#GamerGate is officially a terrorist movement.
Of course, it was already a criminal movement. The numerous threats against people like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are well-documented. But today, a statement was released that included threats of violence in a public place, against random people.
Whether or not the shooting takes place - and I doubt that it will - is not the issue. A #GamerGate representative threatened to shoot and blow up nonspecific people - innocents - in the name of a cause. This is terrorism, by every definition.
And I recognize, of course, that #GamerGate is not an organized movement. Like Anonymous, #GamerGate has no leader, no officers, no structure of command. Every member of the movement - save one - can say they had no hand in this threat. They can disavow it.
But what they cannot disavow is that this threat came out of the #GamerGate movement. They cannot claim that this threat is unusual, that it is out of character, that it's an isolated incident. At this point, claiming that #GamerGate is about integrity in games journalism is like claiming that the KKK is about horseback riding. At its core, at its foundation, #GamerGate is and always has been about threats of violence against feminist voices.
And, of course, if you do happen to care about integrity in games journalism, you can comment about it without smearing yourself with the noxious #GamerGate hashtag. If you're a part of #GamerGate and you want to do your part to improve games journalism, a good first step towards doing that would be no longer being a part of #GamerGate .
The person - or persons - who penned the terrorist threat in question are insane .
It is common, in news media, to diagnose criminals with insanity. If someone blows up a shopping mall, we have to tell ourselves that this person was mentally ill, because the alternative would be to imply that blowing up a shopping mall is a sane thing to do, that it is a rational response to the circumstances in which this person found themselves.
And, as long as the reporter in question refrains from offering a medical diagnosis, the term "insane" is correct. "Insanity", after all, is a legal term, not a medical one. It refers not to depression or schizophrenia or hallucination, but to the capacity of the individual to make choices that are in line with the reasonable expectations of society.
Regardless of the actual condition of the #GamerGate terrorist's grey matter, threatening to kill people - people who are not Anita Sarkeesian - because Anita Sarkeesian made some Youtube videos is insane. Period. Full stop. Threatening indiscriminate murder in response to a fifteen minute commentary - however biased or cherrypicked - about Princess Toadstool is the height, the apex, the very pinnacle of batshit lunacy.
And, as I said, this terrorist threat came out of #GamerGate.
It emerged from that psychotic milieu, the scum rising to the top, the purest, most distilled form of #GamerGate's filth.
#GamerGate creates insanity.
#GamerGate makes crazy people.
#GamerGate is a terrorist movement.
And if it has any positive redeeming qualities, I have yet to see them.
#GamerGate
Re: #GamerGate
This is the first time I've heard of '#GamerGate' and, crazy people be crazy doesn't strike me as particularly notable. Of course a group that regularly threatens to rape a woman because she makes asinine videos is fucked up. That doesn't even register to me as a question. However, this is pretty damn common internet behavior, of course that doesn't make it right, but it's a symptom, not the disease. Anyone who says they know what the disease, the root cause, is, and then points at <The Patriarchy, class warfare, the government, religion, conservatives, liberals, video games, or other insert buzzword> is full of shit.
The real problem is that people are so insistent on taking the extreme views. I'll take the assholes who threaten to rape women who speak their mind over the assholes who claim everyone who opposes Anita Sarkeesian is a misogynistic rapist, any day. It's similarly why I fear spiders, but not wolves. I'd rather deal with the obvious threat, and the ones with the loudest bark are usually the biggest cowards.
I think the topic here is surprisingly narrow, given how most of the threads started by Tailsteak here use small examples to relate to a broader idea. I think the bigger topic is the nature of what happens when people start piling onto the bandwagon of black-and-white views and ride them to the extreme. Then again, maybe it's just that I don't see why this particular instance of 'violent, vocal minority takes shit too far' is more noteworthy than any other.
The real problem is that people are so insistent on taking the extreme views. I'll take the assholes who threaten to rape women who speak their mind over the assholes who claim everyone who opposes Anita Sarkeesian is a misogynistic rapist, any day. It's similarly why I fear spiders, but not wolves. I'd rather deal with the obvious threat, and the ones with the loudest bark are usually the biggest cowards.
I think the topic here is surprisingly narrow, given how most of the threads started by Tailsteak here use small examples to relate to a broader idea. I think the bigger topic is the nature of what happens when people start piling onto the bandwagon of black-and-white views and ride them to the extreme. Then again, maybe it's just that I don't see why this particular instance of 'violent, vocal minority takes shit too far' is more noteworthy than any other.
"Yamete, oshiri ga itai!"
Re: #GamerGate
I don't really see anything redeeming in #GamerGate, although to be fair I don't know much about it. Seems deeply stupid, and incredibly bad for it's members [although "sane" is sufficiently ambiguous that I wouldn't want to say either way.]Tailsteak wrote:The numerous threats against people like Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are well-documented. But today, a statement was released that included threats of violence in a public place, against random people.
Whether or not the shooting takes place - and I doubt that it will - is not the issue. A #GamerGate representative threatened to shoot and blow up nonspecific people - innocents - in the name of a cause. This is terrorism, by every definition.
[...]
#GamerGate makes crazy people.
#GamerGate is a terrorist movement.
And if it has any positive redeeming qualities, I have yet to see them.
But when did "terrorist organization" suddenly become the big line we can't cross, that renders any movement invalid?
The USG is a "terrorist organization" by those standards. Feminism is a "terrorist movement" by those standards. Hell, humanity regularly produces terrorists - is our species a terrorist organization that needs to be stopped?
(Also, anonymous threats are cheap, etc. and this would be a good way for a hoaxer to destroy what shreds remain of their credibility. So as a general rule, we shouldn't react like this to such threats.)
Are "women who speak their mind", as a group, really less important to protect than "people who oppose some youtube video"?RyukaTana wrote:I'll take the assholes who threaten to rape women who speak their mind over the assholes who claim everyone who opposes Anita Sarkeesian is a misogynistic rapist, any day.
Both seem like an attempt to declare certain forms of discourse - certain opinions - invalid and Not Allowed. It seems like a social norm against that sort of attempt to distort the rules of discourse, and win by threats rather than evidence, would be ideal - that's the standard I try to hold to.
Re: #GamerGate
"Anyone who says they know what the disease, the root cause, is,...is full of shit."
"The real problem is that..."
It would seem that you are full of shit.
At least you're willing to admit to it...
Also, are you aware that when you say "I'll take the assholes who threaten to rape women who speak their mind over the assholes who claim everyone who opposes Anita Sarkeesian is a misogynistic rapist, any day" it doesn't come across as "Because I think extremism is the real bad thing" but "Because the former doesn't threaten me personally, and the latter does, and MY concerns over someone thinking poorly of me are more important than someone else's concerns over being raped and murdered by people like me." The spider/wolf metaphor only furthers that point: spiders are a minor inconvenience, generally more helpful than troublesome but they're IN YOUR HOME RIGHT NOW WATCHING YOU SLEEP and wolves are not; they're a threat to other people (and small dogs), but not you, personally.
So when you say "obvious threat" it sounds like you mean "threat to me" instead of "most dangerous threat." Of course, any threat to you would be more obvious than a threat to someone else... that's just how "obviousness" works. The more personal something is, the more obvious it is.
And I don't think that's what you intended.
At least, I hope not.
But... I feel that if that wasn't what you actually think, you might have said, say, "I'll take the assholes who threaten to rape women who speak their mind over the assholes who claim that feminazi's are trying to destroy games for everyone." It might confuse your point a bit, since there's some asshole-overlap there, but at least both threats would be pointed the same way (away from you). Or maybe you could go with "I'd rather the asshole who threatened to shoot me in the back of the head the next time I went to the park, in a note that also contained my house address, my work/school address and a picture of my family, over the asshole who said that my perspective on gamergate came off as self-interested in an ironically and presumably unintentionally misogynistic and pro-rape-threat sort of way." Granted one of those is fictional (the first one, if it's not clear), but both are pointed towards you so the parallel would be a bit stronger.
On the other hand, I think we can agree that "asshole-overlap" evokes horrible mental images, and I apologize for using it.
"The real problem is that..."
It would seem that you are full of shit.
At least you're willing to admit to it... Also, are you aware that when you say "I'll take the assholes who threaten to rape women who speak their mind over the assholes who claim everyone who opposes Anita Sarkeesian is a misogynistic rapist, any day" it doesn't come across as "Because I think extremism is the real bad thing" but "Because the former doesn't threaten me personally, and the latter does, and MY concerns over someone thinking poorly of me are more important than someone else's concerns over being raped and murdered by people like me." The spider/wolf metaphor only furthers that point: spiders are a minor inconvenience, generally more helpful than troublesome but they're IN YOUR HOME RIGHT NOW WATCHING YOU SLEEP and wolves are not; they're a threat to other people (and small dogs), but not you, personally.
So when you say "obvious threat" it sounds like you mean "threat to me" instead of "most dangerous threat." Of course, any threat to you would be more obvious than a threat to someone else... that's just how "obviousness" works. The more personal something is, the more obvious it is.
And I don't think that's what you intended.
At least, I hope not.
But... I feel that if that wasn't what you actually think, you might have said, say, "I'll take the assholes who threaten to rape women who speak their mind over the assholes who claim that feminazi's are trying to destroy games for everyone." It might confuse your point a bit, since there's some asshole-overlap there, but at least both threats would be pointed the same way (away from you). Or maybe you could go with "I'd rather the asshole who threatened to shoot me in the back of the head the next time I went to the park, in a note that also contained my house address, my work/school address and a picture of my family, over the asshole who said that my perspective on gamergate came off as self-interested in an ironically and presumably unintentionally misogynistic and pro-rape-threat sort of way." Granted one of those is fictional (the first one, if it's not clear), but both are pointed towards you so the parallel would be a bit stronger.
On the other hand, I think we can agree that "asshole-overlap" evokes horrible mental images, and I apologize for using it.
Re: #GamerGate
The chief problem is more that 4chan is involved. They like pressuring people to commit suicide, making them an hero, and are generally pretty dickish. They are the source of most of the harassment. They have harassed many, male and female, feminist and non, and this action isn't at all out of character.
Although with the issue it's not really certain if anyone gamergatewise is involved. It could just be some random person who hates feminists.
As to whether I care about Zoe Quinn, I'm not that concerned about a self admitted rapist who has been encouraging doxxing, harassment of people who speak negatively about her, and lots of general cruel stuff. She helped shut down a charity for speaking against her. It's fairly clear she values some level of controversy and is willing to endanger the lives and livelihoods of those who are opposed to her so I don't care too much for what happens to her- whatever will probably be lesser in magnitude to what she did.
On Anita,some of the attacks against her have looked somewhat like false flags and this very much looks like one- they use feminist buzzwords, portray feminists as victims as opposed to men, makes an improbable claim that Marc is a hero to men. It reads like the sort of thing a university administrator would write in style too, carefully informing everyone at the start where it is and who is involved.
If it is real I am sad for her and hope no violence is done, but I am suspicious of its legitimacy. It may be another incident like the twitter harassment which someone found 12 seconds after it was posted without being logged in without searching anything.
Although with the issue it's not really certain if anyone gamergatewise is involved. It could just be some random person who hates feminists.
As to whether I care about Zoe Quinn, I'm not that concerned about a self admitted rapist who has been encouraging doxxing, harassment of people who speak negatively about her, and lots of general cruel stuff. She helped shut down a charity for speaking against her. It's fairly clear she values some level of controversy and is willing to endanger the lives and livelihoods of those who are opposed to her so I don't care too much for what happens to her- whatever will probably be lesser in magnitude to what she did.
On Anita,some of the attacks against her have looked somewhat like false flags and this very much looks like one- they use feminist buzzwords, portray feminists as victims as opposed to men, makes an improbable claim that Marc is a hero to men. It reads like the sort of thing a university administrator would write in style too, carefully informing everyone at the start where it is and who is involved.
If it is real I am sad for her and hope no violence is done, but I am suspicious of its legitimacy. It may be another incident like the twitter harassment which someone found 12 seconds after it was posted without being logged in without searching anything.
Re: #GamerGate
Dude, put down the kool-aid. This post makes you look like a 9-11 truther.
Re: #GamerGate
Planes hit the tower.yomikoma wrote:Dude, put down the kool-aid. This post makes you look like a 9-11 truther.
Observed events make something more plausible.
Anonymity on the internet makes it fiddly saying what is real and what is false, especially when you're relying on private messages.
9/11 =/ anonymous emails.
Re: #GamerGate
Sure, but the other thing about truthers is their straining to look for anything but the obvious explanation because they have a blind spot. For them it's "there's no way something this bad happened without the Bush regime being behind it" or something. For you it seems like "Zoe and Anita are so evil that they must be behind their own harassment, there's no way that gamergate people would do something this terrible."
Re: #GamerGate
I'm aware some harassment has gone on, but that doesn't mean all incidents of harassment are legit. Sometimes there is clear evidence, sometimes there isn't.yomikoma wrote:Sure, but the other thing about truthers is their straining to look for anything but the obvious explanation because they have a blind spot. For them it's "there's no way something this bad happened without the Bush regime being behind it" or something. For you it seems like "Zoe and Anita are so evil that they must be behind their own harassment, there's no way that gamergate people would do something this terrible."
And incidentally, while I see Zoe as fairly evil as a self defined rapist and her and her follower's actions in harassing people on the internet I don't really see Anita as especially bad or objectionable. I don't think she was behind either of the two iffy incidents of note either, just people who are trying to help. Obviously it's extremely worrying for her, so whoever did It I see as quite unethical. Plus she made some cool videos.
Since the FBI are investigating we shall probably find out who did it soon. Perhaps it shall be some 4channer, walls covered in news articles of gamergate, faces of notable feminists studded with darts in their room. Perhaps it shall be some do gooder university admin, which I think is more what it reads like. We shall see.
Re: #GamerGate
The whole controversy is an excellent case study in how lies get spread around the internet. For instance, "Quinn criticizes a charity group on twitter for their treatment of trans people and exploitative practises; the resulting discussion gives said group lots of attention; the groups server can't handle the excessive attention, and is shut down for a short period of time," get's turned into, "She helped shut down a charity for speaking against her."She helped shut down a charity for speaking against her.
At this point, without links to strong evidence or proof, I don't believe a goddamn thing about allegations towards Quinn.
While the veracity of such is improbable, the claim itself being made is not.an improbable claim that Marc is a hero to men.
STEPHANE TREMBLAY wrote:MONTREAL - Jean-Claude Rochefort, the man who defended the actions of killer Marc Lepine on his blog failed in his attempt to be released from jail Wednesday.
The court noted in its judgment that Rochefort's blog "invited men to kill women solely because they are women."
Rochefort, 61, defended his blog, which sung the praises of Lepine, the shooter behind the 1989 massacre that killed 14 women at Montreal's Ecole Polytechnique. Lepine committed the shooting after multiple failed attempts to get into the school himself. He blamed feminism for ruining his life and disagreed with women being allowed to work in jobs that had been traditionally reserved for men.