Post by Canuovea on Dec 15, 2015 20:09:38 GMT
No, the subtitle doesn't mean I think that people just need to suck it up. This is about a comment exchange that happened between myself and another person on the following video:
I'm going to post the conversation as a whole, but feel free to skip ahead if you're more interested in me ranting. If you're not interested in me ranting, or in a comment train wreck, why are you reading this?
Thoughts on the Content (Tangent Warning):
Well, that was fun. And proof that having "productive discussions" on Youtube is simply unlikely.
That being said, here is a link to the "Zoepost" or the post about Zoe Quinn by her ex, which is what started off this whole mess:
thezoepost.wordpress.com/
There is a TL;DR bit at the end, which when I looked for it is actually the main thing I found and read. So it seems the Other Person from above was kind of right in how I didn't read it, even if I read the summary. I just thought I had read the whole thing when I hadn't. I would have read it earlier, but I don't really feel like it now. Maybe later. From what I have read, if true, it would be a pretty damn textbook case of an abusive relationship.
Anyway, I find it interesting to note that the whole crux of the Gamer Gate argument is that "Oh no ethics in Journalism because Zoe Quinn was fucking the reviewer!" Thing actually gets rebutted in the current preamble to the Zoepost: "To be clear, if there was any conflict of interest between Zoe and Nathan regarding coverage of Depression Quest prior to April, I have no evidence to imply that it was sexual in nature."
So yeah, the whole thing was false to begin with, even if the conclusion wasn't actually in the Zoepost, and so the post itself mightn't actually have been out to ruin Zoe Quinn's career/reputation. Although, really, summarizing the summary with: "TL;DR of TL;DR: Seriously, you really don’t want to trust Zoe Quinn." Is certainly not going to help her career/reputation.
But that wasn't the point anyway. The point was Zoe Quinn received harassment and death threats over the post (or the false idea that she was fucking a reviewer for ratings). Something which she kind of did, a lot. The debate in the comments is apparently over whether or not GamerGate is where the harassment comes from.
Well, define GamerGate? Its basically an anonymous movement, filled with a variety of people of course, and hilariously enough based on a falsehood from the beginning.
storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate
Oh, okay. Might need some more context:
www.themarysue.com/gamergate-chat-logs/
In Sum: I might have been wrong about the Zoepost (maybe), but GamerGate isn't looking particularly good. Then again, GamerGate is a conglomeration of who knows what with the distinct problem of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. As such, it is entirely possible that not all GamerGaters lay claim to or support the harassment of people over shit like this. But it sure isn't Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian's supporters who are threatening them.
Getting back to the point: You know why we can't have productive discussions on Youtube comments? People, that is why.
1) My original comment only briefly touched on GamerGate, the point of it was something rather different and this fellow just kind of jumped in. I had no interest in talking about this subject and given the context of the comment, saying that GamerGate needs no example makes sense because to most people involved in that context, like, say, Steve, are well aware of examples of GamerGate harassment. Whether that is accurate or not is irrelevant to my point. So this guy was basically acting like one of those door to door missionaries who interrupt what you're doing to try to spread the good news about the latest religious product.
So don't be surprised if I'm not really interested.
2) When I failed to bite fully they resort to arrogance. "You ignored what I said, doesn't that show your worldview to be incorrect!?" After that, it was impossible for me to take this person seriously, and it contributed to me being rather dismissive. If you want to have a productive discussion, rule one should probably be to not insinuate that the person you are talking to is an idiot.
3) Also note the claim that they're not on one side of the shitstorm or another. Possible. I suppose. But then why jump on that point when the original comment was about something entirely different? So already it seemed disingenuous.
Alright, I'm about done, but I have a question:
Do I owe this fellow an apology over the Zoepost and/or anything else here? Or am I right to be annoyed? I'm considering a brief apology.
I'm going to post the conversation as a whole, but feel free to skip ahead if you're more interested in me ranting. If you're not interested in me ranting, or in a comment train wreck, why are you reading this?
Me: This kind of stuff is absolutely toxic. Yes, sure, there are some things that you just have to tolerate, like simple disagreement. But that isn't what online harassment actually is, especially to younger people. It can get really really bad. And the 6th stupid thing I'd add is that a ridiculous range of people engage in it, thinking themselves justified! Everyone from GamerGate to, well, the Social Justice community, which I consider myself a part of still, does it. GamerGate needs no examples, but it seems the Social Justice Community may: Most recently, the Steven Universe fandom harassed someone to the point of attempted suicide because they didn't draw fanart the right way. And yes, there were apparently even rape threats. It kind of enrages me, they're supposed to be the good guys.
Since links aren't working, the title of the article I'm referring to is: "Why The Steven Universe Fandom is the Worst Ever" by John Guth for the "Odyssey" website. I probably wouldn't have believed that it if there weren't screenshots. And I'm sure there are other links you could find via search engine.
Other Person: "GamerGate needs no examples," the problem is, that it does. . . I don't consider myself either side of that shit storm but each and every time someone has accused gamergaters of doing something like harrassing, it's so far ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS turned out to have nothing to do with them. . . Perhaps I'm just missing something.
Like the Falica day thing and some of the harrassment she accusaed gamergate of. . . It took literally 5 minutes to type the quote into google to see it was actually just a troll, attacking pro/anti/couldn't give a shit gamergaters.
Me: I don't know. I think that the harassment towards Sarkesian and Quinn was clearly problematic. Sure, say what you will about Sarkesian, but a line is crossed when you start sending death threats. And that seems to have come from GamerGaters. The Quinn issue is actually what started the whole thing off too, apparently.
Other Person: This kind of proves my point "that seems to have come from gamergaters". . . Just accusations, there's nothing solid.
Sarkeesian is a perfect example with her University threat. . . She blamed it on gamergate from out of nowhere, before that they had nothing to do with her. . . In fact she SPECIFICALLY stated the threat claimed to be affiliated with gamergate.
Now if only there was a way to check this? Oh wait, there is, as the email containing the threat has been published. . . It doesn't even mention gaming let alone gamergate. Yet no one in games media could do this 10 seconds worth of research? WHY?
What's worse is that it was actually gamergate supporters that tracked down the threats and found out who sent them and gave all of the information to the FBI, again all of this is ignored by sarkeesian and co.
Its turned out to be a brazilian games journalist attempting to drum up views for his site (ironically the EXACT kind of person gamergate is stated to stand against). it also turned out the person is an avid anti gamergater and the moment all this was found out anita dropped all charges. But again anita and her buddies in journalism completely ignore this and brush it under the rug.
Now sure Gamergate may be a rag tag bunch of idiots on the internet. . . But it's shit like this that makes them seem like they have a point.
Me: It is the Internet. You might as well say anything "seems" to come from a source. The whole GamerGate thing started because some jerk decided to post, probably false, personal details about his ex-girlfriend Zoe Quinn in order to tarnish her reputation because she had slighted him. By all accounts I've seen, she got swamped by harassment as a result. So that is the genesis of the movement, I think it speaks volumes.
Other Person: "The whole GamerGate thing started because some jerk decided to post, probably false, personal details about his ex-girlfriend Zoe Quinn in order to tarnish her reputation because she had slighted him." . . Have you ACTUALLY read the zoepost? because almost everyone who attempts to bash gamergate for it hasn't.
Also note how you COMPLETELY ignored everything in my previous comment? . . . Does this seriously not tell you that something is seriously wrong with your worldview?
Me: Okay, I had typed something out and then lost it. Typical Internet shenanigans, I'm sure you know how it is. Quick summary: Yes, I have, and it is a jilted lover trying to make their ex look bad while damaging her reputation and career. That is jerky no matter who does it. Also, a questionable basis for a movement considering I would not really trust it. Also, I don't really tend to believe random things people post on the Internet, necessarily, since this place is often times a cesspool and there is enough evidence out there to argue anything. Ignoring your post: I've seen plenty of examples of threats and such towards Sarkeesian beyond that one incident. You can't really claim they're all false or that they weren't done by "real GamerGaters".
Also, I'm not sure what you think my worldview is, but it can take a fair beating before shattering. I'm doing fine.
Other Person: "Quick summary: Yes, I have, and it is a jilted lover trying to make their ex look bad while damaging her reputation and career. " Which only proves to me that you haven't in fact read it. . . It's simply an abuse victim sharing their story about the abuse they suffered. . . VERY LITTLE of it was dedicated to zoe's sexual adventures with others people.
I've actually seen an interesting experiment carried out. Someone went through the Zoepost and changed the names and gender of each person involved and told an "Anti" who hasn't read it to read the new modified version. . . As far as i know almost all of them turned out to be on the side which is Erons.
Not only that but Zoe's malice, abuse and manipulation has been corroborated by many other people who've worked with her in the past. . .
"You can't really claim they're all false or that they weren't done by "real GamerGaters"." but that's the thing. . . It's not up to me to prove they weren't. . . It's up to YOU the people making the claim to prove that they were. . .which I've yet to see a single example of that actually being the case.
Again you just use vague terminology so nothing it provable, again we just see claims and NOTHING MORE. . so you're in no position to talk about the shoddy evidence of the zoepost when you've proven don't give a damn about evidence when it suits you.
"Also, I'm not sure what you think my worldview is, but it can take a fair beating before shattering. " Well apparently it can't when the only thing you can do to defend it is ignore almost everything that runs counter to it.
Me: As I said, I did read it and it is just someone ranting about their ex online. I actually looked it up after your previous comment to double check. For someone so allegedly skeptical, you seem quick to believe it all. There was a lot of singling out three people in particular as those she apparently cheated on him with. A lot of talking about how she appears vs how she behaves, as well as how she would apologize for something then do it again an hour later. Etc.
Change the genders all you want, it is still someone ranting about their ex. Of course they're going to appear sympathetic. That is the whole point of ranting about your ex! That doesn't make it true.
Ironically, you expect me to take your word on things like how Zoe Quinn's abusiveness is well documented. Yet, what you then do is dismiss all the documented harassment that Sarkeesian has gone through, for which there is plenty of visual evidence and online articles. You can go and look up these things, like I looked up the Zoepost. I even looked up some articles with pictures and such of Sarkeesian's Twitter feed to make sure there was evidence, and boy oh boy, was there plenty. Isn't the saying "pics or it didn't happen?" Well, there are "pics."
However, I suspect that this discussion will profit neither of us in any meaningful sense. You'll continue to think you've provided worldview shattering logic, and I'll continue to not be impressed by a Youtube comment.
Other Person: And I'm done. . . All you've just proven is that you don't care about having a productive discussion. You're LITERALLY just making shit up about me now in order to dismiss everything else stated. . . this is pathetic, and a PERFECT example of what is wrong with those that stand against gamergate,
"Yet, what you then do is dismiss all the documented harassment that Sarkeesian has gone through" apart from I've NEVER done that. . . EVER. . . You've outright lied.
What I've objected to is attaching it to gamergate, for which there is ZERO evidence. . . and your response? "oh well ir's probably them" and bunch of other pathetic vagueness.
You people are ridiculous and you don't see it. . . you've turned gamergate into a boogie where ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING you don't like is blamed on gamergate.
From The attacks on paris, to the sony hacks, to pretty much every large and well published mass shooting in the US. The failure of social justice games making sales is often blamed on gamergate, because somehow they control who buys them. Hell even brianna wu's dog dying was blamed on gamergate.
Good day, the only one your'e fooling is yourself.
Me: Cheers.
Since links aren't working, the title of the article I'm referring to is: "Why The Steven Universe Fandom is the Worst Ever" by John Guth for the "Odyssey" website. I probably wouldn't have believed that it if there weren't screenshots. And I'm sure there are other links you could find via search engine.
Other Person: "GamerGate needs no examples," the problem is, that it does. . . I don't consider myself either side of that shit storm but each and every time someone has accused gamergaters of doing something like harrassing, it's so far ALWAYS and I mean ALWAYS turned out to have nothing to do with them. . . Perhaps I'm just missing something.
Like the Falica day thing and some of the harrassment she accusaed gamergate of. . . It took literally 5 minutes to type the quote into google to see it was actually just a troll, attacking pro/anti/couldn't give a shit gamergaters.
Me: I don't know. I think that the harassment towards Sarkesian and Quinn was clearly problematic. Sure, say what you will about Sarkesian, but a line is crossed when you start sending death threats. And that seems to have come from GamerGaters. The Quinn issue is actually what started the whole thing off too, apparently.
Other Person: This kind of proves my point "that seems to have come from gamergaters". . . Just accusations, there's nothing solid.
Sarkeesian is a perfect example with her University threat. . . She blamed it on gamergate from out of nowhere, before that they had nothing to do with her. . . In fact she SPECIFICALLY stated the threat claimed to be affiliated with gamergate.
Now if only there was a way to check this? Oh wait, there is, as the email containing the threat has been published. . . It doesn't even mention gaming let alone gamergate. Yet no one in games media could do this 10 seconds worth of research? WHY?
What's worse is that it was actually gamergate supporters that tracked down the threats and found out who sent them and gave all of the information to the FBI, again all of this is ignored by sarkeesian and co.
Its turned out to be a brazilian games journalist attempting to drum up views for his site (ironically the EXACT kind of person gamergate is stated to stand against). it also turned out the person is an avid anti gamergater and the moment all this was found out anita dropped all charges. But again anita and her buddies in journalism completely ignore this and brush it under the rug.
Now sure Gamergate may be a rag tag bunch of idiots on the internet. . . But it's shit like this that makes them seem like they have a point.
Me: It is the Internet. You might as well say anything "seems" to come from a source. The whole GamerGate thing started because some jerk decided to post, probably false, personal details about his ex-girlfriend Zoe Quinn in order to tarnish her reputation because she had slighted him. By all accounts I've seen, she got swamped by harassment as a result. So that is the genesis of the movement, I think it speaks volumes.
Other Person: "The whole GamerGate thing started because some jerk decided to post, probably false, personal details about his ex-girlfriend Zoe Quinn in order to tarnish her reputation because she had slighted him." . . Have you ACTUALLY read the zoepost? because almost everyone who attempts to bash gamergate for it hasn't.
Also note how you COMPLETELY ignored everything in my previous comment? . . . Does this seriously not tell you that something is seriously wrong with your worldview?
Me: Okay, I had typed something out and then lost it. Typical Internet shenanigans, I'm sure you know how it is. Quick summary: Yes, I have, and it is a jilted lover trying to make their ex look bad while damaging her reputation and career. That is jerky no matter who does it. Also, a questionable basis for a movement considering I would not really trust it. Also, I don't really tend to believe random things people post on the Internet, necessarily, since this place is often times a cesspool and there is enough evidence out there to argue anything. Ignoring your post: I've seen plenty of examples of threats and such towards Sarkeesian beyond that one incident. You can't really claim they're all false or that they weren't done by "real GamerGaters".
Also, I'm not sure what you think my worldview is, but it can take a fair beating before shattering. I'm doing fine.
Other Person: "Quick summary: Yes, I have, and it is a jilted lover trying to make their ex look bad while damaging her reputation and career. " Which only proves to me that you haven't in fact read it. . . It's simply an abuse victim sharing their story about the abuse they suffered. . . VERY LITTLE of it was dedicated to zoe's sexual adventures with others people.
I've actually seen an interesting experiment carried out. Someone went through the Zoepost and changed the names and gender of each person involved and told an "Anti" who hasn't read it to read the new modified version. . . As far as i know almost all of them turned out to be on the side which is Erons.
Not only that but Zoe's malice, abuse and manipulation has been corroborated by many other people who've worked with her in the past. . .
"You can't really claim they're all false or that they weren't done by "real GamerGaters"." but that's the thing. . . It's not up to me to prove they weren't. . . It's up to YOU the people making the claim to prove that they were. . .which I've yet to see a single example of that actually being the case.
Again you just use vague terminology so nothing it provable, again we just see claims and NOTHING MORE. . so you're in no position to talk about the shoddy evidence of the zoepost when you've proven don't give a damn about evidence when it suits you.
"Also, I'm not sure what you think my worldview is, but it can take a fair beating before shattering. " Well apparently it can't when the only thing you can do to defend it is ignore almost everything that runs counter to it.
Me: As I said, I did read it and it is just someone ranting about their ex online. I actually looked it up after your previous comment to double check. For someone so allegedly skeptical, you seem quick to believe it all. There was a lot of singling out three people in particular as those she apparently cheated on him with. A lot of talking about how she appears vs how she behaves, as well as how she would apologize for something then do it again an hour later. Etc.
Change the genders all you want, it is still someone ranting about their ex. Of course they're going to appear sympathetic. That is the whole point of ranting about your ex! That doesn't make it true.
Ironically, you expect me to take your word on things like how Zoe Quinn's abusiveness is well documented. Yet, what you then do is dismiss all the documented harassment that Sarkeesian has gone through, for which there is plenty of visual evidence and online articles. You can go and look up these things, like I looked up the Zoepost. I even looked up some articles with pictures and such of Sarkeesian's Twitter feed to make sure there was evidence, and boy oh boy, was there plenty. Isn't the saying "pics or it didn't happen?" Well, there are "pics."
However, I suspect that this discussion will profit neither of us in any meaningful sense. You'll continue to think you've provided worldview shattering logic, and I'll continue to not be impressed by a Youtube comment.
Other Person: And I'm done. . . All you've just proven is that you don't care about having a productive discussion. You're LITERALLY just making shit up about me now in order to dismiss everything else stated. . . this is pathetic, and a PERFECT example of what is wrong with those that stand against gamergate,
"Yet, what you then do is dismiss all the documented harassment that Sarkeesian has gone through" apart from I've NEVER done that. . . EVER. . . You've outright lied.
What I've objected to is attaching it to gamergate, for which there is ZERO evidence. . . and your response? "oh well ir's probably them" and bunch of other pathetic vagueness.
You people are ridiculous and you don't see it. . . you've turned gamergate into a boogie where ANYTHING and I mean ANYTHING you don't like is blamed on gamergate.
From The attacks on paris, to the sony hacks, to pretty much every large and well published mass shooting in the US. The failure of social justice games making sales is often blamed on gamergate, because somehow they control who buys them. Hell even brianna wu's dog dying was blamed on gamergate.
Good day, the only one your'e fooling is yourself.
Me: Cheers.
Thoughts on the Content (Tangent Warning):
Well, that was fun. And proof that having "productive discussions" on Youtube is simply unlikely.
That being said, here is a link to the "Zoepost" or the post about Zoe Quinn by her ex, which is what started off this whole mess:
thezoepost.wordpress.com/
There is a TL;DR bit at the end, which when I looked for it is actually the main thing I found and read. So it seems the Other Person from above was kind of right in how I didn't read it, even if I read the summary. I just thought I had read the whole thing when I hadn't. I would have read it earlier, but I don't really feel like it now. Maybe later. From what I have read, if true, it would be a pretty damn textbook case of an abusive relationship.
Anyway, I find it interesting to note that the whole crux of the Gamer Gate argument is that "Oh no ethics in Journalism because Zoe Quinn was fucking the reviewer!" Thing actually gets rebutted in the current preamble to the Zoepost: "To be clear, if there was any conflict of interest between Zoe and Nathan regarding coverage of Depression Quest prior to April, I have no evidence to imply that it was sexual in nature."
So yeah, the whole thing was false to begin with, even if the conclusion wasn't actually in the Zoepost, and so the post itself mightn't actually have been out to ruin Zoe Quinn's career/reputation. Although, really, summarizing the summary with: "TL;DR of TL;DR: Seriously, you really don’t want to trust Zoe Quinn." Is certainly not going to help her career/reputation.
But that wasn't the point anyway. The point was Zoe Quinn received harassment and death threats over the post (or the false idea that she was fucking a reviewer for ratings). Something which she kind of did, a lot. The debate in the comments is apparently over whether or not GamerGate is where the harassment comes from.
Well, define GamerGate? Its basically an anonymous movement, filled with a variety of people of course, and hilariously enough based on a falsehood from the beginning.
storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate
Oh, okay. Might need some more context:
www.themarysue.com/gamergate-chat-logs/
In Sum: I might have been wrong about the Zoepost (maybe), but GamerGate isn't looking particularly good. Then again, GamerGate is a conglomeration of who knows what with the distinct problem of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. As such, it is entirely possible that not all GamerGaters lay claim to or support the harassment of people over shit like this. But it sure isn't Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian's supporters who are threatening them.
Getting back to the point: You know why we can't have productive discussions on Youtube comments? People, that is why.
1) My original comment only briefly touched on GamerGate, the point of it was something rather different and this fellow just kind of jumped in. I had no interest in talking about this subject and given the context of the comment, saying that GamerGate needs no example makes sense because to most people involved in that context, like, say, Steve, are well aware of examples of GamerGate harassment. Whether that is accurate or not is irrelevant to my point. So this guy was basically acting like one of those door to door missionaries who interrupt what you're doing to try to spread the good news about the latest religious product.
So don't be surprised if I'm not really interested.
2) When I failed to bite fully they resort to arrogance. "You ignored what I said, doesn't that show your worldview to be incorrect!?" After that, it was impossible for me to take this person seriously, and it contributed to me being rather dismissive. If you want to have a productive discussion, rule one should probably be to not insinuate that the person you are talking to is an idiot.
3) Also note the claim that they're not on one side of the shitstorm or another. Possible. I suppose. But then why jump on that point when the original comment was about something entirely different? So already it seemed disingenuous.
Alright, I'm about done, but I have a question:
Do I owe this fellow an apology over the Zoepost and/or anything else here? Or am I right to be annoyed? I'm considering a brief apology.