DIGITISER
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ

GAMERGATE: ALL RIGHT AND ALL WRONG ALL OF THE TIME - by Mr Biffo

28/4/2016

134 Comments

 
Picture
Since my brief jaunt to the Gamergate frontlines a couple of weeks ago, I've kept a close eye on events through my special telescope.

I probably shouldn't - even from a seemingly safe distance it still somehow seems to stoke my ire. And yet it continues to fascinate me, like a rotting fox on a windscreen.

It has been quite the busy couple of weeks in the ongoing culture war, but I'll do my best to try and summarise the main event.

You may be aware of a Kickstarter for something called Social Autopsy. It was designed to be a database of harassers - exposing the real identities of trolls and cyberbullies. It was unique in that it united both Gamergaters and anti-Gamergaters alike in condemning it. 

And then it all kicked off, and the most unlikely thing imaginable happened: Candace Owens, the founder of Social Autopsy, became the new face of pro-Gamergate.

HOW DID IT BEGIN?
It began when Owens was contacted by Zoe Quinn - the self-styled "ground zero of Gamergate" - who asked the Social Autopsy founder to rethink her project.


Owens later went on the record to state she felt bullied by Quinn, that Quinn was arrogant, aggressive, and broke down in tears on the phone to her... and then alleged that Quinn shared her email address among her private Twitter followers - leading to Owens being flooded with online abuse (which she initially blamed solely on Quinn, rather than her followers).

Shortly afterwards, Social Autopsy was suspended by Kickstarter - something that Quinn's fellow anti-harassment campaigner, Randi Lee Harper, took credit for.


When the possible link between the abuse and Quinn's private Twitter account was unearthed... Quinn deleted the account. Then, after several days of once again being in the spotlight, Quinn announced she was taking a break from Twitter, citing depression. Obviously, she's back now.

Then the story got really weird.
Picture
SIMPLY HARD
It's hard to keep it simple - but the short of it is, Owens was interviewed by Jesse Singal, a journalist from New York Magazine, who claimed he wanted to tell her side of the story.

When the piece appeared, it was critical of Owens, and positive regarding Quinn and Harper. Singal claimed that Owens had fallen for Gamergater "trutherism". 

In a blog post, Owens claimed that Singal had sweet-talked her into agreeing to the piece - only to then turn around and stab her in back.

Then it was unearthed that Singal was friends with Quinn and Randi Lee Harper. As was (according to Owens) Caitlin Dewey - a reporter for the Washington Post - who also misled Owens with a view to telling "her story".

Suffice to say, all of this was stacked in favour of the whole journalistic ethics/media conspiracy that many Gamergaters claim to be fighting against.

​As a result of her experiences, her three in-depth articles, her tweets, her interviews with pro-Gamergate site The Ralph Retort, and the fact that she's far from shy about criticising Zoe Quinn and Randi Lee Harper, Owens has unexpectedly become the latest figurehead of pro-Gamergate.

Despite - as she says - not having any interest in games, or even knowing what Gamergate was before starting her Social Autopsy campaign. It's an absolute coup for the pros, given that Owens is attractive, black and female - the exact opposite of the "white, male, misogynist" stereotype typically associated with the pro-Gaters by the antis.

THE PROBLEM
Now... the problem is this: Candace Owens comes across like a paranoid conspiracy theorist.

She started one of those ineffectual online petitions against Jesse Singal, her Tweets frequently come over as whiny and obsessive, and her most recent blog post is full-on off-the-deep-end. In it she joins invisible dots to claim that Amazon founder Jeff Bezos is some sort of comic book villain, pulling the strings, and manipulating the media narrative. Frankly, that goes far beyond anything even the most rabid pro-Gamergaters would've dreamed up.

Consequently, any valid points she might've had in the beginning, any actual story she might've unearthed, is suddenly rendered irrelevant.

It's like David Icke; from time to time he'll mention something thought-provoking, that's worth looking further into... and then he'll say something like this: "A group of reptilian humanoids, called the Babylonian Brotherhood, control humanity."

Owens isn't quite at that stage yet, but she does say things like this: "My point: these women are NOT good people, and Idc what anyone thinks of my business, what they did to me was beyond horrific."

​Beyond horrific? Not good people? Really? Get some perspective, woman. You're playing the victim card there just as much as anyone else.

Picture
COMMON
Now here's another thing.

One of the common lines rattled out by Kotaku in Action and pro-Gamergaters is this: "Where's the proof of harassment?".

They might want to take a look at what's trending on Twitter today, because it's writ large.

The hashtag #TrigglyPuff - dreamed up by members of 4Chan allegedly - has almost 12,000 tweets as I write this... and every single one of them is targeted at one individual.

​The person in question is a US college major. She's gay, she's a feminist, and she was filmed losing it - literally screaming at the speakers (who included pro-Gamergater Milo Yiannopoulos) - at a university event discussing free speech and political correctness. 

Bottom line: she doesn't appear to be particularly emotionally stable. She looks unhinged, and suffice to say, becoming a meme which labels her as a  "white whale", "obnoxious lardo", "fatty mass" - and worse - is unlikely to help that.

It's disgusting, it's upsetting, and it rattles my faith in humanity. And it's exactly what anti-Gamergaters are against; they rightly see that as abuse and bullying - frankly, would any of us want to be her today?

There's certain chaotic contingent, many of whom appear to identify as pro-GG (or, at least, "anti-SJW"), responsible for promoting that hashtag who see their target as deserving of their abuse because... what... she shouted at one of the movement's most high profile proponents at a rally? Or is it because she's a feminist, a woman, and she's overweight? And they're bullying for the sake of bullying - for the reasons every bully does; to feel powerful and in control?

Either way, she seems to me like someone who'd benefit from a little empathy and compassion, not a concerted attempt to destroy her. It took me close to seven years to feel I'd recovered from the grief I got online, and I never had anything as bad as she's received in the last 24 hours. What has happened will probably stay with her for the rest of her life. 

​It's an issue... because, again, I think the non-abusive element of the pro-Gamergate movement is capable of making some valid points about media bias - and that message does get obscured by, ironically, media bias. But equally, the anti-Gamergate side has a noble reason for existing - resisting the sort of wholesale abuse that this person has been receiving.

Picture
MY ISSUE
​Neither side in Gamergate actually helps themselves.

​There are undoubtedly individuals who have sincere intentions - in the last few weeks I've spoken with anti-Gamergaters and pro-Gamergaters alike, who come across like reasonable, rational individuals. 

​People who, I honestly believe, would get along fine if you sat them down in a pub together for a chat. I think I understand now what they're both fighting for.


Unfortunately, their figureheads, the most visible individuals who are the public faces of the movements, are unstable and damaging to their message. The likes of Zoe Quinn and Randi Lee Harper are bloody awful representatives of anti-Gamergate. Too quick to play the victim card, too quick to bully, too inflexible, too ready to leap to conclusions about their evil opponents.

And likewise, high-profile pro-Gamergaters such as Milo Yiannopoulos and Ethan Ralph - who conducted a couple of what seemed like decent interviews with Candace Owens - manage to undermine their own message with abusive language, or by encouraging harassment (I mean, Yiannopoulos did his upmost to ensure #TrigglyPuff got trending). 

And then when you throw the mobs in there - that chaotic drone mentality, rallying behind the loudest voices - and it becomes impossible. Any more moderate message gets obscured by harassment, abuse, oversensitivity, and, frankly, those who absolutely adhere to the negative impression the other side has of them... whether it's knee-jerk political correctness and bullying, or rampant misogyny and bullying. 

When I started looking into Gamergate it was because I realised I didn't understand it. I'd blindly swallowed one version of the story, without even thinking to dig deeper. I now know that it's more complex and multilayered than I could've realised... while simultaneously being quite simple, and easy to break down. Both sides are equally right and equally wrong, like opposing, evenly balanced forces in a real-time strategy game. 

I'm now at a point, frankly, where I'm almost resigned to the push-and-pull drama of it.

​Because we all love a bit of that, eh?

FROM THE ARCHIVE:
​GAMES REVIEWERS AREN'T YOUR PERSONAL OPINION MONKEYS - BY MR BIFFO
GAMES OF MY YEARS: SUPER MARIO 64 - BY MR BIFFO
WHAT WAS THE BEST CONSOLE LAUNCH LINE-UP OF ALL TIME? - PART ONE

134 Comments
Superbeast 37
28/4/2016 12:27:04 pm

I must be tripping.

First you suggest that Quinn and Harper may not actually be Mother Theresa reincarnated. This is in direct contravention of the BBC/Guardian narrative and even the United Nations (I'm not joking on the UN thing!!!) and utter career suicide. Not sure whether any gaming sites will be publishing your material again!

Secondly you suggest that a black woman received support from a bunch of people who hate all women and black people because "reasons" (Beeb/Guardian/Gawker haven't explained that one yet). Come on, that's a bit far fetched! I am sure Gamergate sent her a tonne of death threats!

Also by criticising people who identify as female and criticising someone that has high levels of melanin in their skin, you are now effectively a Neo Nazi, Khmer Rouge, KKK, EDL, ISIS, far right, BNP, Tory who hates all women without exception, hates all gay people and hates all black people.

You also sacrifice babies in satanic rituals? Come on, admit it!

Good luck mate!

I'm staying out of this one!

Reply
Father theresa
29/4/2016 02:38:40 am

Mother Theresa is a pretty good comparison. She denied poor people even the most basic of medical care, like painkillers or sterilising needles, because she believed that to suffer before dying was a good thing

Reply
Dr Kank
28/4/2016 12:27:11 pm

Oh man, you're dissing Zoe Quinn now. There will be blood!

In a strange development of this story, Randi Harper actually went on Kotaku In Action to discuss who she thought was behind a fake Social Autopsy twitter account.

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 12:32:46 pm

Yep. Spotted that too.

Reply
Superbeast 37
28/4/2016 01:23:36 pm

Didn't she take a massive amount of abuse from anti-GG for that too?

I'm sure I saw a tweet about that but to be honest I haven't been following this one and I still haven't got a clue what this is truly about and who is on who's side/the real motivations behind some actions etc.

Well anyway they (the SJ mob) were calling Harper "transphobic".

God knows how that works but based on experience, every time I've heard the SJ mob accuse someone of "transphobia", I've researched it and found out that it is entirely untrue.

I dislike Harper but I guess she is innocent on that charge. I'm guessing her theory as to the identity of the troll was a, correct and b, the person was transsexual.

Still it is odd that Harper is apparently scared to leave the house or turn on her computer, yet felt perfectly safe talking to KiA despite having made a blockbot of whom 99.4% of those blocked hadn't harassed anyone.

FWIW I've heard the podcast Harper was on before Gamergate kicked off where she actually stated that as a woman in tech she had faced no discrimination, no harassment and that the brewing SJ mobs narrative was false.

My belief is that Harper is a relatively (when she isn't high) sane and based individual who realised "if you can't beat them join them" and grabbed the victimbux whilst it was readily available.

Same applies to Wu and Sarkeesian. They are smart people with a good business strategy.

My reckoning is that Quinn is the real/only psychopath, especially after having read the messages she sent to her boyfriend. That was just twisted. I'm therefore inclined to believe Owens but I don't have enough info and can't be bothered to research anymore!

Reply
Kendall9000
28/4/2016 06:40:01 pm

You've brought up a couple of my SJW pet hates in this post.

There are some people who genuinely are transphobic (or racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc.). For example, people who create conspiracy theories about transwomen wanting to use women's bathrooms so that they can rape "real women".

Throwing labels like "transphobe" at people for no real reason, just as a way of smearing and demonising them, weakens the meaning of the word. Crying "transphobe" just means that people will take it less seriously when it's directed at a genuine bigot.

Then there are the various "anti-harasser" blockbots that crowd have created, supposedly to keep "women and minorities" safe on the internet. Rather than keeping them for genuine abusers, they fill them up with anyone deemed guilty of wrong-think. People from Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox, to Barack Obama and Pope Francis, have all found themselves lumped in with the harassers on SJW blockbots. Even friends and supporters of the blockbot admins found themselves added to the block list over petty twitter squabbles.

I'm sure that made the blockbot admins feel very "empowered", but it removed any legitimacy they had as worthwhile anti-harassment tools.

Mr Tom
28/4/2016 12:33:38 pm

The actual craziest part, to me at least, is that Candace Owens does a Kickstarter for an ant-cyber bullying organisation, but had never heard of GamerGate and didn't know what doxxing is. She couldn't see what the problem with recording real names and details of people (just because they're supposedly harassers doesn't make it right) and instead of copping to her woeful lack of knowledge in the area she purportedlywants to start a business in she falls down the conspiracy theorist/GamerGater rabbit hole.

I wouldn't trust a thing she says at this point. Her claiming Quinn was behind GamerGate, then behind the harassment was so uncomfortably funny. Like "hahahahahaha, oh wait she actually believes that? Oh... Man..."

Reply
gg number 9
28/4/2016 03:42:15 pm

It is actually normal for people not involved with gaming not to have heard about GamerGate or know who Zoe is. I had also never heard the word doxing until two years ago.

Reply
Abobomb
28/4/2016 04:17:40 pm

I can sort of explain that. Owens is a 'normie', she's concerned with cyber-bullying as it pertains to and is an extension of IRL bullying.

She's right to consider it that, and GG/AGG is pure internet/gaming culture. Relatively it's a storm in a teacup.

However, where she falls down is that her lack of internet and tech culture knowledge and what the internet really is. She sees it like 90% of the world does: a tool. She's never really thought about the legit reasons anonymity would be a good idea (she seriously needs to look at the Arab Spring).

I honestly thought her ideas had merit on a local community/school level and recently someone explained to me that's exactly where she sees Social Autopsy. The trouble is, she's thinking micro but talking macro, and that's what has people's backs up.

As far as her losing it, yeah she has a bit but I think that's understandable. Her whole world has been shaken apart. Up is now down. Only a month or so ago, she trusted journalists, thought that an anti-bullying stance and tool was a pretty clear good thing, and those supposedly working in similar areas would be glad of her work.

I'm pro-GG, and I think Biffo's article here is damn fair, even the GG criticism. the trigglypuff thing *is* crass and cruel.

Reply
Ed Comment
28/4/2016 06:20:16 pm

What Owens started was very cynical in how mechanically she attacked Zoe Quinn. Almost as if she knew doing it would get brownie points with the pro-GGers. Don't get me wrong, there's signs that says that yes, she may not be all there. But there's also a feeling that it was very purposeful like she wanted to cultivate an audience who will see her next business move and support because of her opinions.

What Biffo says about David Icke is true. But David Icke is also a man who is very steadfast in what he truly believes with the reptilian conspiracy even with the audience he gets supporting him. You don't get bullshit, you get the lizard people up front. The amount of cynicism in Owens sudden about turn on support reminds me of a writer who outright made claptrap to sucker people in and control them. L. Ron Hubbard. And that cult of personality can easily sucker people in quickly to monetary support. And I have a feeling that is what Owens is banking on.

Again, it's frightening how quickly monetary interest has become so relevant in this now speaker gigs about the issue are common and patreons are a standard. There does seem no end in sight while it's potentially a profitable venture. Why end gamergate when there's money to be made out of a so called "culture war"?

Reply
Wicked Eric
28/4/2016 12:36:11 pm

Does anyone know where I can get a back ally lobotomy so that I might forget all about gamergate? I feel this would improve my life immeasurably.

Thanks in advance.

Reply
Erforderlich link
29/4/2016 12:44:09 am

it's really fairly easy. whenever you read the word "gamergate" just roll your eyes, close the browser and open a game.

The more people talk about GG the more gametime you'll get. win win.

Reply
Titus Balls
28/4/2016 12:56:54 pm

Brave stuff there Biffo. I must admit I almost got sucked into the Owens/Quinn thing the other week when I tweeted out the link and said is it a smoking gun against Quinn/Harper. I then deleted it and realised A) I don't actually care and B) No smoking gun, there is plenty of evidence of what they do - they bring plenty of rope to hang themselves with.

At the end of it all what the loudest people are in the movement are bullies, and they've created a gang they can drag along to use during their craziest moments.

Once Harper dyed her dog blue, I said I didn't think it was a good idea (being an animal lover and thinking it's genuinely cruel) to which she publicly attacked me and for days I was blocking accounts left, right and center telling me I'm a horrible misogynist bastard - they even tried to use the old "When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?" shite. It's the kind of blind following that David Koresh and Marshall Applewhite could only dream of.

Like you I try mostly avoid it now, but every once in a while something makes a noise and a flash and you can't help but look - but it's best to just look away quickly lest it sears your retina's with a permanent image of Milo's grinning face.

Reply
Darcy
28/4/2016 12:56:56 pm

This is the plot for a new sitcom, right? Some kind of Yes, Minster/The Thick of It, but with video gamers instead of politicians, right?

Right?

Reply
Random Reviewer
2/5/2016 05:33:03 pm

Let's get it commissioned!

Reply
Ed Comment
28/4/2016 01:04:22 pm

I think pro and anti GG is at a point where any central message is lost because both sides are so bloody well addicted to the drama that they don't want to stop. They just want a witch burning and need drama to continue to give them meaning. That "Polygon doesn't review Star Fox" incident last week was hilariously petty and yet a very apt example. Of course Polygon were doing it for site hits and drama. They know their audience, their metrics and engagement rates (And all the fancy buzzwords to please their advertisers) but it became really silly when NIntendo had banner ads on the websites for the same game. Suddenly it became "Ethics" because "But Nintendo are advertising on it they deserve to have their game reviewed!". If Arthur Gies slapped a 2/10 on it and said "It's an awful game", the backlash would have been the exact same because "How dare you give a Nintendo game a bad review?". Then there would be about fifty conspiracy theories about Arthur Gies having a "bias" against Nintendo and people making some sort of tenuous connection between Polygon and defending Alison Rapp. Same reaction to the point where between SF Zero and Alison Rapp, the whole thing became "It's about ethics in STOP BEING MEAN TO NINTENDO" for a while. And when you start making it about protecting the feelings of a billion dollar corporation without even stepping back once to even think about what you posted. Then that's incredibly disturbing the way thinking has evolved that the feelings of corporations come first before the feelings of people and the whole point of Gamergate is deflated because it really just becomes about "It's about ethics in giving good reviews to products and brands I emotionally invest in" and far from the original point, whatever that was since it's so far in the distance these days (And people were outraged enough over sites and business twitter accounts reporting Nintendo's woes as a company yesterday, amazingly)

And there's always a monetary element to it no one seems to question. Zoe Quinn and Milo Yiannopoulos? Now getting a steady and comfortable rent a quote gigs because they keep pushing everything on twitter and trying to keep it in the public sphere so they can keep on making a living from it as long as their patreons stay funded. Fanning the flames keeps them. On top of that, they have the perfect platform. Twitter is awfully policed, losing money and has no monetary gain from stopping harassment because they need to meet their advertising reach targets to the point where users can make whatever libellous, racist, bigoted image they want and harass freely with only a slap on the wrist.

I saw the news this morning where Alison Swift, a Labour MP for Liverpool, had all sorts of bigoted photoshops and anti-semetic remarks sent to her via twitter. And I know my British media law enough to know that what was posted was outright illegal under British law and would get you imprisoned for publishing it physically, never mind suing for libel. But what can twitter do but delete the accounts and say they "Can do better" like they have been saying since 2014 and then do jack squat about it. Pro and Anti's know it. They can continue their "War" as long as they can make a new account. Meanwhile, Twitter can feign ignorance because they know that the minute they start cracking down on awful accounts harassing people, they lose money from "Engaged users" and it looks bad for their advertising division. Twitter's above the law, in a way.

At this point. Milo and Zoe don't have anything to gain even by "Winning", gamergate for their respective sides. They can keep their living going via Patreon, get flown out to all the conferences and get paid to preach their message as long as the war of words keeps going. While anyone caught in the middle of their petty wars and having their life destroyed is just a martyr or a head on a pike depending what side you stand on.

And that's what's disturbing about GamerGate now. It's not even about winning. It's making it perpetual because the minute it ends. The minute a group of people are out of a job. Much like nuclear war, the only winning move is not to play.

(I forgot to recommend a book last time. "No Time To Think: The Menace of Media Speed and the 24-hour News Cycle" by by Howard Rosenberg and Charles S. Feldman. Covers a lot of 24 hour news networks like CNN and Fox News but it's scarily applicable to gaming coverage these days. I use it as a reference point a lot of the time because despite it being a little bit dry, it's accuracy is terrifying)

Reply
Superbeast 37
28/4/2016 01:50:51 pm

Ironically Milo only attained his current status because he was the only person prepared to report something other than the one-sided MSM narrative.

He had made disparaging remarks about gamers in the past! He is a male Sarkeesian; a shrewd business person who wasn't interested in something until they correctly identified that "the right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world" and it could brew into a lucrative issue.

In that sense he is a monster of his opponents own making. He saw an angle and they not only created that angle but delivered it to him on a plate.

But then I think most of us agree that if the press (both gaming and mainstream) had followed SPJ guidelines from day one, this would have died down as quickly as the Nexus 7 & Driv3r-gates.

When even the Pulitzer winning Guardian can't uphold those most basic standards, you know s**t is going to get crazy!

It is kind of weird but Gamergate (the phenomenon, not the "side") is ultimately about ethics in journalism. A non-event blown into a major-event by those reporting on it. The news in-effect creating the news.

Reply
Ed Comment
28/4/2016 05:44:44 pm

Well, the "One Sided MSM" narrative has been around since Fox News/MSNBC and has wrapped around to being the signature marketing siren for your common or garden left or right wing blog trying to differentiate themselves from the masses when it really just turns out to be the same. So nothing special or new there other than your atypical rehashed self-indulgent PR about being anti-mainstream (Or "lamestream" if you want to relive Bush-Era Fox News) while being part of the mainstream media. A case of the Richard LIttlejohn-isms, even. If you say you are Anti-MSM, you probably are MSM to the core these days.

Also the Guardian and UK publications aren't on SPJ code. They are IPSO Code Of Practice as commissioned by the Leveson Royal Charter and previously Press Complaint's Commission. I don't know what you are even getting at there other than the people championing ethics don't really know what codes countries across the world use.

But then gamergate isn't even about ethics. It's about two sides yelling at each other because they are addicted to drama drama and fishing into private lives for even more drama while people profit off said drama by dragging out the war of words to line their pockets.

And all over video games. A fleeting distraction from our humdrum lives. It's hilariously trivial. It's a trainwreck that shouldn't be happening but it keeps on going and going and you can't take your eyes off it.

Superbeast 37
28/4/2016 07:21:26 pm

I don't give a monkeys what specific code of ethics applies to the Guardian, they don't appear to comply with any in a lot of cases. Some of their columns have clearly been run past lawyers so that they can skate 1 micron on the right side of the laws regarding racism and inciting hatred. Pretty much the same behavior as that Milo guy.

I'm not sure what type of ethical journalistic code suggests handing the mic to some pretty odious individuals (who have been shown to have been involved in some pretty nasty activities before and during the current events) and offering them a free platform to attack large numbers of people with absolutely no counter view or even the most basic checks and scrutiny of these sources.

I don't recall being a "champion for ethics"either. Merely I expect our press to conduct rational, thorough investigations and present the facts. Some spin is inevitable but outright misrepresentation is unacceptable.

Whether that is the Daily Mail going after benefit claimants, Muslims, immigrants etc or the Guardian attacking gamers, men, whites etc, I expect the same standards of them all. I have a full time job so I don't have much time to "champion" anything.

I merely read a code of ethics (due to said organisations involvement in this issue and the bomb threat they received) and concluded that had said code been complied with by press on both sides of the Atlantic, Gamergate would have been a flash in the pan.

I don't buy into your argument about the sides. I always tend to use "sides" in inverted commas because frankly half the time the associations between those on the same "side" are as tenuous as those linking supporters of the same football team. Many are fighting different battles over different principles but share some common opponents. You will often find a huge disparity between the views of people on the same "side" over other issues. There is no hive mind or gang aside from in a tiny clique.

Too many actions attributed to an entire "side" are in reality the actions of a tiny percentage of people compared to all those that care about the issue.

This is never/rarely mentioned by those reporting on it including the few that are on the GG "side". Is it about ethics? You damn right it is.

It is too easy for people like you to pass this all of as "oh its just two groups shouting at each other". No it isn't that simple. There are some very important issues involved that some people are addressing. It is just a pity they are downed out.

Darren link
28/4/2016 01:49:17 pm

Nobody cares...

Really...nobody cares...

Reply
Gumbo
28/4/2016 04:39:08 pm

Thank you for taking the effort to tell us how nobody cares.

Reply
TARGA7W
28/4/2016 04:40:47 pm

I care.

Reply
Ciarán
28/4/2016 09:30:52 pm

I was beginning to think I was the only one who couldn't give a flying fuck about all this GG stuff.

Reply
Nobody
29/4/2016 02:40:47 am

It's funny how many people who shouted "nobody cares" have been in nonstop discussions about gamergate since it started.

If you really didn't care, you wouldn't want to share.

Reply
Menu
28/4/2016 01:50:14 pm

I'm glad people are starting to see that both sides good points have been completely obliterated by the bad blood and hypocrisy on both sides.

I absolutely detest the harassment that people get given over these things, but I must point out the thing that always cements my position in the middle.

It's okay for the Anti - Gamergaters to call Gamergaters everything under the sun, admonish them wholesale, ignore any points they're making and immediately dub them ignorant bullies. But the second they're called out on anything that they've done or said that's incorrect or indeed harassment. Then they instantly curl up and play victim, retweeting only the very worst of comments levied at them to get their fans "rescuers" into a frenzy and then backing off to watch the fireworks.

Like an ill tempered toddler on fireworks night.

What gets me most about this form of behaviour is that it seems to be completely accepted, it's okay to throw abuse "criticism" and generalise about whoever YOU'RE talking about, but when it comes back the generalisations are ignorant and the criticisms "harassment".

Such bullshit.

Reply
Nick the Gent link
28/4/2016 01:58:46 pm

Thanks to Biffo for doing yeoman's work on this. It's good to read a summary by someone who is viewing it from the outside.

I can barely follow these Twitter wars without my eyes crossing. The back-and-forth is beyond intricate now.

And does any of this matter to anyone beyond the parties involved?

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 02:04:15 pm

I'm sure it doesn't. I can't help my grisly fascination, though.

Reply
Pikachu In The Shower
28/4/2016 02:21:40 pm

I think the stuff about Jeff Bezos wasn't intended to be taken seriously. There were people on Twitter who were calling Owens a conspiracy theorist about her previous revelations, so she jokingly wrote that in response, like to say "if I was really a conspiracy theorist, I'd really be writing this sort of thing!".

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 02:36:20 pm

I might be wrong, but I read it as her saying it that way because she didn't actually have the evidence to back up her suspicions/theory.

Reply
Clockwork Fool
28/4/2016 04:13:15 pm

No, I'm pretty sure that section was a rhetorical device. Possibly based on real conjecture, what would she guess if she was looking for a conspiracy theory? But basically to contrast with her other claims that people are already calling insane conspiracy theories to dismiss her.

Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 04:15:53 pm

Well, I stand corrected if so. But I do think she needs to dial back the rhetoric if she wants to be heard by those who wouldn't necessarily accept her message by default.

Superbeast 37
28/4/2016 03:03:26 pm

OK I've looked into the trigglypuff thing.

I actually feel sorry for that person.

I think they are ill.

I think they have a psychological problem but instead of going to seek professional medical help have instead been indoctrinated by the SJ cult at the university (and no doubt Tumblr) and been manipulated into believing in this crazy grand conspiracy about the dangers of the white male patriarchy and all that lot.

A victim/pawn of both sides.

Quite common sadly. You see it with all this otherkin nonsense where the mentally ill are told by Tumblr and the SJ crowd that they are perfectly normal and healthy and that everyone else is out to get them.

Unfortunately those groups/cults get to such individuals before the mental health professionals do. Not surprising in a country with poor mental health care.

Reply
amazingmikey
28/4/2016 03:10:53 pm

OK so we should be nicer and more understanding, then, rather than calling them trigglypuff?

Reply
JoyBunny
28/4/2016 03:51:21 pm

Remember if you don't call her Trigglypuff then you are probably doxxing and MLP: Doxxing is Harrassment ok?

Honestly it's a cute name. Triggered Jigglypuff. Like the Pokemon. Could have been much worse.

Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 03:52:57 pm

Come on, JoyB. Really? It's not the Jigglypuff name, and you know it, that's the issue here.

Gumbo
28/4/2016 04:40:49 pm

Yeah, but JB was *responding to someone talking about the name*.

You can't pull someone up for keeping to the point, that's insane.

amazingmikec
28/4/2016 04:56:45 pm

I wasn't talking about the name, though?

Gumbo
28/4/2016 05:10:22 pm

You should probably ask for an edit button, then, cos it's right there a few lines up:

"rather than calling them trigglypuff"

I mean, I'd have preferred some scare-quotes too, but if your issue is with the harassment rather than the name you should probably mention the harassment.

JoyBunny
28/4/2016 05:15:08 pm

At first I wrote a huge reply, and then it seemed dumb so I erased it. Then I did that a second time. Then I saw Biffo saying people using the #Trigglypuff hashtag should "be wiped off the face of the earth" in the comments further down and I realized this article should not be taken in good faith.

All I'll say further is that it's unfortunate that the triggered young lady had her tantrums captured on video for the world to see. Perhaps she will learn to conduct her social advocacy in a more effective and less harmful manner in the future. It's fortunate that she removed her social media profiles from the public view before they could be overly dissected and if she manages to keep a low profile then people will forget about her before long and she will be able to benefit from lessons learned when she re-enters public discourse.

amaziingmikeyc
29/4/2016 09:22:39 am

Maybe this is the problem with you guys then? That you don't understand subtext and rhetorical devices?

Shall I explain my comment? I was taking it as read that "Trigglypuff" was a mean name designed to upset.. so read it as "OK so we should be nicer and more understanding, then, rather than calling them horrible names on the internet?"

Now go and read a book or something.

Superbeast 37
28/4/2016 04:59:34 pm

I don't like ad hominens.

They are unnecessary and tend to indicate that the person using them doesn't have a solid counter argument.

Their objective is simply to hurt and discredit the person as opposed to attacking and discrediting their argument. Like the school bully, they simply pick whatever weakness they think will hurt the most. It is rarely due to the perpetrator having a prejudice against whatever characteristic they mock, it is usually chosen coldly, rationally and purely for the effectiveness.

I can find a wealth of stats from governments and professionals that dispel the myths these people push so I see no excuse for mocking someone's appearance.

I'd also resist doing a take-down of a particular persons flawed beliefs (even though it's a legit target) if I believe they are suffering from mental health issues and have been exploited by others.

In this case a person with a mental illness is being mocked. Not just to hurt them but also to score points against and discredit their ideological allies (and it won't work).

The associates are equally as culpable but those doing the mocking can score their points using legitimate tactics so stop with the ad homs. That's all I'm saying.

Even without the mental illness factor I've never approved of the "hamburger harper" nonsense and stuff like that. As someone else said, people like Harper bring their own rope, learn from her and don't bring your own rope too. Also don't be a d**k in general! It doesn't create a good impression to neutrals who have already heard the media "poisoning the well" against you.

They hear the media narrative, look at the stupid meme and think "yeah everything the media said is true". They won't bother fact checking anything else after that. Humans struggle to change their beliefs so first impressions count.

Reply
Bill
28/4/2016 03:03:48 pm

Oh buddy, a swing and a miss. The TrigglyPuff thing isn't *targeted,* it's simply negative speech *about* a person. Good lord, I gave you credit for more brains than to be one of these "being talked about negatively is harassment" people.

Between that and your "Everything Owens says is discredited because a fraction of it is wacky conjecture" stance...this has not been a good day for you.

It's bizarre, because clearly you are capable of seeing what's going on here. But it's also clear you really, really want the GG side to remain the baddies, and are willing to engage in some quite impressive mental gymnastics to stay in that posture.

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 03:14:56 pm

12,000+ message aimed at - or, sorry, "about" - one person, calling her fat and ugly, and you don't see that as some degree of harassment and abuse, and deeply damaging? Firstly to the individual in question, and then to the message of the more moderate elements on the pro-Gamergate side? Really?!

On the contrary to what you think about me wanting GG to remain as baddies... I've been treated better since writing about this subject by GGers than the antis. Those people who were willing to engage with me rationally succeeded in making me understand their message (whether I support it or not).

I actually think those people deserve to be heard. But their message is actually being obscured as much by some on their own side as those they oppose. And, frankly, anyone involved in that Trigglypuff hashtag deserves to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Reply
amazingmikeyc
28/4/2016 03:25:34 pm

Ah yes the old "I was talking about you not at you" defence.

Bob: "Dave sucks and is a terrible person"
Dave: "WHAT?"
Bob: "Oh I was talking about you, not at you"
Dave: "Oh that is fine then; I was concerned you were trying to anger and upset me because you say this every time I walk past."

Bill
28/4/2016 03:31:17 pm

No, sir, I do not, because you are abusing the hell out of the word "targeted." Making a spectacle of yourself by behaving abhorrently, and then being talked about negatively because of it, is the utterly natural consequence of free expression in a Democratic society. It can be ugly and nasty and mean-spirited, and there is no way to curtail it beyond impressing damaging policy that regresses back from Enlightenment principles of free speech and congregation.

Second, though that incident is a popular topic of conversation amongst KiA members, it *has nothing to do with Gamergate.* Not a jot. To say that bad talk about someone who has absolutely nothing to do with GG, is somehow damaging to "the message of the moderate elements" (whatever that is supposed to mean), is bafflingly nonsensical. Schadenfreude is also not targeted harassment.

And yes, over and over again, you're trying very hard to build false equivalence here between the parties--by using collective guilt and guilt by association for *completely unrelated to GG opinions and actions* when it suits you.

It looks like you're having a very hard time navigating social media. It also looks like you're either being willfully dishonest, or are actually staggeringly naive, when it comes to garden variety tabloid behavior. You think what happened to the lady at UMass is some kind of new phenomenon, or that it says anything about some unrelated third parties? When you weave that narrative, it gets harder and harder to have any confidence whatsoever in your good faith.

amazingmikeyc
28/4/2016 03:37:33 pm

I think you're being weirdly trying to downplay some horrible behaviour, bill.

Bill
28/4/2016 03:45:14 pm

If by "downplay" you mean simply note that speaking ill of people who have behaved badly and been publicly caught at it is typical human behavior and has been since we started etching symbols on walls to describe the world around us, okay. And if you mean by "downplay," to point out that the responsibility for this behavior is *once again being attributed* to people who have nothing to do with it, then okay.

Tehy
28/4/2016 03:46:09 pm

Biffo, I'd wager she is getting heat not just for being fat and ugly, or even emotionally unstable in that sense : she is getting heat for freaking out over someone she disagrees with having their voice heard, and for thinking that this is acceptable or even morally righteous behavior.

Frankly, imagine if every time you were to write an article I was to start crying and losing my mind... How unpleasant would that be? Isn't that a behavior that society should discourage?

Certainly I think the discouraging is a bit overboard in some ways. But I also think that for too long idiots like this have stifled necessary discourse. Maybe these people will think twice next time.

By the way, to those peddling false equivalencies : Milo was already a high-level editor at Breitbart who had appeared on the BBC multiple times and he has no Patreon that I could find. Sure he gets clicks instead, but his articles are legitimately pretty good, so.

Also, Polygon's scoring system means that, thus far, they have only given 2.0 scores to games whose bugs / glitches make them almost unplayable. I'm watching a let's play of Star Fox Zero right now and nothing like that has shown up, so a 2.0 score would certainly be outrageous...however, a 4 or 3.5 likely wouldn't prompt widespread outrage or anything.

Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 03:47:28 pm

Bill... of course it's not a new phenomenon. And nor is your "garden variety tabloid behaviour". Does that excuse it? And this happened today, which is why I mentioned it today.

And I think you're missing my point, either wilfully or... I dunno for what reason. My point is... the sheer fact that incident is even being discussed by KiA is precisely why your opponents seem to think it's the work of Gamergate. I'm not "trying to build false equivalence" when it suits me, as you state. Quite the opposite. But the facts is the facts here. Your argument is precisely why aGG takes issue with the pro-side. What do you want to achieve with it exactly?

My reaction when I saw that video of her outburst at the meeting was... "Jesus. She needs help. Why would she behave like that? She seems vulnerable."

Your reaction seems to be "Well... if she's going to do that then she deserves thousands of people calling her fat."

Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 03:51:59 pm

Tehy - I hear you. And yes, you're right. I mean, her behaviour was unacceptable. But I tend to reject it when people say that individuals bring it upon themselves.

If you want to stop her behaving like that... well, ok. You could join the online mob calling her fat and ugly. She'd probably think twice before another outburst like that. She might also throw herself in front of a train or take an overdose. It seems like an enormous risk to me.

It's about separating idiotic behaviour from labelling someone as an idiot. There's a massive distinction there. And extrapolating from that to call them a "disgusting blob" is just beyond the pale.

Admin
28/4/2016 03:54:31 pm

Tehy:
> Biffo, I'd wager she is getting heat not just for being fat and ugly,

Ah so some of the heat is?

Bill
28/4/2016 03:58:14 pm

"Excuse" is a very poor way of repackaging "explain." Pointing to something that is happening and describing it is not "excusing" it.

"The sheer fact that incident is even being discussed by KiA is precisely why your opponents seem to think it's the work of Gamergate." Which you should be better than. Also, I am not GG, and their opponents are not mine, we should clear that up. Re-read this thing you've written right here. You are doing exactly what you're saying "your opponents" are doing. So you're saying you count yourself among these "opponents?"

aGG is a bunch of lunatics who see GG aggression written in the clouds and spelled out in their Spaghettios. Whether or not they think a thing should be, to a thinking feeling person, no indication of where truth lies.

Another thing we should clear up: "Deserve" is a foolish concept for small minds. It depends on an arbitrator that hands out reward and punishment based on that entity's version of fairness. Like I said earlier, describing a phenomenon is not excusing it, nor should the word "deserve" arise when talking about behavior and consequence. That's dirty pool, bud.

But this is all distraction; half of it isn't as you're painting it, and none of the parties you're talking about are actually involved. It's basically what they call a "gamedrop," on KiA. So really, the question is one you've already asked:

"What do you want to achieve with it exactly?"

Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 04:06:48 pm

"Should". The most abused word in the English language.

Bill
28/4/2016 04:17:40 pm

Neat, we can set it on a shelf next to "excuse" and "deserve" then, and actually have a civilized conversation without attacking the intentions of the other.

amazingmikeyc
28/4/2016 04:21:24 pm

Hmm not sure how you can be civilized without having concepts of proportional justice but whatevs.

Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 04:21:33 pm

Bill - I wasn't attacking you. And I didn't particularly feel attacked by you. But alrighty.

Bill
28/4/2016 04:48:25 pm

No, you were. Saying that a person is excusing or defending something that you simultaneously describe as awful, is an attack. It's a very commonly done thing, but still.

To be fair, I started it. It's frustration. You've been very unfair to Owens (whose project, as currently explained, I dislike, but the overall idea is good), and very unfair to both "pro-GG" and KiA on the topic of the UMass lady. Whose name, by the by, I had no idea until you told. I'm going to use that abused word "should" here, and say that if you want to stay on the good side of things here, you should acquaint yourself with the concept of signal-boosting.

But yeah. How many of these things are you going to do, and what's the point? GG has been blamed for everything short of the holocaust for the last 2 years. It has nearly nothing to do with the opinions contained therein or the actions perpetrated by. Its enemies are interested parties, often covering their own bad behavior, so that I get.

But as a fellow spectator, yours is the most aggravating posture. You have the stomach to look at these little microcosm events, enough to see the truth of it, but some milquetoast status quo "niceness" reflex kicks in and you end up joining aGG in laying down condemnation on folk who for the 3,000th time, didn't do anything.

It's aggravating because though you can obviously see shapes enough to know what's about, you keep throwing your hands up in the air and claiming all you can see is fog. C'mon, man! Take a stance already! Stop parroting the language and blame tactics coming from people you know are bad faith actors.

Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 04:56:00 pm

OK.

Grantham Ho!
29/4/2016 02:35:58 am

"Saying that a person is excusing or defending something that you simultaneously describe as awful, is an attack."

Amigas are awful, though, buddy.

Derpstar
28/4/2016 03:28:01 pm

I don't think you're far off in your assessment, but I do take issue with this passage,

"​It's an issue... because, again, I think the non-abusive element of the pro-Gamergate movement is capable of making some valid points about media bias - and that message does get obscured by, ironically, media bias. But equally, the anti-Gamergate side has a noble reason for existing - resisting the sort of wholesale abuse that Cora Miriam has been receiving."

You're very specific about separating "GamerGate" into groups you believe are abusive/not-abusive, but paint the "Anti-GamerGate" group (as they are) with a very broad brush.

When asserting that these people in large stand for an anti-Harassment platform, it might be worth considering that many of the very high profile and loud critics of GamerGate in the blogosphere/internet media are responsible for some pretty horrific examples of bullying and harassment. Does the name Justine Sacco ring a bell? What about last year's "ShirtStorm" (Dr Matt Taylor) or the events reported (incorrectly) by many of these individuals around Sir Tim Hunt purported "sexist" comments, a barrage of organized harassment that caused him to consider suicide.

Now, I won't go so far as to declare that being called fat on the internet is "better" than being called a racist (Sacco) or a misogynist (Taylor, well technically his bowling shirt) or a Sexist (Hunt), but I do think that I personally would be far better equipped to deal with the former than the later, especially since being fat is a far more likely to garner sympathy than being a racist or a misogynist.

While I believe that both forms of harassment are genuinely wrong, I also find it somewhat intellectually dishonest to equate juvenile taunting (you're fat, you're ugly, you're a spaz) with career ending accusations (you're a racist, you're a misogynist, you're sexist).

Now, I'm not excusing the harassment of Cora Miriam at all, but I also think that you can't talk about it without acknowledging that it's absolutely a response to ill-informed social media witch hunts borne out of self righteousness and promulgated by many of the journalists and figureheads in "anti-GamerGate".

Reply
Twei Lim Lou
28/4/2016 04:37:17 pm

not to mention these extreme SJW people have a very anti white old men mentality, even attacks on richard dawkins, hitchens and more o_O

the difference is they did not went into victimhood mode these old white men in public discourse and their own expertises (disagree what dawkins thinks of philosophy)

Reply
Steve
28/4/2016 03:55:57 pm

The thing is Owens along with the rest of GG are smeared in the mainstream press. Quinn on the other hand has a film in the works with Scarlett Johansson in apparently.

I'd be alright if the common perception was that neither side is particularly great. But Quinn is painted as a brave saint while anyone who argues is the devil. Mostly because she has journo friends. It's disgusting.

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 04:05:20 pm

And I get that frustration that the pro-GGers feel. I really, genuinely understand where they're coming from - I've seen enough now to get it. Which was the point of today's piece; that neither side is well represented by its spokespeople, its figureheads.

And I also suspect that there will be anti-GGers who will now come along and tell me that ZQ never asked for it, that she had her life ripped inside out, and was forced into that position. And I can appreciate that too. Again, I've read enough now to see where they're ALL coming from.

It's like any leadership position though; the ones at the top are rarely the ones who should be in that role. The loudest voices are generally the ones that get heard.

Reply
Clockwork Fool
28/4/2016 04:45:42 pm

It's worth bearing in mind, whilst Anti-GG has a few central figureheads galvanising it and directing it, GG is inherently resistant to any kind of top-down structure.

GG is more of a grass roots, bottom up thing. E-Celebs come and go, but they aren't in charge and they don't dictate opinions. E-Celebs who fuck up or are revealed to have been dishonest get just as much scrutiny as those outside the community and there's rarely a unanimous consensus on most issues even just within KiA, let alone once you account for other groups who identify with the label GG.

Clive Peppard
28/4/2016 05:17:11 pm

Im in a leadership position, i got there by being good at my job.

The higher I go though, the more I see of loud beats clever, if i want to progress to board level i need to start being loud and abrasive and shouting down my subordinates. and join the masons...

gg number 9
28/4/2016 07:37:18 pm

I don't know what her journo friends were thinking, when some of them wrote the gamers-are-dead articles, and the rest either backed them up or remained silent. What is the point of declaring war on your own readers?

And then they were all surprised when Milo appeared to take advantage of their stupidity, what did they expect exactly?

Twei Lim Lou
28/4/2016 04:26:24 pm

sorry but I wont respect or ever feel pity for figureheads that are professional victims, cry bullies, scammers, regardless what they have between their legs

did you feel sorry for jack thompson? Dr. Oz? Deepak Choprak quantum healing? other modern day snake oil cough syrup and outrageous claims/miracles, ponzi schemes, other scammers / preachers of pseudo speak to get moneys?
So won't feel sorry for zoe quinn, anita sarkeesian, almost all game journalists and their propagation of end of gamers, bully nerds.


I do criticize /discuss /disagree with fellow gamers gamergators about politics /conservative and religion

Reply
Super Bad Advice
28/4/2016 04:31:39 pm

Gamergate (the whole thing, not the 'pro' side) reminds me of World War 1. A load of people caught up in a fight few people really understand the true reasoning behind, all triggered off because of some unpleasantness between a couple of individuals. Plus a lot of the 'ground troops' probably have a lot more common ground with their 'enemy' than they do their leaders, but everyone is stuck in their own propaganda-filled ruts and it takes a lot of bravery to stick your head above the parapet.

Also: absolutely EVERYONE involved has trench foot and syphilis.

Reply
Damon link
28/4/2016 04:34:19 pm

Seems like the teal deer here is that Gamergate is more about 'who' than 'what' and their behavior renders any legitimate concerns they may have had irrelevant. Welcome to 2016. This is what "debate" is now. Shouting about who is more of a victim.

Reply
Clockwork Fool
28/4/2016 04:35:51 pm

It's also worth remembering a couple of things, Biffo old man. Firstly, gamergate is used to being dismissed as terrorists and nazis. The actual event "Gamergate" was literally large series of vicious attack articles released in a coordinated effort to bury news of a possible breach of journalistic ethics by a group of game journalists colluding on a secret email list.

It's also a community that is always blamed for the actions of anyone on the fringes or even entirely unrelated and has been, again since day one.

Image isn't really a top priority.

Secondly, Milo stood up for gamergate when he came to understand it, giving a rare hearing to the side being attacked by the game and mainstream media. But his views are his own and his goals are his own. He's not been meaningfully involved in GG for a long time, rather he's off to one side fighting a larger culture-war. Likewise, his fans are their own thing, there is overlap with gg and gg tends to look on him favourably because of his contributions, but we aren't responsible for him and he's not in charge.

Reply
Clive peppard
28/4/2016 04:37:47 pm

oh Biffster

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 04:38:31 pm

I know... I know...

Reply
Joseph Gardner
28/4/2016 04:57:06 pm

I don't understand how what is said about Cora Miriam constitutes abuse or bullying.

You can't be abusive "about" someone, abuse is directed. So while the the things said about her are definitely unpleasant and shitty, they aren't abuse or bullying.

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 05:06:36 pm

Well when you put it like that... it's absolutely fine to do it.

No. C'mon. Really??

If it's done in as public a forum as Twitter then that argument doesn't really wash. A huge number of the tweets I saw about it were revelling in the fact the hashtag was trending - enjoying that it was going to be seen by as many people as possible. To think the target of those tweets wasn't going to see it, or be aware, is pretty naive. It also doesn't excuse laughing at another human being for entertainment. Whether you want to classify it as abuse or bullying or not... that's shitty. And if that's what you get your kicks from... then you need help.

It's worth looking up the story of Ghyslain Raza - the Star Wars kid - for how it can damage a person.

Reply
Joseph Gardner
29/4/2016 01:47:07 am

Did you not read my comment? I literally called it shitty, just as you do.

That said it still doesn't make it abuse or bullying. Having been bullied in high school leaves me feeling somewhat qualified to differentiate.

Mr Biffo
29/4/2016 08:58:18 am

You'll have to excuse me if I didn't read it properly. As I'm sure you'll appreciate, yesterday was a bit like playing tennis against 50 other people simultaneously.

amazingmikeyc
29/4/2016 09:17:49 am

I'm glad we've got the dictionary police to tell us the difference between different levels of horribleness.

Gumbo
28/4/2016 05:06:11 pm

The "conspiracy theory" blog you're talking about literally has a section titled "Back To Reality" after the exaggerated piss-taking conspiracy theory. The only thing Candace did wrong there was not include any lizardmen or holocaust denial or flat earthers just to make sure everyone knew what she was getting at. It was a JOKE. At the expense of people who think she's that crazy.

At your expense, basically.

There's a name for the phenomenon you're experiencing, Biffo. It's called "motivated reasoning". You came at a situation with a strong motivation to see things in a particular light - in this case, with a strong motivation not to come out as pro-GG, because doing so is career and social suicide. As a result, you naturally and instinctively filter out things that would not support that viewpoint.

I don't blame you, it's a universal human trait, everyone does it and no-one wants to be a pariah. I'm writing under a pseudonym myself for that exact reason. But please, do not participate in the monstering of Candace Owens. She is not a conspiracy theorist, and she does not deserve the treatment she is receiving, and that you are enabling by misrepresenting her.

Your point regarding "Trigglypuff" stands on its own. You don't need to engage in this sort of crap, and you're better than that.

Reply
The Colour Of Heartache
28/4/2016 05:12:37 pm

I think you're misdiagnosing the problem when you call this harassment. And I think I can demonstrate why.

Just replace the activist at the center of #trigglypuff (I think you should redact her name and will not use it myself) with a prominent politician like Donald Trump.

Trump has had far more tweets made about him, along with articles and everything else, they've been more hostile than anything gamergate did (we're strongly opposed to using her real name, trying to get her banned from places, threats of violence, or anything like that. All things that happened to Trump). What's more Trump is psychologically just as vulnerable to this kind of mass criticism as any other human being.

However nobody is suggesting that what's happening to Trump is harassment; and I don't think identical behavior can be harassment when targeted at one person, but not harassment when targeted at a different person.

Now I'm not saying there is no issue here. I said you're misdiagnosing the problem, but I do think there is a problem.

The actual problem is not harassment, it's the blurring of public and private figures. In the old days, only people tempted by the rewards of power and/or fame had to risk this level of exposure. Everyone could freely choose to stay safely private. Today anyone could fall under the public eye.

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 05:21:36 pm

Yeah, I've gone and redacted her name. I was wrong to think it humanised the person at the centre of it. Suffice to say, I saw her name attached to "Jigglypuff" tweets, because - of course - some people went out of their way to find out who she was.

Reply
Gumbo
28/4/2016 05:26:58 pm

If you're not aware of the people who farm kiwis (not the exact name - trying to avoid easy reverse googling back to here) then this would be a good time to learn.

They're not part of GG, for what little it's worth. They treat GG the same way they treat absolutely everyone else - as victims.

Good on you for removing the name though.

Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 05:29:43 pm

Yes... I'm aware of that somewhat chaotic agricultural contingent...

Alec McCabe
28/4/2016 05:35:28 pm

A thought for people, here. If you limit your perception to single events like this - Candace Owens, Trigglypuff, the Quinnspiracy, the Dangerous Faggot Tour, #ArbitrationGate - you'll keep being misled.

Remember this, please: #GamerGate was not meant to be a name for a group of people. It was a hashtag, adopted to talk about the EVENT that was #GamerGate. Created on August 27th, and adopted by several media outlets after September 7th, as a name for a group.

The event itself isn't important. The people involved aren't really that important, either. Here's the important part:

You haven't been told the truth. You don't even know the truth. None of us actually do. But we're being told what the truth is, by people who don't fact-check, don't investigate, and sometimes don't even understand what they're writing or reporting on. And it's making it very hard to think for ourselves in the face of these bad habits.

The point of GamerGate is that investigative journalism, and the idea that the purpose of journalism should be to inform, is on its last legs. Gonzo journalism, outrage journalism, clickbait journalism and activist journalism are what we're seeing now, and it has a synergistic relationship with empowering online bullies, giving them a voice and even, in many cases, legitimacy. The people writing this stuff and tweeting this stuff want you to get worked up about this stuff - not because there's some nefarious plan, but simply because it's what pays the wages, or makes them feel good.

The people you think are heroes, aren't. The people you think are villains, aren't. The only options we're given are to pick a side, because that's what feeds the machine.

#GG tried to stand apart and say, 'this is how the machine works', and look at what happened - the games press worked hard to *make* it a side, riled up everyone they could find to attack it, so that two years on even those who were involved at the start can't remember what they were trying to do. All that's left is the big dumb argument. Don't fall into that trap.

Reply
Alec McCabe
28/4/2016 08:04:57 pm

That's August 27th, 2014, I should add. And September 7th of that same year.

And when I say that media narrative is the important part, I say it because that's the only part of this, the ONLY part of ANY of it, that actually affects you, personally. It's the only part that affects me. It's the only part that affects everyone involved, and has much wider implications than that. And so, it's the only part we really have business in talking about; and it's what certain people want to make sure you don't talk about.

Reply
Dr Kank
28/4/2016 05:45:48 pm

Just the other day there was a thread on Kotaku In Action showing Graham Linehan and Leigh Alexander taking the piss out of a disabled guy wearing a Gamergate T-shirt. And then there's Alexander's blatant contempt on display in that article she wrote where she described gamers as poorly dressed consumers with terrible social skills, and Bob Chipman labelling gamers as subhuman, and so on. So it seems a little bit hypocritical to protest about that kind of behaviour and still defend the Trigglypuff hashtag.

Reply
Richard Gere's Safe Space for Gerbils, Hamsters & Other Rodents
28/4/2016 05:55:30 pm

Back in my day, games, and any media or community around it was about escapism from the dramas of every day life.

Now the only way to escape this drama is to go outside and interact with real people. Ugh.

Reply
Agkistro13
28/4/2016 06:37:25 pm

I'll say this. If the roles were reversed, and Trigglypuff was a guy in a MAGA hat screaming "CUCK!" and "TERRORIST!" and "LOW ENERGY!" at some sort of progressive event, that trump supporter would get all this same harassment except nobody would call it harassment, they would immediately see it is the natural consequence of screaming your head off at a public event.

But in addition to the harassment, they would be thrown out of the event, lose their job, the story would be that the yelling and screaming they did was in itself harassment instead of 'protest' as you characterize it, the panelists would be interviewed by CNN and MSNBC asking them how they're coping with the aftermath of their brutal attack, and we'd all be told that this is what's wrong with conservatism in the U.S.

But no, she's an SJW and has SJW plot armor. She can do what she likes and the only possible sin is in the reaction.

Reply
Jet Lagg
28/4/2016 06:57:34 pm

One set of rules for me, another set of rules for thee.

That seems to be the liberal playbook these days. Act as complete hypocrites, betraying your self professed liberal values the moment you encounter someone you personally dislike, and then stand bewildered when people notice and get angry about it. Of course the whole thing is a shitshow. People broke the social contract. They demonstrated they have no intention of engaging in good faith and now it's total war.

Reply
Chris Edwards link
28/4/2016 06:41:34 pm

Hello,

Mr Biffo, let me begin by saying that I find your blogs style to be distracting while trying to read the content. While I appreciate the black background and light text (it's generally great for reading at night in the dark, less hurtful on the eyes), the lack of 'chrome' and the sharp contrasting colors, particularly in your 'digitiser 2000' logo distract the eye away from the text. I had to keep drawing my vision back to your article.

With that criticism out of the way, I'd like to go into your article. It's nice to see you're keeping an open mind, but I think one of the main issues with your article is a general problem with labeling.

Let's take your #trigglypuff example. This woman went to that event with the intent to disrupt the talk, to be rude to the invited speakers, and be abusive to her fellow audience members, some of which were there to actually hear the speakers. Civil protest is an exemplar of the virtue of free speech, but this was not civil. To my knowledge, she's simply repeatedly yelling 'Fuck you' to CH Sommers while Sommers is trying to speak. That she was recorded 'losing it' and subsequently is becoming a viral meme (do you have issues with other people's who's photographs have become common memes, and through no fault of their own for what isn't public speech?) is a consequence both of her behavior and the public nature of how she behaved. No doubt, she's among those that feel that free speech doesn't mean free from the consequences of such speech. This would be a natural consequence. I will caveat this with her doxing being completely unacceptable. But I believe it is the woman's behavior, not her appearance, that have caused this attention. Maybe she'll learn a lesson about how to behave in public in a civil society.

This having been said, lets backtrack to Candace Owens (who's name I didn't know until recently). I found her product abhorrent; I did report it on Kickstarter as a violation. I can't see any way to see it other than as an engine for abuse. I did so after talking with her (on twitter) and asking her directly about her plans to handle false reports, trolls, and other abuse her planned system would be prone to, and receiving what I felt was a complete non-answer. But, Owens was polite and civil while we talked. That she was herself abused is unacceptable. Having been on the receiving end of Randi Harper's abuse myself, I know that she has a general playbook of how to direct her followers to abuse a target, and she does it with impunity. That might bias my opinion, so you should keep that in mind. There also seems to be some evidence to say that Quinn did indeed direct abuse at Owens over her product.

I can't fault Quinn or Harper for notifying Kickstarter; her product was a dangerous thing. But the abuse, and certainly Singal's behavior around it, are equally bad, in the same way that #trigglypuff's behavior was bad, but her doxing is still unacceptable.

My main issue with your article is that you seem content to say that Quinn and Harper didn't abuse Owens with their behavior, but you're happy to slap a label on anyone who abuses #trigglypuff with say, her real name, and call them a pro-gamergater, with absolutely no proof.

From the beginning, Gamergate on both sides has been beset by trolls, pretending to support one position or both, and using it as an excuse to dox, threaten, potentially SWAT, etc. These people weren't really part of either 'camp', but simply using the situation as a feeding ground for their lulz. If you weren't going to do more than a cursory glance, you'd easily believe that pro-GG was nothing but trolls and woman haters, yet I spent the first 6 months of GG investigating every incident of reported 'abuse' that I saw, and not once did it actually lead to someone who supported GamerGate, and it took approximately 5 minutes in most cases to make this determination.

I can't speak for Ethan Ralph. I consider him an opportunist. Milo Yianoppolis is up front about his troll nature; calling himself a provocateur. It's part of his business persona. Even so, he goes out of his way to still maintain the positions he tends to hold on subjects like free speech. While I wouldn't hold him up as an example of ethical journalism, he doesn't seem to just make things up whole cloth, and he certainly investigates his subjects before publishing about them (likely because he's subject to the UK's much more severe libel and slander laws). Most of those publishing in an anti-GG position do not. They talk to one subject - typically the 'harassed' subject. They're not asked for evidence; there's absolutely nothing verifiable about what they say. There's no link to Gamergate or even gamers in general. Sarkeesian once posted a collection of a 'week of abusive tweets', In them there were two references to Gamergate in any way, neither by accounts which ever tweeted about Gamergate again, and the worst of these was 'Shut up, bitch'. When twitter worked with

Reply
Euphemia
28/4/2016 07:26:11 pm

I like the hot, white-on-black action you've got going on here.

I mean the colour-scheme of the site, before this spins of in yet another unpleasant direction.

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 07:43:33 pm

Well... ok. I did amend the article slightly. Obviously, they're not all pro-GGers, Chris.

The thing is... I can't say conclusively that Harper and Quinn abused Owens - because I only really have her word to go on. And a lot of what she alleges is her going on her gut. What I can say unequivocally is that a lot of people on Twitter, and elsewhere, picked on a girl for going apeshit at a free speech debate... primarily because she's overweight. That happened. I saw it with my own eyes. Much of the Harper/Quinn/Owens stuff is only alleged to have happened.

Reply
Chris Edwards
28/4/2016 08:00:26 pm

Wow, I'm so long windows half my comment was cut off.

I need to work on that.

Reply
Jet Lagg
28/4/2016 06:53:50 pm

"But equally, the anti-Gamergate side has a noble reason for existing - resisting the sort of wholesale abuse that this person has been receiving."

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

They cloak themselves in that, but if you ignore Owens coming across as a conspiracy theorist and accept only the basic facts of her case, it should be pretty apparent that the people leading this anti-harassment charge are actually the bullies and the harassers.

We were harder on the Catholic church because child abuse, while reprehensible in itself, is rendered even worse when it's committed by a self-declared representative of God. Why shouldn't we likewise hate Quinn and Harper more than we would your average harasser? Why shouldn't Owens call them awful people? And what would they have to do before you agreed with that charge?

Reply
Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 07:38:10 pm

A big poo in my house.

Reply
Jet Lagg
28/4/2016 08:05:14 pm

I'd have an easier time with you being glib about actual concerted and targeted harassment if you didn't just also say people making fun of a girl (in a way that's trivial for said girl to ignore) ought to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Mr Biffo
28/4/2016 08:25:37 pm

Yes, I thought that might come back and haunt me when I wrote it. Oh well.

Bill
28/4/2016 09:53:18 pm

Oh FFS, is there no place for hyperbole anymore? Biffo, we disagree (on a lot), but "calling out" your comments because they're full of salt air is ridiculous. Nobody with an ounce of perspective or sincerity thinks you were actually supporting a pogrom. You were just expressing a strong dislike of mean behavior using equally strong language. I don't like meanness! Very few people do! But can we stop taking each others' words like they dated our mothers once and didn't call them again?

(Also, if you stay embroiled in this long enough, and fail to lay proper, unambiguous condemnation on GG, you might get that poo mailed to your house. Does that count?)

Jet Lagg
29/4/2016 12:05:22 am

Of course he didn't actually express support a pogrom. What he did was express knee jerk hatred for a group of people because they were engaging in what I'd call (obviously he disagrees) some intense non-directed mockery of a girl who quite frankly needs some mockery, and at the same time he made light of the many cases of actual targeted harassment, doxxing, and project/career torpedoing done out of pure spite which ignoring the victims pleas for mercy or attempts to find middle ground.

Clearly, he and Gamergate have VERY different ideas of what is acceptable behavior. Since he responded to my pointing out of (from my perspective) atrocious behavior with a bit of humor, I'm hoping he won't hold it against the people of Gamergate when they inevitably laugh off his calling what is (from his perspective) atrocious behavior.

CanofWorms
28/4/2016 07:37:57 pm

Oh my god I'm everywhere.

Reply
Nick the Gent link
28/4/2016 09:32:33 pm

ISWYDT

Reply
Keith
28/4/2016 08:00:04 pm

every time I read about Gamergate I feel like I like games a bit less.

And it's frankly bizarre to see the outrage from people on both sides that Mr Biffo might not agree entirely, and might even have based his position on having seen a slight,y different perspective on it all (as if the person putting him right has THE definite take on it)

More than anything though, what the continuing GG articles have done is convince me that Mr Biffo was actually right about the drama triangle. I was sceptical at first, as I was looking at it in broader terms where it doesn't always apply. But it's crystal clear now that there are people whose entire identity seems to revolves around their position in the dynamic of GG.

Sod that. Games are fun. Best thing all round would be for everyone who is able to be proportionate about stuff to take a step back for a few weeks/months, and if they want to pursue a valid argument from either perspective, frame it outside of this toxic, impenetrable load of utter bollocks.

Mr Biffo; hats off to you. I was wrong to disagree with you the other week

Reply
Monkeymanbob
28/4/2016 08:38:56 pm

We'll all look back on this and laugh as we sit in the ruins of our cities from the Gamergate wars.

Reply
Combat_honey
28/4/2016 09:02:03 pm

Cheers for this, Biffo.

As someone with strong 'SJW' tendencies I tend to only see one side of the debate based on the sort of people I follow on Twitter, etc. I'm grateful that you've done the legwork and examined it from both ends, because frankly I would find it too stressful and depressing myself to delve deeper into the GG side of things. (I get wound up far too easily.) Without your GG pieces I'd have remained entirely dismissive of GG's goals based solely on my knowledge of utter dickheads like Milo and his supporters. It's good to have a more balanced, in-depth view from someone I feel I can trust.

Reply
James
28/4/2016 09:23:27 pm

Hi Mr. Biffo!

I used to read Digitiser back in the days of Teletext. You were an inspiration to my young self and when I wrote for my college paper many years later we all sought to emulate your style. I think I even sent you a letter once that was on Teletext! Can't remember what it was about, but it was cool of you to publish it.

I read this post and was gloriously cheered. Happy not because of the events described, but that someone else is finally speaking about GG and Anti GG in a human, moderate manner. There's no in-group or out-group for you. You still have the ability to reason.

What's remarkable about the justification of the mockery of that woman is how she is dehumanised. What's even more remarkable is the deindividuation that occurs when one would object to her dehumanisation.

I watched the original video and had much the same reaction as you: that woman needs serious help and support. Not bullying. And this is quite clearly that; not disagreement of ideals, not even mockery, but bullying.

I'm fucking sickened by it. I would have considered myself GG-leaning before I saw the sheer glee and enthusiasm for mocking someone publicly like that. It's exactly what the SJW side does, and I really thought people would be better than that.

Anyway Mr. Biffo, thanks for talking about this. People constantly criticise in-group deindividuation and a lack of accountability for radicals in feminism, but in reality it's now happening in GG too.

All the best from a long time fan,

James

Reply
Old Red
28/4/2016 09:33:35 pm

Is this the beginnings of Biffogate?

Reply
Bill
28/4/2016 09:47:37 pm

This is a strange world we've built.

"She's fat and obnoxious." Dehumanizing! Shameless! Disgusting, horrific, morally abhorrent!

"From looking at a video online, she's clearly mentally unwell and needs professional fixing." Compassionate! Understanding! Empathetic!

Reply
James
28/4/2016 10:12:26 pm

It's not dehumanising to have a compassionate regard for another person, and to recognise that they're in emotional distress. The cause of her distress didn't seem to be reasonably horrible enough to match up to the distress she displayed, so yes, I think she needs psychological help. I don't see that as an insult, I just see someone very distressed over something and feel bad for them.

That doesn't mean I agree with them, or agree with them heckling.

There's a difference in the two approaches. It might not be apparent to you, because you are hell-bent on defending what amounts to schoolyard bullying.

Bill
28/4/2016 10:33:31 pm

See? You're demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. I'll try to state this plainly:

You. Don't. Know. That. She's. In. Distress.

This your imagination, and it's the foundation for all your blather about "compassion" and "psychological help." Jesus, saying that another person needs psychological help is a SLUR. That's not compassion, that's being a dick. You don't know her, and she doesn't need your "feel bad."

This is just a big pile of white-knighting yikes. Yikes upon yikes upon yikes.

Bill
28/4/2016 10:40:07 pm

I'll try it again, then walk away because frankly this gives me a headache.

Squinting at a video and diagnosing a person as mentally unwell is no better than squinting at a video and describing the surface obvious--that this person is behaving obnoxiously. The primary difference is that one is couched in (inappropriate) personal virtue about empathy or sympathy and *claims* to come from a better place. At least the person using base slurs doesn't have the temerity to try and signal to others that they're a better person because of it.

Superbeast 37
28/4/2016 11:58:03 pm

@Bill

"saying that another person needs psychological help is a SLUR"

No. That's your opinion and wrong. Not a fact. People like you tend to make such false statements to tone police. I have no time for that.

If I see a guy with a broken leg I say that he needs a doctor, if I see a person acting as though they are off their face on something when mostly likely they aren't, then I suggest they visit a medical professional who deals with psychological issues - out of legitimate concern for them.

You are the one effectively pushing the usual stigma that psychological health issues are something to be ashamed of where as physical health issues are not. If I was one of these Tumblr types I'd accuse you of being "ableist".

It is not a slur, it is not an insult. Having such a problem is not something someone should be ashamed of or ridiculed for. Half the problem is that because of people like you, the sick are deterred from seeking treatment and then bad things happen to them or others. It is absolutely right and proper to show concern for such people especially when they are being exploited and used as a pawn by one group of people and bullied/ridiculed by another group.

In this instance it is the kindest "benefit of the doubt" option.

If anyone is quite deliberately and rationally behaving that way........my god! Stuff them, I wash my hands with it. My sympathy has gone. They deserve an Oscar though. Fortunately I am certain they are ill so I do sympathise.

"The primary difference is that one is couched in (inappropriate) personal virtue about empathy or sympathy and *claims* to come from a better place."

That's called "projection" mate. I suspect that your entire hissy fit is based on you projecting and falsely concluding that others have the same ulterior motives that you would have. Here is the news: we don't.

James
29/4/2016 01:20:19 am

"You. Don't. Know. That. She's. In. Distress."

She's quite clearly displaying most common signs of distress. The reason you don't see it is because she isn't a human being to you. She's the enemy. And the enemy can never be truthful, can never feel, can never have the same grasp of humanity as you can.

Your viewpoint that she isn't distressed is just as valid as mine, that she is. At least I have evidence to back up that she's distressed- her body language, high pitch, yelling, facial expression all show signs of distress. My subjective opinion is that she is distressed. Yours is different. That's okay.

"This your imagination, and it's the foundation for all your blather about "compassion" and "psychological help.""

The foundation for all of my 'blather' about compassion and psychological help is from researching it for nearly ten years.

"Jesus, saying that another person needs psychological help is a SLUR."

If you're the kind of person that believes seeking assistance for a psychological problem is in some way weak or something to feel ashamed of, yeah I guess it is a slur. I also genuinely feel sorry for you.


"That's not compassion, that's being a dick. You don't know her, and she doesn't need your "feel bad.""

She might not need it, but I'm more than willing to feel empathy even for people I deeply disagree with. Please try it, you might be surprised. It's remarkably useful.


"This is just a big pile of white-knighting yikes. Yikes upon yikes upon yikes."

On a steel horse I ride bitches! Haha come on dude, get real. Not everyone you disagree with is a 'cuck' or a 'white knight'. That's just what you fear the most for yourself, probably. :)

"I'll try it again, then walk away because frankly this gives me a headache."

Me too. It took me an hour to work up the emotional strength to post this. *breathes heavily*

"Squinting at a video.."

We've all done THAT :D

"diagnosing a person as mentally unwell"

I didn't diagnose anyone. I suggested she needs help and that she's displaying distressed and erratic behaviour. That's not a diagnosis, that's an opinion.

"The primary difference is that one is couched in (inappropriate) personal virtue about empathy or sympathy and *claims* to come from a better place."

I can't do much more than assure you that I sincerely feel bad for her. You can take me at that or not. That's on you.

"At least the person using base slurs doesn't have the temerity to try and signal to others that they're a better person because of it."

It's not virtue signalling, although I'll admit that's a subconscious element in a lot of what people say, even your own statements will signal particular characteristics that you believe are virtuous to others.

I'm not preoccupied with being politically correct. I dislike most of that shit.

I just honestly think people are getting caught up in the in-group/out-group dynamic of GG when it comes to this kind of stuff, and not actually stopping and thinking 'fuck, that's a human being. How would I feel if I said or did something stupid and had a load of people hate me for it?".

Which is really weird to me, because it seems that public vitriol and hatred is something that happens a lot to people aligning themselves with GG. You'd think you'd have more empathy for people receiving the same treatment, instead of encouraging it.

When it comes to Quinn and Harper- at this point they are actively seeking for this kind of publicity. Initially they probably weren't, although it did expose a lot of horrible shit that went on.

A very young woman with a lot of opinions that loses the plot at a talk by people she really disagrees with? Well fucking hell, let's grab our pitchforks! She's also overweight! Hurray! The stereotype exists!

I haven't, and never will support the kind of behaviour that grabs pitchforks and chases people down online. If it's over something they have publicly said and done; fine, disagree with them.

Resorting to petty attacks about someones weight and fostering a schoolyard nickname for someone is indicative of dehumanisation and groupthink, something I thought this movement wanted to guard against.

You're effectively creating someone else who will crusade against you with justification, and creating more justification every time you use the word 'Trigglypuff'.

If you genuinely want to attract GG neutrals or GG leaning people to your cause, you should probably consider that what we see is:

1. GG is a hate group
2. Oh wait, they aren't, I went to KIA and they're nice.
3. Wait so Quinn, Harper and Sarkeesian aren't attacked by them in a vicious way, just a disagreement-of-ideology way? Well that's alright, criticism of ideas is a good thing.
4. Openly mocking one person a huge amount? Really? That's not criticism of ideas, that's a step further.
5. Well now I'm questioning the reality of 3.
6. ???? Will the moderates please stand the fuck up and get away from these nutjob radicals?

This reminds me of when I discover

Mr Biffo
29/4/2016 08:26:05 am

Bill - there's one big distinction - thinking something and knowing it. I never said I "diagnosed" anyone, or "knew" something about her. I said what I thought when I watched that video - a mental process I deployed with some degree of empathy - not what I knew. I *thought* it better to err on the side of caution, as she's a fellow human being and all that, rather than just leap in with the mob as if she's some demon from the pits of Lucifer.

Bill
29/4/2016 07:39:19 pm

Biffo, you've got to try and understand: You're a part of the problem here. It's like that Nintendo PR lady--it's not GG, nor even her own actions, that made her a temporary internet celebrity and thus, through the law of fractional human awfulness, subjected her to 10 tons of gross fuckery. It's the entire signal-boosting of the mess. The gaming press wouldn't shut the hell up about how misogynist Nintendo was, and try to use her as just another example of how gaming hates women. They published article after article after article putting this nobody person under a spotlight, because through jawing on about her predicament, it provided a platform to talk about their *personal political opinions.*

And here we have it *again.* It doesn't *matter* how you wrap it up in pretty packaging about empathy and understanding. Whether you say she's fat, or say "oh poor dear she clearly needs help," underneath the packaging it's the same bad behavior. You used her real, full name, and sexual orientation, fer crissakes, a thing that nearly nobody knew. Signal. Boost.

I'm not bothering with these other 2 yahoos, because they're clearly completely vanished down the rabbit hole, and frankly their self-righteousness makes me urpy. But you seem like a decent dude.

So c'mon, and just Stop. Don't use any more people to trumpet how much better you are than the mob. You *are* the mob, no matter how Noble and Pure you describe your intentions. Outcome, buddy, outcome.

Mr Biffo
29/4/2016 11:14:23 pm

Bill - hey. Yeah, y'know. I'm gonna give you that one about signal boosting. You're 100% right, I think, and it's something I'll reflect on when (and if) I decide to ever write about this topic again.

Random Reviewer
2/5/2016 06:17:27 pm

Not so strange if you think about it. One response seeks only to mock another human being displaying the symptoms of distress. The other looks towards helping them. They are a world apart. Only someone completely without empathy would think otherwise. Yes we cannot know for sure whether she suffering mentally but we can make an educated guess. The impulse here is to help, rather than to harm.

J Griffin
28/4/2016 10:12:03 pm

Pretty much all of this. Though I'd add that as horrified as I was by the initial reaction, seeing the defense of said actions was even worse. Not just defending it but denying that it even qualifies as personal abuse to begin with is pretty fucking awful.

And even if the other side would do just as bad, well that's not what we're looking at right now, and it hardly excuses it in any case.

Whatever side of the fence you're on, we could really do with losing a whole lot of toxic people. And starting in our own backyard instead of just blaming the folks next door while people shit the bed all around us. Because that's exactly how the toxic elements have been getting away with it to this point. So many people denying direct association while still buying into the justifications.

Reply
Truckerpete
28/4/2016 09:31:42 pm

I miss the guy thay says "fannies".

Reply
ChorltonWheelie
28/4/2016 10:02:39 pm

What's all this about then?

Reply
Scott C
28/4/2016 10:32:05 pm

Yawn.

Reply
Guy that says fannies
28/4/2016 10:33:12 pm

fannies

Reply
Dr Kank
28/4/2016 10:40:34 pm

What's with "Réponse" instead of reply? Has Gamergate gone French now? Is this something to do with the EU referendum? I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Reply
JoyBunny
28/4/2016 11:15:46 pm

The text in the Reply button seems to jump languages randomly. I dunno what triggers it.

Reply
Rob Ace
29/4/2016 01:35:46 am

Damned microaggressions probably.

Adam
29/4/2016 12:27:21 am

Your next door neighbour has been quiet lately Mr Biffo. What does he think of GamerGate? We need to be told...

Reply
truth
29/4/2016 02:30:27 am

#GamerGate is an information propagation network created due to heavy handed censorship of certain kind of events related to gaming. What gets propagated is dictated by the interests of the individuals who choose to use it, there are no barriers to entry.

Let's take the #TrigglyPuff temper tantrum for example. Someone inserted it to the #GamerGate network and it propagated because people who saw it found it funny. End of story.

Reply
Lindsay
29/4/2016 04:14:12 am

See, here's the thing. Hashtags are just… hashtags. A bit of text. On the Internet. There's no barrier to entry, other than setting up an account. Or two. Or twenty. They're not a campaign. Or a tendency. Or an organisation. By their very nature, it's impossible to patrol their use without being an administrator of the platform itself.

I know there's people out there who have concerns about journalistic ethics. It's just difficult to take them sincerely when they choose to campaign for them by attaching themselves to a hashtag, spawned by a millionaire celebrity signal-boosting videos about a woman's sex life, that's utterly infested with malicious trolls and far-right demagogues.

GG has never been a campaign for journalistic ethics with a troll infestation. GG is a sewer that cannot be sanitised, with a few people pouring in a little clean water and trying to call it a river.

And regarding anti-GG… what even is it? To talk of an anti-thing, we have to be able to at least define the thing. GG has no real structure, no membership, no formal accountability. It's not possible to point to a cohesive whole and say 'that is GG'. Because there isn't. It's porous, it's amorphous, so many of its not-members are constantly rebooting their engagement with it following suspension that early on a hashtag was developed to shout 'here I am, I'm back'. The whole notion of a monolithic or cohesive anti-GG 'side' is bizarre. We don't use 'anti-UKIP' or 'anti-LGBT' as collective nouns, do we?

Reply
i like you
29/4/2016 12:01:38 pm

"GG is a sewer that cannot be sanitised"

I like this metaphor. Viewing Internet sites as cities, some of them are under totalitarian control. Leaders dictate what information their inhabitants are allowed to learn, out of sight out of mind. Veritable utopias, the world appears exactly as designed by those in charge.

Take a shit in your toilet, flush and it disappears like magic.

Now some people will prefer this, but I've been a fan of this quote since I read it:

"One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The latter procedure, however is disagreeable, and therefore not popular."
- Carl Jung

I don't mind the smell.

Reply
Euphemia
29/4/2016 01:19:51 pm

Jesus Biff - for someone proclaiming to have no taste for Dark Souls, you hit the New Game Plus button here pretty quickly for another shot at a thankless, uphill struggle.

Reply
Mr Biffo
29/4/2016 01:38:55 pm

Hahaha. Beautiful analogy!

Reply
Clockwork Fool
30/4/2016 12:34:33 am

I just realised something. A veritable epiphany.

What you just did, MrBiffo, is climb back into the drama triangle except this time not as the victim / piggy in the middle, but the rescuer.

I think you done an irony, sir. :)

Reply
Mr Biffo
30/4/2016 08:03:55 am

Nope. You're confusing it with my opinion/empathy/observations. You're only part of the drama triangle when you're acting subconsciously. This was me going "15,000 tweets calling someone fat and ugly seems excessively mean". Which was a very conscious choice.

Reply
Clockwork
30/4/2016 07:05:28 pm

Perhaps, my familiarity with the triangle is pretty cursory. It has rather started to develop the feel of it though, with you keeping getting drawn back.

Mr Biffo
1/5/2016 09:48:18 am

Well... you can put that down to me needing things to write about on this site. I could just manufacture some sort of opinion for the opinion pieces, but that wouldn't feel very honest. And I'd get bored. So I try to write about stuff that interests me, or I feel I've got a take on.

Cc
1/5/2016 08:23:59 pm

I agree with comments 8 - 27 but have serious issues with comments 14b and subsequent replies.
Only kidding. I thought this was a rambling Man's Daddy anecdote, but then I realised Man's Daddy don't do the anecdoting.

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    This section will not be visible in live published website. Below are your current settings:


    Current Number Of Columns are = 2

    Expand Posts Area =

    Gap/Space Between Posts = 12px

    Blog Post Style = card

    Use of custom card colors instead of default colors = 1

    Blog Post Card Background Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Shadow Color = current color

    Blog Post Card Border Color = current color

    Publish the website and visit your blog page to see the results

    Picture
    Support Me on Ko-fi
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    RSS Feed Widget
    Picture

    Picture
    Tweets by @mrbiffo
    Picture
    Follow us on The Facebook

    Picture

    Archives

    December 2022
    May 2022
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    November 2020
    September 2020
    July 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014


    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • MAIN PAGE
  • Features
  • Videos
  • Game Reviews
  • FAQ