106 replies to this topic

[Jasi]

I mean that's a tale as old as time, that's how the world works. That's why this whole thing is ridiculous—fighting against nepotism is like fighting against Comcast. And singling out one person who allegedly participated in it and making an example out of her is like singling out one poor customer service rep and doing the same.

[Green Goblin]

I honestly do think she faked a bunch of her attack shit though(particularly her first attack from Wizardchan).  And I feel that Anita faked this last one that came out with her most recent video. 

[Twinrova]

Why?

Women get shit on like this literally all the time, often for a lot less. Why are you so sure it's fake?

[Selena]

Now that things are dying down, I think this whole thing was just another installment of the "4chan vs. Social Justice Warrior" conflict. It was never about journalistic integrity. That was just a convenient excuse to justify it. Quinn was never a big deal to anyone outside of her and Eron's personal circle. She was just made into the catalyst.

 

In this regard, it's not specifically about being a woman -- it's about being a "social justice warrior." Quinn actively posts about the backlash she gets as a woman in the industry. Sarkeesian makes videos about the subpar representation of females in games. That makes them, and others like them, into big targets for hate campaigns.

 

Because.... certain very loud groups of gamers hate SJW-related stuff. They always have. Not specially about women's issues, either, but about gay and minority representation, too. Because they view the people campaigning for change as being "pushy" and "obnoxious." And that they bitch and complain about every little thing in their favorite games. To them, activists in gaming are annoying influences that are better off silenced.

 

Tons of neckbeards bitched and bitched and bitched at Bioware for including an optional male-male romance to Mass Effect 3, for a different example. And there's always backlash about including same-sex options in games because "UGH, why do you have to put your AGENDA in my games?!"

 

 

 

Quinn was a prime target because 1) she had offended one of their own and he released a huge essay on what a jerk she was, and 2) she was "a social justice warrior" focused on women in the industry. Sarkeesian is a prime target too, because while she does make good points, she drifts pretty hard into "picky, obnoxious SJW" territory. Even more so because they actively post about the harassment they get as it happens -- and that makes things feel like a conflict, which encourages 4chan et al to amp things up even more.

 

 

 

 

 

"Journalistic integrity" was just a rallying cry, as are numerous other little complaints about well-known and occasionally grating activists. People may have cared about journalistic integrity before this, and they may have gone after a number of people before -- but I am comfortable saying that about 90% of the people who participated in this GameGate nonsense did not give one rat's ass about "journalistic integrity" before this.

[Green Goblin]

This is the image shown by Anita that she took.

 

 

This person got access to her parents address and rather than actually DOING something with it, he posts it in HER territory (Twitter) and does nothing else with it. I ask you, what is the honest point of that? Why inform her of it directly like that? It's not how a hack works.  If it were a hack, they'd have just used the information. 

And of course the screenshot she takes happens to also be with her being signed off at the time and the most recent post on that twitter happening 12 seconds prior. In fact, ALL of the posts seem to have happened one after another in a relatively rapid posting spree.  Almost like someone just wanted to create a wall of harassment really quickly, then sign out and take a screenshot. 

I'm well aware that people (not just women) get harassed online all the time.  And as such, I notice patterns and trends in relation to it.  So when something sticks out as being abnormal to the trend, it comes off as a little weird.  THIS thing?  It stinks like yesterday's garbage.

[Sir Turtlelot]

You do realize that if the hacks were faked, you're giving the so called victims exactly what they want, right? They would want people to talk about it, to give them as much as exposure as possible. Even if it's negative exposure, much like your claims, there's bound to be some who don't believe what you're saying and buy into the false claims, fueling their desire of the spotlight.

 

That is, unless, you have irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

[Green Goblin]

Just getting a few things clear:

 

Do you disagree that what I'm saying seems VERY suspect?   I mean, if I'm just going crazy over this, then can you prove it to me so I'll just shut up about it??  And you're saying that people who have criticism for the way Sarkeesian is acting online have no recourse but to let her keep talking mad shit?? 

I'm sorry, but no.  I'm not against women in gaming.  I'm not against having a discussion about the proper portrayal of women in gaming.  I'm not against games like depression quest.  Hell, I donated to the Fine Young Capitalist's cause (and as an individual, of my own free will).  I just don't like shitty people.  Anita Sarkeesian is a SHITTY person.  Zoe Quinn is a SHITTY person.  Not because of their fucking genitalia.  But because of their manipulative character.  And until that gets addressed, there's ALWAYS gonna be a fight to have this discussion.  Not misogyny.  Just an aversion to bullshit. 
 

1.)  Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. 

We’ve been called psychopaths in the past.  Treated as though we’re one bad day away from shooting up our schools, Columbine style.  That we’re all a bunch of whiny weak-willed, pale-skinned beta males who will go on a killing spree at the drop of a hat.  We don’t like being generalized.  We didn’t like it when Jack Thompson was doing it 10 years ago, or Joseph Lieberman 20 years ago.  And now multiple gaming websites are doing it themselves to their own readers.  It’s marginalizing, it makes a lot of (ignorant) assumptions.  And it’s something that we thought we were internally better than.  So that’s gotta stop.  It’s rude.

 

2.)  Acknowledge the GOOD.

Have women been written badly in games? Yes. Yes, they have.  BUT (and this is key here), things have indeed been getting progressively BETTER in recent years. Last year, arguably the biggest games were Bioshock Infinite, The Last of Us and Tomb Raider. Of those games, you have a female lead protagonist and 2 female wingman. All three women (Ellie, Elizabeth and Lara) are all exceptionally well-defined characters with sympathetic storylines and not once are they ever played off for sex appeal or being inherently week (Hell, one basically became a god). Then there are games like Mass Effect or Pokemon which allow you to fully customize your avatar and play as either gender. And that seems to be a big continuing trend with this coming generation as well. Yeah, it was bullshit that there's no female assassin in the latest Assassin's Creed. You know what happened? They were called out on it, vehemently by virtually EVERYONE in the industry. No men came out and stood behind Ubisoft. No fedora-wearing neckbeards got onto twitter and attacked folks over it. Because it was a legitimate problem and it needs to be addressed. What Insomniac did in response with their Sunset Overdrive trailer was a stroke of genius.  And it also shows that collectively, we’re just as open to the addition of more demographics as you are.  We’re just a little sensitive when someone comes in and starts pointing out flaws in the industry.  So balance it out with actual progress that’s been made here.  Because it’d be crazy not to.  Also, put up or shut up.  And I mean this VEHEMENTLY.  If you want to point out flaws in the way someone is doing something, you should at least have the desire to want to make it better yourself.  It’s like the difference between working under a good boss or a bad boss.  A bad boss complains that he wants something a certain way, but couldn’t be bothered to take steps towards it.  A good boss can show you what he wants and will help out when asked.  Lead by example, ya know?  That’s one of the things that I still can’t get over.  Sarkeesian has so many people backing her up on Twitter.  Have THEY donated to the Fine Young Capitalists’ cause?  I know I gave them $40, because I like their goals and I wanna see what kinda impact it will have on the community.  At the end of the day, I’ll at least get more games.  So as a gamer, that makes me happy.

 

 

3.)  Learn how to handle criticism.

 It all comes back to the fact that people don’t like being silenced or ignored.  They don’t like it when something that they feel needs to be seen is basically sterilized from the internet.  And I can’t blame them either.  Not a fan of censorship.  An idea should be able to prove itself in the sea of public opinion.  And this will then be able to open the channels between the makers and their viewers.  You want to get less hatred?  Open up to the viewers to show them that you’re actually human.  Take their concerns seriously and address them accordingly.  Feminist Frequency was originally suppose to used as a teaching aid.  What kinda teacher doesn’t allow their class to ask questions to them? 

 

If these 3 contingencies are met, I feel that all discussions with minorities in gaming can succeed far beyond your expectations. 

I'm really sick of people pretending like #GamerGate doesn't have a point.  This can of worms was opened up by the game journalists when they brought this discussion to gamers.  They don't get to preach to us and have us swallow it obediently.  They have to actually DISCUSS now.

[Selena]

1.)  Don’t bite the hand that feeds you. 

[...]

 

Well, the reputation of the gaming community would probably be a bit better if they didn't turn into a horde of assholes when their little feelers get hurt -- especially about minor issues. You routinely tell feminists to "police their own" in order to keep the crazies in check -- but I don't see a lot of self-checking within the gaming community. Especially during this incident. Up until Quinn posted all those logs, harassment was perfectly acceptable. And it remains acceptable with other figures. It's entirely possible that this faction of the gaming community is getting no respect because they no longer deserve it.

 

As for cramming everyone together into a stereotype, when someone criticizes "gamers," they aren't criticizing all of them. It's just easier to address the collective -- then problems are that deeply set within said collective -- rather than write out the full details every other sentence. When that happens, it's a natural response to go "BUT I'M NOT LIKE THAT" because it feels like you're being attacked somehow -- but it's never about you as an individual and never was. If you're doing good, then you're not the one being called out. The overall grouping is. Because the overall grouping often has a whole mess of problems.

 

 

 

Yeah, it was bullshit that there's no female assassin in the latest Assassin's Creed. You know what happened? They were called out on it, vehemently by virtually EVERYONE in the industry. No men came out and stood behind Ubisoft. No fedora-wearing neckbeards got onto twitter and attacked folks over it. Because it was a legitimate problem and it needs to be addressed.

 

As a correction, plenty of people were defending Ubisoft and telling those complaining to shut up about their "agendas." I saw plenty of it. Fortunately, in that specific incident, they were simply out-shouted. 

 

 

Although I do agree that people need to learn to celebrate the good, and that shutting down a comments section is a lame thing to do. Although having a "house rules / code of ethics" policy on journalist sites is helpful when it comes to comments -- to weed out the deliberately assholish stuff. People have used free speech as an excuse to be a dick for a long time.

[Green Goblin]

It's not just the "I'm not like that!!"  instinct.  I wouldn't even classify it as a majority.  I mean, look at us.  We're on a Zelda message board and we've been on this board for more than a decade.  We're pretty well-rounded as far as game preference goes too.  We've had our share of trolls, but it's not like we're constantly infested either.

 

[Hana-Nezumi]

Whether they are "suspect", I don't really care, because what they do doesn't affect me, nor does it REALLY affect journalism and gaming as a whole. Whether they're "shitty people", I don't know them well enough to make that judgment, and there are lots of shitty people in the world besides.

What I disapprove of is giant public tirades against people disproportionate to the scale of their alleged transgressions. I'm sick of people who target those they disagree with and go on campaigns to make them into scapegoats for massive amounts of anti-SJW fire as well as going farther into personal attacks, invasions of privacy, etc. It achieves nothing.

Edited by Hana-Nezumi, 09 September 2014 - 05:09 PM.

[Green Goblin]

Dude, you SHOULD care if they're suspect.  Are you telling me that if she did indeed FAKE this attack to gain more media attention and sympathy, your opinion of her wouldn't change? 

And as I've said before, I don't have a problem with their message.  Neither do MOST people (Once again, 4chan as of this moment has the moral high ground, for actually giving $20,000 in cash money to get women into gaming).  We have a problem with them preaching from a position of presumed superiority and then reacting as if they're free from criticism.  And the images are beyond suspect.  Do you honestly think that doesn't taint a LOT of the "harassment" Sarkeesian has been getting?  When Jack Thompson raged against gamers, they made "I Hate Jack Thompson" T-shirts and made his likeness in Mortal Kombat to murder, over and over.  Where's HIS Twitter entourage? 

[Jasi]

There's a lot of pronouns without antecedents in your post GG so I'm kind of confused what exactly "them" is—feminists? If so: you really think 4chan has the "moral high ground" on feminism because they donated money to a cause? That's one of the easiest things for a person to do to seem like a good person without having to change anything about what they actually do on a day-to-day basis. It's like an absent father giving a kid a check for $400 on his birthday and pretending that makes up for not being around the rest of the year. You are bending over backwards to excuse what is really a pretty despicable website full of people to the point where your arguments barely hold together. Donating money to something doesn't mean a whole lot to me when the everyday actions preach the complete opposite message.

 

edit: oh and before people start complaining about "it's not a monolith blah blah blah," I gotta say, I don't know why a person would cling so much to a group that perpetuates so much hate, negativity, and general grossness if it really doesn't represent the way you are. And I've yet to see much discussion on 4chan on ANY of the boards (not just /b/) that isn't filled with slurs and dick waving and all that crap.

Edited by Jasi, 09 September 2014 - 07:45 PM.

[Green Goblin]

Them is not "feminists".  You're a feminist.  Selena's a feminist.  Them is the modern day Social Justice Warrior or SJW.  The ones that even Selena is annoyed by. 

 

Also, perhaps we need to really discuss why 4chan is so notoriously hated.  Yeah, they're a wild bunch and have done crazy shit.  But they've also done good shit consistently too.  /v/ specifically, hasn't ever gotten a following for being sexist or misogynistic.  So yes, considering, SJW garnered $150,000 to listen to someone bitch and complain about women in gaming, whereas 4chan gave $20,000 to get women INTO gaming, I'd say they DO have the high ground.  One side donated to a pity party.  The other side fucking DID something.  Just sayin'...

[Sir Turtlelot]

As Jasi already said, one good deed doesn't nullify years of just general awfulness. I mean, isn't it a bit hypocritical to be so upset at Quinn and Sarkeesian for being shitty people, and then turn around and defend 4chan? I understand /v/ isn't as bad as /b/, but you cannot seriously claim that it still isn't infested with assholes, at least to some degree.

 

I am genuinely curious as to why people seem to care so much about people like Quinn and Sarkeesian. I don't understand why we should be upset because they MAY HAVE faked a hack. Even if they did fake the whole thing, I still don't see why I should honestly care, since none of this effects myself or anyone I know personally. And in regards to the SJWs raising $150,000 for Feminist Frequency, good for them, it shows that they clearly care more about their fundraiser than 4chan did. If you don't like Sarkeesian or her show, then the answer is pretty simple; don't watch it, don't read anything about, and just don't acknowledge its existence. I watched the first few episodes, didn't care for it, and did exactly that. I understand voicing your opinion on not agreeing with it and that's fine, but so many people seemed to have taken the whole thing way too personally.

[Doctor Pogo]

S'funny how the argument 'we're against censorship!' gets used to defend exactly the people who are trying to act as censors here.

 

Let's be clear about what's censorship and what's not.

 

A person producing a body of criticism about the actions and nature of an industry is not censoring anyone.

 

A person calling for change in the way a system works and the way something is created is also not censoring anyone.

 

A person choosing to limit, moderate, or eliminate public comment on their personal page or channel where they post their criticism is not engaging in censorship. They are accommodating themselves in their own space according to their needs. Everyone should be able to do that. The entire rest of the public space is available for everyone to respond to the criticism in their own way.

 

Now, let's look at what IS censorship.

 

A person calling for a journalist or critic to 'consider their audience' and edit their content accordingly is attempting to engage in censorship. 'Don't bite the hand that feeds you' is a warning: expect bad things if you say what I don't like. That's not quite stopping the presses and burning the books, but it's the birth of it.

 

A person who sends harassing messages or threats intended to drive the other party from the conversation is engaging in censorship.

 

A person who doxes their ideological opponent or helps distribute that information is attempting to silence their opponent, which is censorship.

 

4chan are not the good guys here. They never had the moral high ground.

 

'But we donated money!' is not an argument, it's a dodge.

 

And what's the problem with Social Justice Warriors anyway? I mean, sure, people who criticize the world around them all the time can get annoying. But that's kinda the point. How else does any issue get attention, unless someone is pointing to it, and pointing to it a lot?

 

So they're annoying. But are their criticisms wrong? If so, fight them on those grounds, not on the grounds of who they have sex with or what they look like or some other thing.

 

But at the bottom of it, I like to look at it this way: whatever my problems with their attitude, a social justice warrior is someone who wants the world around them to be better than it is, has ideas about what is causing it, and has the nerve to maintain their position every day against the status quo, and to keep their focus on it to the point that it can annoy everyone else they interact with. That person is a lot tougher than I am. I'm usually not in favor of the status quo, but you won't see me out raising hell about it every chance I get. I'm not going to change the world. That person might. For better or worse, I respect that.

[Hana-Nezumi]

Dude, you SHOULD care if they're suspect.  Are you telling me that if she did indeed FAKE this attack to gain more media attention and sympathy, your opinion of her wouldn't change?

No, my point is that my opinion of her does not matter. I could very well think she is a terrible person, but I still would be against the overblown reaction, the disturbingly sadistic-seeming vigilante "justice", and this small-scale incident being made into another Neckbeard vs SJW fiasco that distracts from real issues in gaming and social equality.

Edited by Hana-Nezumi, 09 September 2014 - 10:38 PM.

[JRPomazon]

And what's the problem with Social Justice Warriors anyway? I mean, sure, people who criticize the world around them all the time can get annoying. But that's kinda the point. How else does any issue get attention, unless someone is pointing to it, and pointing to it a lot?

 

So they're annoying. But are their criticisms wrong? If so, fight them on those grounds, not on the grounds of who they have sex with or what they look like or some other thing.

 

But at the bottom of it, I like to look at it this way: whatever my problems with their attitude, a social justice warrior is someone who wants the world around them to be better than it is, has ideas about what is causing it, and has the nerve to maintain their position every day against the status quo, and to keep their focus on it to the point that it can annoy everyone else they interact with. That person is a lot tougher than I am. I'm usually not in favor of the status quo, but you won't see me out raising hell about it every chance I get. I'm not going to change the world. That person might. For better or worse, I respect that.

 

Here is the problem with SJW. They are a loud, scattered bunch who feel the need to shout and make aware of every single instance of injustice they come across. Most presume that if you down chime in with them or disagree with their viewpoints then suddenly you are a part of the problem and must be cut out like a cancer. A majority of them are juveniles who don't understand the meaning of tack or social graces and if I dare be so blunt most of these kids do it for attention. To feel important. So they get into super specifics or just make up conflicts to validate themselves in a public setting. They are shouting, constantly, for action and yet clock out once their cacophony is finished and run off to the next trend. But do they actually donate their time, money, efforts into actually fixing this problem? Maybe some SJW do more for their causes than riling up the internet or whatever. But if you are preaching for tolerance or the recognition of injustice, you don't do it by biting people's heads off. You don't instigate people for their inaction in the manner I've seen others preform so many times.You do it like a god damned adult, calm, patient and with the level of understanding that says you are mature enough to have a conversation. It's not different than 4chan's vigilante justice, just another side of the spectrum.

Edited by JRPomazon, 10 September 2014 - 12:25 AM.

[Selena]

Addressing minor points all around:
 

 Also, perhaps we need to really discuss why 4chan is so notoriously hated.  Yeah, they're a wild bunch and have done crazy shit.  But they've also done good shit consistently too.  /v/ specifically, hasn't ever gotten a following for being sexist or misogynistic.  So yes, considering, SJW garnered $150,000 to listen to someone bitch and complain about women in gaming, whereas 4chan gave $20,000 to get women INTO gaming, I'd say they DO have the high ground.  One side donated to a pity party.  The other side fucking DID something.  Just sayin'...

 
4chan does some good stuff, but doing good stuff doesn't erase the dickish stuff they do. Good thing and bad things are placed in two separate piles -- and they don't balance each other out. This generally applies to everyone. A hardcore religious lady might volunteer in a soup kitchen, but kick her son out of the house when she find out he's gay. 
 
Saying 4chan has the moral high ground after all this nonsense is a bit overblown. It's great they donated to help people start careers, but it's bad that a large swathe of people decided it would be fun to harass people. Like the example above, the good doesn't necessarily cancel out the bad. Especially since a lot of them were apparently playing up the "nice" act for purely strategic reasons, if the logs are to be believed.
 
 
 
As for donating to Sarkeesian / Sarkeesian in general:
 
She's not my cup of tea, but look -- a lot of people genuinely do like her presentations. She's not universally reviled. Some of her points miss the mark, but she manages to cover broad topics that have long needed to be addressed. It's great to say that someone who complains should offer and promote solutions -- and I generally agree -- but generating awareness itself is also part of the solution. Sarkeesian is a media critic, not a developer. She doesn't have the technical skills to actively make change, but she has the ability to bring problems to attention and encourage those who do have skills/resources to do the heavy lifting.
 
Also, there are a lot of people who are bullied online -- none of them raise $150,000 out of pure pity. It is irrational to think that that many people would throw money at someone for no other reason than "they felt bad" for her. They supported both the woman and her goals. The sympathy may have encouraged it and created a media circus, but most wouldn't donate to a project unless it was something they agreed with (or potato salad). 
 
 

 And what's the problem with Social Justice Warriors anyway? I mean, sure, people who criticize the world around them all the time can get annoying. But that's kinda the point. How else does any issue get attention, unless someone is pointing to it, and pointing to it a lot?

 
There is a distinction between an "activist" and a "social justice warrior." The latter is derogatory. In the same way that the personal harassment section of 4chan represents the worst of the gaming community, SJW's represent the worst side of activism. They are not run-of-the-mill activists. They're not even zealous activists. They're pompous and myopic to the point of hurting the cause they champion. 
 
See:
 
* A 20-something middle class white woman ​belligerently telling a black woman how to feel about being black.
 
* Another 20-something white girl accusing a black woman of being a RACIST (IN CAPS!!1!). Because the black woman (a writer) used the term "tan" to describe naturally darker skin. "OMG TAN MEANS THE PERSON WAS ORIGINALLY WHITE -- YOU ARE WHITEWASHING A PERSON OF COLOR BY USING THAT TERM, SO YOU ARE A RACIST PIECE OF TRASH." Like, no exaggeration.
 
* SJWs of the LGBTQ breed declaring that all straight / cis people are disgusting scum. (not in the broad spectrum way, in a literally all of them way)
 
* I once called my girlfriend "sexy" on social media, and received an extremely condescending two page essay from an SJW on how I was demeaning and objectifying my lady. And that I was a bad person for doing so.
 
* Another girl received an equally long self-righteous essay. This one? She referred to her female friend as "girlfriend," as the old folks often do. The essay was along the lines of: "You must STOP using that term unless you ARE QUEER, FUCKHEAD. You are ERASING queer identity when you steal that term!! PEOPLE LIKE YOU DISGUST ME."
 
 
Stuff like that. Belligerent, unhelpful, volatile, and certainly nothing I would endorse as a non-insane activist. 
 
SJWs are most often twenty-something white liberals who have seldom interacted with the minorities they claim to champion -- but they act like they know what's best for everyone because they've reblogged a lot of really deep and passionate posts on tumblr and twitter. To the point where the supposedly "correct" ideology takes precedence over both common decency and the actual people they claim to help. See: the middle class white girls telling black people how to feel about being black.

 

So... not so much being a passionate activist, but mostly just being a douchebag with an activist's crunchy outer shell.
 
 
It's gotten more confusing, though, since non-crazy activists have been branding themselves with the SJW title because.... well, I guess because of how crusader-like it sounds.

[wisp]

I agree that those examples you listed there are distasteful, unpleasant, and totally unhelpful. Hardly any of the so-called "SJWs" I've seen getting abuse and ridicule hurled at them online are anything like those examples, though. Most often the people I see getting slapped with the title and all its associated crap are activists who are really quite calm and reasonable in their presentation.

 

For whatever reason, people tend feel like they're under attack when they experience any kind of challenge to their preconceived notions of what is acceptable, no matter how reasonably it's phrased. There's a right way and a wrong way to try to change someone's mind, but a lot of people bristle so hard at anything and everything that suggests we all try to be more politically correct that they just lash out at anyone who uses social media to try to bring greater awareness to any kind of problem, particularly if it deals with any kind of gender, race, sexuality, or religious issue. 

 

And I know that you know all that, but it can just be so difficult in a discussion like this to determine what everyone means when they say SJW, because to some people SJWs are the kind of abrasive outliers you described there, while to others ANYONE who tries to draw attention to a problem experienced by a minority group is viewed with the same lens.

[Selena]

Yeah, I wouldn't have labeled Quinn or Sarkeesian as SJW's -- nor most of the others involved. I think most of the folk doing the harassment assume anyone actively blogging about social justice is in the same Angry-McWhinerpants camp as the SJWs. It's a side effect of this big 4chan vs. SJW conflict. Battle lines and all that. Sarkeesian and Quinn would have been targets anyway, but their activism just eggs on the 4chan people even more.

[Doctor Pogo]

Yeah, I see the point about belligerent SJWs being a big distraction. I don't know any of them, though. Everybody I know personally online or off who has had thrust upon them the term social justice warrior, whether as an epithet or by claiming it themselves, is a mostly rational and empathetic and deeply concerned person who really works for what they promote.

 

The road to good activism, if there is one, is empathy. And some folks lose that. Or just didn't have it to begin with. And those folks are the mercury in the tuna.

 

So yeah, maybe the term as I was using it is not quite the right one. I used it in the general sense, and it's news to me that a lot of other folks have a much more specific definition.

 

But it's worth noting that this kind of thing can also be a tactic. Take the focus off the activism and onto the activists and simple as that the point gets lost and the status quo is maintained.

 

It's hard to separate the talk from the tongue sometimes, but I think that's the key to actually getting any headway - to compare messages instead of comparing messengers.

[Egann]

I don't think "social justice warrior" is a fair descriptive term for what we're actually talking about, in part because Sarkeesian would be perfectly happy with that label. A better phrase would be "one-topic brainless political militant."

 

The real reason I lump 4chan into the same boat as Sarkeesian is that I fundamentally view them as alike; they both are obsessive compulsive about social issues and they both have zero propriety about it. They look for excuses to rock the boat because that's what gives their little micro-communities kicks, not because that's what actually needs to be done for the broader culture.

 

For an analogy, Sarkeesian is what you would get if Calvin (Calvin and Hobbes) got a degree in Gender Studies without maturing at all. An articulate dumbass.

 

 

4chan is what you would get if you made a community of Calvins; creative in the extreme, but also brimming with an impulse to disturb.

 

 

Where's Hobbes? Not here.

[Selena]

It's admittedly gotten very confusing. Because people on both sides have expanded the label to people who never really fit that original definition.

 

 

In a way, it's kind of like the term "Feminazi." Feminazi was originally used to describe the extremely abrasive feminists who had moved into full-blown misandry territory -- treating all men like dirt, regardless of their behavior. Over time, anyone who was generally annoyed with feminist activism started using "Feminazi" to describe all feminists. Purely because they didn't like the message and found feminism annoying.

 

 

So, in that respect, anyone who just generally dislikes "social justice" movements have started called all activists "SJWs." Regardless of whether they're empathetic or belligerent. Which is mostly what 4chan was doing in this case -- throwing all loud/prominent activists into the same label, because they simply don't like the activism in general. Some gamers are.... very defensive about their video games.

 

On the other side, lots of activists have decided to use the label to describe themselves. Maybe because it sounded like a good representation for passionate activism, or maybe because the growing divisions between "activists" vs. "anti-activists" encouraged people to rush to the defense of the SJWs who weren't jerks all the time. Resulting in people taking up that banner.

 

 

 

 

So, yeah, it's gotten really confusing. Most of the "SJWs" involved in this incident aren't actually traditional SJWs -- 4chan is just annoyed by all the people who are raising awareness about problems and seemingly "whining" about it. At which point they orchestrated a campaign against all those "sensitive wussbags" who are making games look bad.

 

Because if the cynical, offensive-humor elements of the internet (including 4chan) hate one thing, it's people who are obviously "sensitive." And activists usually are.

[Green Goblin]

Serious question:  Are you all just running under the assumption that 4chan attacked Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian during this thing?  Because from where I'm standing, I really don't see it.  And I frequent 4chan myself.  From what I saw, 4chan didn't anything that would be considered harassment.

First off, this was all /v/'s doing (the work with TFYC and stuff) and /v/ (from the start) had been explicitly telling each other NOT to do the harassment that 4chan's /b/ is famous for.  Hell, /b/ was too distracted by Jennifer Lawrence's tits to care and didn't even notice until recently.  IMHO, it truly does look like they were scapegoated specifically BECAUSE no one would give it a second look.  "Oh, yeah.  Well, 4chan is some shit.  Moving on..."

[Egann]

Serious question:  Are you all just running under the assumption that 4chan attacked Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian during this thing?  Because from where I'm standing, I really don't see it.  And I frequent 4chan myself.  From what I saw, 4chan didn't anything that would be considered harassment.

 

I actually kinda think it was set up. Usually when 4chan does something they claim credit or call the shot.

 

Still, if this was a setup, Quinn picked 4chan because it has an existing reputation of disruption and malcontent. To the larger internet, this seems like something they would do, and that reputation IS 4chan's fault.

[Jasi]

???? Yes, it was 4chan, everyone knows that, members of 4chan have talked about how it was members of 4chan that did it. /v/ is part of 4chan. I barely understand what you're saying anymore.

[Green Goblin]

Jasi, I routinely go through 4chan.  And I have gone through 4chan for YEARS.  I was there in 2008 when we took on the Church of Scientology.  I was there when they CRUCIFIED Jessi Slaughter.  I know what a 4chan raid looks like.  This does not resemble one in the least.  As Egann said, when 4chan gets up to no good, you can usually find a thread on it talking about how epic it is.  With this?  Nothing.  Anytime anyone DOES bring up something violent or harassing, they're promptly told to shut up (followed by a racial slur or a homophobic put-down). 

And as I've seen some articles properly state:  4chan has no real ranking.  It has no real leaders. And ANYONE can post there.  Like an IRC chat room.  Anyone can just jump in, post an incriminating post, take a quick screenshot and claim that the entire website is corrupt.  I saw one article do just that.  And it wasn't a small website:  IT WAS THE FUCKING NEW YORKER
http://www.newyorker...epression-quest

 

The post in question is here:

 

 

Now, if you don't frequent "chans" that often, you might not know that all of those collections of numbers above the post are all direct responses to it.  Wanna know what the replies are?
Here's a link to the archive.
http://archive.moe/v...1267/#261372435

 

Not a single person going for it.  Most calling them out.  But the media is spinning this as if 4chan is a fucking army of sexist Lisbeth Salander hell bent on attacking anyone unlucky enough to have been born with a cooch.  =/

 

If 4chan DID do this, then it is without a doubt, the most stealthy raid they've ever done in their entire history, In that even their own MEMBERS aren't aware of it...
 
On a different change of pace, here's an interview with the Fine Young Capitalists and their situation. 
http://apgnation.com...ung-capitalists

 

I really am stressing to donate to them.  Not as any sorta ultimatum.  Just because they do seem to be doing the right thing 100% here.

https://www.indiegog...-capitalists--2

[JRPomazon]

The general chaos of 4chan makes me wonder how on earth they manage to organize long enough to accomplish anything. But as Goblin says, when they do get riled up about something, stealth and hush hush aren't their MOs save for their own personal identities. They come in like a parade of elephants and have a party with whatever they're up to. That being said, I don't believe 4chan (as a whole) was responsible for anything except maybe a role as a scapegoat to throw blame on. It certainly wasn't hard, just find one convenient malcontent post and suddenly you have your proof and soapbox all neatly tied up in a pretty package. It's what Zoe did here clearly.

 

Again, since I do not know Zoe personally and have only hearsay on who she is and what she is like I can't cast too many stones at her because I don't know the full story completely. But it comes down to the game she did so much to promote via less scrupulous means. Was it any good? Many people say it was not. So she made a sub-par game. Instead of focusing her efforts into becoming a better designer, she's trying to make the bad game seem better by creative manipulation of the facts and other situations. If I made something and a majority of people told me it was shit, I would know better than to think that I was the only right person here and that what I made was really really good and they just can't see it. I would sift through the cancerous troll criticisms and find the ones that would serve to help me make better creative decisions. Things that would highlight want I did wrong so I could improve on those features next time. Then I would take what I learned and make a better product. If there is one thing I can say about Zoe that seems to be her biggest flaw it's that she doesn't take criticism well and she doesn't seem like someone who can cope with failure. Since she can't accept failure, she can't learn from it and she can't become better at her craft.

 

Long story short, despite how this drama plays out in the end, she's her own worst enemy and she'll never succeed until she learns to get over herself.

[Green Goblin]

Also, here's the game

I played it tonight.  Enjoy, I guess.  =/

http://www.depressio...om/dqfinal.html

I'm not joking either.  Click down at the bottom where it says begin.  This is legitimately the game in its entirety.  I could've made this game with an intro to HTML back when I was in Jr. High.

[Jasi]

Hahah oh the old "my four year old could do this" argument. Ohhh laypeople, give their scathing art critiques based around nothing more than the technical actions that it took to produce the work, not giving a second thought to critiquing the ideas, the expression, or the context. Can you also grace me with your nuanced evaluation of this piece of music?

 

edit: also, maybe the fact that it's not even really a "game" will emphasize again how much this is not even a big deal, even if she did sleep with people for reviews, because it's so small-time that WHO CARES.

Edited by Jasi, 13 September 2014 - 09:24 AM.