one side is generalizing and painting with broad strokes? Is that really what you believe?

https://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Gamers_Are_Dead

The message, almost simultaneously from multiple sites was "Stop making games for gamers, gamers are sexist, racist pigs."

These articles are when GamerGate really exploded, by painting the entirety of a group as misogynists.

I've literally said a couple times now that bad actors are on both sides. I'm focused on the destructive side-effect of the SJW label.

Adjust your dials appropriately.


Or to answer you second question directly: Nope.

 

[BoberFett]

I've literally said a couple times now that bad actors are on both sides. I'm focused on the destructive side-effect of the SJW label.

Adjust your dials appropriately.


Or to answer you second question directly: Nope.

Perhaps I've lost track of what's being argued here. Anyone can hijack any phrase they want. What appears to be a relatively small number of trolls has made gamers appear to be a bunch of violent bigots, and what is probably a relatively small number of online slacktivists has made social justice out to be a hate mob. What do you propose be done about it?

Edit: For a current example, look at the lion poaching news we have now. The guy may be an asshole, and possibly a criminal, but should he be receiving death threats from "people concerned with the welfare of animals", or in other words "social justice advocates"? If social justice is referred to in a derogatory manner, maybe it's because it deserves it. The cure seems to be worse than the disease.

 

[jackstar7]

Perhaps I've lost track of what's being argued here. Anyone can hijack any phrase they want. What appears to be a relatively small number of trolls has made gamers appear to be a bunch of violent bigots, and what is probably a relatively small number of online slacktivists has made social justice out to be a hate mob. What do you propose be done about it?

Edit: For a current example, look at the lion poaching news we have now. The guy may be an asshole, and possibly a criminal, but should he be receiving death threats from "people concerned with the welfare of animals", or in other words "social justice advocates"? If social justice is referred to in a derogatory manner, maybe it's because it deserves it. The cure seems to be worse than the disease.

I think the solution is parents come into all these kids' rooms and ground them from the internet for a couple weeks until they figure out how to act like mature people.

Also, in your example, it depends a lot on the symptoms of the disease. I could give a shit about lions and the people who care that much about them to abandon being a mature person.

I'm reaching the conclusion that maturity is a myth in relation to the internet. That's just fucking depressing given how integral it is to our lives as things progress.

Also, in answer to your example, it's just mob action after mob action. The internet is like an overworld sans civilization.

This Gamergate shit just really brought that into focus for me, I suppose.