Wapsi Square Forum

Sad.

1. Just like Rule 34, there is always someone, somewhere, who will go way overboard (OK - completely nuts) about anything.

2. You are your own first line of defense. Be prepared.

Very sad, and distinctly horrifying.

I predict (and hope) that this @chatterwhiteman character very quickly receives a lesson in the difference between "game" and "real life". Cyberstalking, and making explicit death threats via an interstate communications system, seem like the sort of thing which could easily result in a group of police officers (men and women both?) showing up at his door and hauling him off to jail.

My guess is that this sort of behavior goes well beyond what could be defended as "free speech", let alone "just joking" or "satire" or "well, that's just how gamers talk"... the threat language is specific and not hypothetical. Posting her address makes it pretty credible, and hence (I hope) actionable.

Atomic wrote:1. Just like Rule 34, there is always someone, somewhere, who will go way overboard (OK - completely nuts) about anything.

Yeah. Unfortunately, fanaticism and immaturity and lack of control are all too common... and even if they were only 0.01% phenomena, the law of large numbers means that there would still be enough loose cannons flying around to be a serious problem.

EDIT: just did a bit of reading, and if @chatterwhiteman is in California, it looks to me as if his actions would probably violate California state laws related to stalking, and making of criminal threats (previously "terrorist threats"). The latter is a "wobbler", which a DA could choose to file either as a misdemeanor or as a felony, and it can carry a penalty of up to four years in prison. I imagine that other states may have comparable sorts of laws.

The big problem is that he is only slightly more extreme than a lot of others...

Yeah, most of these sorts of people are the type who are all bold and confrontational when anonymously online, while in person would be too scared to even talk to their target.

A small percentage, however, are truly violently unbalanced and mean what they say. The problem is that you generally can't tell which is which until after the fact, and so to be safe you have to treat all of them as potentially being the worst possibility. Which in turn gives more power and encouragement to the ones who are all talk.

Not allowing anonymous identities online would probably cut way back on this problem, but of course would bring in problems of other kinds.

Here's one i put together on another board for someone who asked what Gamergatye was:

Okay - here's a calm (if only of the "gritting-my-teeth-as-I-type-to-stop-myself-screaming-at-you-toxic-idiots" variety of "calm") assessment by one gamer who happens to be a grrl by trade. (The comments thereto appertaining are instructive.)

Here's a piece linked to in the article above, that gives a pretty good overview of the whole sordid mess. (Again, the comments are ... fascinating.)

And an article linked to in that piece - detailing the experiences of various women that are part of it.

One of the articles linked to - this one - is worth looking at; the author has since said that she doesn't need the hate and has stopped writing about games and gaming.

This one is one of the most disgusting accounts of what happens to women who dare to speak out, and what happens in the community to their attackers. A quote:

* Weev writes an explicit warning to all women in tech that speaking out (in his words “squealing like a stuck pig”) will be “punished”.

* Weev demonstrates this by punishing a woman that was, for better or worse, a role model for some in the already-way-too-small group of women in tech.

* Weev then becomes celebrated in tech, spun as a straight-talking, no bullshit, asshole who speaks truth to power. Truth. Weev. Is. About. Truth. And Privacy. Ours. He wanted to protect Our Privacy with The Truth.

(If you want an example of gaslighting, imagine how I felt watching this unfold)

* And there it is. I came because if weev is credible, and endorsed as a “friend”, then the document he, at the least, ENTHUSIASTICALLY CONTINUES TO ENDORSE, is… well what does this mean?

I came back because I believe this sent a terrible, devastating message about what was acceptable. Because nobody in a position of power and influence in the tech world ever, NOT ONCE, brought up the explicit threats in that document, except for The Verge. (Tim Carmody, Greg Sandoval, you are my heroes).

I came back and watched endless streams of funny, casual, online banter between weev and some of those I respected and trusted most in tech. You know who I mean. I watched him being retweeted into my stream in a positive way. I actually did lol, though, when Twitter’s algorithm kept insisting You Probably Want To Follow Him! That’s how much our Venn diagrams overlapped.

"Weev" is a hacker who (after his comments mentioned above)

A} posted her full name, address and Social Security number online (along with a typical misogynist troll attack, accusing her of prostitution, child aboue and all sortskindsthins), leading to all sorts of fun

B} boasted about it in an interview published in the New York Times:

In 2007, I was the target of a several-week long escalating harassment campaign that culminated in my being doxxed (a word I didn’t even know then) with a long, detailed, explicit document, posted pretty much everyone on the internet (including multiple times to my own wikipedia entry). It was a sort of open letter with a sordid (but mostly fictional) account that included my past, my career, my family, and wrapped up with my (unfortunately NOT fictional) social security number, former home address and, worst of all — a call to action for people to send things to me. They did. I never returned to my blog, I cut out almost all speaking engagements, and rarely appeared anywhere in the tech world online or real world. Basically, that was it for me. I had no desire then to find out what comes after doxxing, especially not with a family, and I had every reason to believe this would continue to escalate if I didn’t, well, stop “serving the Koolaid.”

and then, after he had been in legal trouble over other online antics and become a sort of hacker/internet folk-hero,

C} simply denied that he ever said that.

And everyone believes him says what a great guy he is ... and ignores his attacks on women.

And, finally, Anita Sarkeesian, mentioned in one of the articles above, canceled a speaking engagement at the Utah State because of threats of a "Montreal Massacre" style attack on the event.

Anita Sarkeesian, creator of the popular Tropes vs. Women video series, is at the center of yet another death threat. The Standard Examiner reports that the director of Utah State University's Center for Women and Gender, along with several other people, received an email promising a mass shooting if they didn't cancel a speaking engagement for Sarkeesian, who was scheduled to talk at the center on Wednesday morning.

{snip}

The Standard-Examiner has printed what it says are excerpts from the letter, in which the unknown author (who claims to be a Utah State student) claims to have "a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs." More specifically, they threatened to carry out a "Montreal Massacre-style attack" against Sarkeesian and anyone who attended the talk. "Feminists have ruined my life and I will have my revenge," reads the email.

Enough data?

This is like the 3rd attempt to drop a message on this, it discombobulates me that much.
The mind set that does this deserves to live alone without the comfort of a life companion. I know in my heart that is the root of this hatred, displayed towards women in disparaging numbers...but if that's how you express yourself, that's what you deserve. I know that 99% of this is done by cowards that use the anonymity of the internet to speak up. But, as pointed out in the articles, you can't take the chance that one of them is unbalanced enough to do violence to someone else.
Over a video game.
That's your cause? Not child abuse? Not human slavery? Not the seeming slow descent away from the rights our founding fathers outlined for all men?
A video game...
Life is hard enough without asshats causing this kind of trouble with such a lousy reason...


(and I tried to not swear...this makes me crazy...)

Not even A video game - over whether women are fit to be gamers or game designers at all.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:Not even A video game - over whether women are fit to be gamers or game designers at all.

And, apparently, some of the more radical are pushing an attitude which questions whether women have a right to be anything other than to be fantasy prizes for "men". Some seem to assert that it's perfectly fine for games to portray women only as sex objects, and that women have no right to object to this. Some seem to be asserting that that's the only appropriate role for women in games or in the real world ("anti-feminism" taken to its extreme).

Makes me cringe, it does.

Sadly in the beginning there were a few voices trying to make reasoned criticisms of Anita Sarkeesian and some others but they were soon drowned out by all the asshats who think violence = manliness.

shadowinthelight wrote:Sadly in the beginning there were a few voices trying to make reasoned criticisms of Anita Sarkeesian and some others but they were soon drowned out by all the asshats who think violence = manliness.

You mean "...in the beginning there were a few people who know how to talk to girls in Real Life and don't live in their mamas' basements trying to make reasoned criticisms...", right?

AnotherFairportfan wrote:You mean "...in the beginning there were a few people who know how to talk to girls in Real Life and don't live in their mamas' basements trying to make reasoned criticisms...", right?

No, I don't. That is the same exact negative stereotype the mainstream has made against "nerds" and such for decades. People of all sorts exhibit the online disinhibition effect, aka, the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory". Trolls post racist, homophobic, and threats of all sorts towards anyone they don't like. The violent threats tend to turn sexual when directed at women because they know that is what will get the greatest response but imply themselves having homosexual tendencies if they did the same towards men. The problem is it is next to impossible to divine motives online. How much of the problem is true misogyny and how much is extreme trolling?

shadowinthelight wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:You mean "...in the beginning there were a few people who know how to talk to girls in Real Life and don't live in their mamas' basements trying to make reasoned criticisms...", right?

No, I don't. That is the same exact negative stereotype the mainstream has made against "nerds" and such for decades. People of all sorts exhibit the online disinhibition effect, aka, the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory". Trolls post racist, homophobic, and threats of all sorts towards anyone they don't like. The violent threats tend to turn sexual when directed at women because they know that is what will get the greatest response but imply themselves having homosexual tendencies if they did the same towards men. The problem is it is next to impossible to divine motives online. How much of the problem is true misogyny and how much is extreme trolling?

I will guarantee it fits the majority of the #gamergate trolls.

Or, at least the ones whose mothers haven't kicked them out yet.

AnotherFairportfan wrote:I will guarantee it fits the majority of the #gamergate trolls.

Or, at least the ones whose mothers haven't kicked them out yet.

the major problem i see there, is that most of those kids still living at home probably won't ever GET kicked out, they'll only leave when they want to, because have the ability to pull the wool over the eyes of their parents, just like Tommy/Truck does (from the webcomic Selkie). he had the art of appearing as an innocent and a perfect child to his parents, but a demon to the other kids/faculty, down to the Nth degree, heck he got teachers FIRED over the crap he got away with... at least he did, that is, until Selkie took video evidence of him and showed it to his dad... we'll have to see how it goes for him now...

Courtesy of today's "Fleen" - Shannon's Garrity's look at the situation.

Dave wrote:Courtesy of today's "Fleen" - Shannon's Garrity's look at the situation.

Heh. Ever seen "Bimbo's Initiation"?

The day you started this thread I was Out of Town.

I was so far out of town there was no TV, and Internet only via the one carrier in the region providing hot-spot coverage.

There was however Radio. And (I think it was) 'Democracy Now!' had a a lengthy rundown of the very same story.

Truth to tell I had never heard of the Montreal Massacre. And its true that I don’t need to know all the bad stuff that ever was but I understand the speaker canceling, esp given the responses of the local law enforcement and college officials.

I will admit, my initial council was to have her go ahead with the speaking engagement and also plant some nondescript marksmen in the audience.

As I type this, I think it'd be good to augment them with a visual deterrence as well, perhaps someone on-stage, in a relaxed position, even seated in a chair in front of the backdrop, with a long barreled shotgun in his/her lap.


Just say'n... Fire?, meet potential Oxidation...

or perhaps (esp having just watched all the first and second seasons of 'Elemental') a dispersed cadre of Single-Stickmen in less than lethal mode...

"Actually it's about ethics in videogame journalism."

Browsing the comments: Man, these gamergaters do NOT take criticism well.

shadowinthelight wrote:

AnotherFairportfan wrote:You mean "...in the beginning there were a few people who know how to talk to girls in Real Life and don't live in their mamas' basements trying to make reasoned criticisms...", right?

No, I don't. That is the same exact negative stereotype the mainstream has made against "nerds" and such for decades. People of all sorts exhibit the online disinhibition effect, aka, the "Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory". Trolls post racist, homophobic, and threats of all sorts towards anyone they don't like. The violent threats tend to turn sexual when directed at women because they know that is what will get the greatest response but imply themselves having homosexual tendencies if they did the same towards men. The problem is it is next to impossible to divine motives online. How much of the problem is true misogyny and how much is extreme trolling?

People like to feel unique, to feel special. It's part of what gives us a sense of personal identity, and it lets us feel that we make a difference somehow. Being part of some sort of a defined and exclusive group is one of the easiest ways to make ourselves feel more special. It's why we have so many honour societies and clubs and suchlike.

When that limited special group expands and begins to include more and more members, that upsets many of the original members. This applies to fans of no-name bands when “their” band becomes famous, fishermen who discover that their secret fishing spot is now crammed with other fishermen, patrons of a bar when an article in a magazine suddenly starts to bring in a new crowd, and so on. It also applies to relatively small groups online who have established their own little mini-communities, then see their territory being “invaded” by a new set of users who don't know all of the customs or don't fit all of the traditional criteria. It's a sense of annoyance that probably everybody has felt at some time, and I expect it is a basic part of human nature. There's no sense in pretending that it's an attitude that only certain subclasses of people experience.

Some people, however, don't seem to know how to accept change and move on with their lives. Perhaps they've invested too much of their sense of identity in being part of an exclusive group, or they don't know where to move on to. Sure, some of those people are probably going to be the stereotypical social misfit. But there's absolutely no reason why it has to be only that sort of a person. The co-worker with whom you exchange a few pleasantries during your coffee break, the quiet neighbour you say hello to at the mailbox, the successful elderly bank manager sitting at the next table over. . .any one of them can be the sort of person who goes home and throws fits about how their special little group is being over-run by unfit clueless n00bz. You can't tell who is and who is not just by looking at age, occupation, social circle, romantic life, wealth, or anything else. You can only determine who is by whether or not they do it.

Stereotyping is one of the major problems in this issue, and all sides routinely engage in it. It's part of what made the situation so bad in the first place: being stereotyped and mocked as asocial losers or immature is part of what made gamer communities more close-knit in the first place, and thus makes them so much more resistant to outsiders. Persecution tends to encourage an “us against them” mentality. Sure, gaming and computing has become socially normal now, but the attitudes still remain in many of the old guard, and I wouldn't be surprised if they pass it on.

There's no denying that the hostile and even psychotic behaviour of many of these people towards women or other more moderate gamers is a problem. And yes, some of these people online are going to be socially-awkward manchildren who live in their parents' basements--or in the case of one who I tracked down, in his mother's attic. But habitually stereotyping them as such not only erodes the whole “I have the moral high ground” argument (it's more than a tad hypocritical to stereotype the people who you are accusing of stereotyping other people), it also makes it much more difficult to actually do anything about the overall problem.

For example, take the case of how African-American communities tend to have a disproportionate amount of poverty, lack of education, and crime. It would be so easy to just go with the stereotype that blacks are lazy and genetically inclined to be worthless. There are plenty of groups out there who are quite busy pushing that stereotype just as hard as they can. By lulling themselves into the habit of thinking in stereotypes, those people overlook most of the actual root causes of the problem, such as inadequate schools, lopsided distribution of resources, or social pressures. And if we concentrate on the stereotypes while ignoring the actual causes of the problems, then how are we going to get around to actually doing anything to solve the problem? It's not likely that we'll simply stumble upon a solution by accident, or that it will all just evaporate away on its own one day.

In the case of this whole Gamergate mess, tricking ourselves into thinking that the people are all just a bunch of isolated social outcasts is going to blind ourselves to the true scope of the problem and to any courses of action that might put us on the path towards getting rid of it. Even if we're only being halfway serious when tossing around the stereotypes, they still work their way into our thinking as a matter of habit. That's a dangerous habit.

The Gamergate situation is more than just a few awkward pasty geeks making a lot of noise online because they are totally ineffectual in the real world. It is a symptom of a whole host of problems that are rooted throughout all of society, involving people of all backgrounds and all levels of influence. It's a sign of how we're having to try to adapt on the fly to the new online world in which we live, where the anonymity of the internet has given us the freedom to exercise psychopathic whims without much fear of any personal consequences and where we have opened up our private lives to anybody who can push the right buttons on their keyboard. It's a sign of the unhealthy attitude towards women that far too many segments of the population cling to, and the permissiveness that even more people display towards the actions of those segments. It's a sign of how too many people who really ought to be getting psychiatric help aren't getting it, and brings up the spectre of how we are to tell the truly dangerous from the simply noisy. It's a sign of conflicting ideals on what games should be about, how (or what) morality ought to be incorporated into them, and personal freedom when it comes to the makers' development and players' choice of games. It's a whole knot of entwined social strands that can't be untangled if we just shake our fists at the screen and type out lots of harsh rants about social misfits who need to be thrown out of their mommy's basement and forced to talk to some real girls. We need to look to the reality if we're going to see any sort of positive change, especially when it's entirely possible that some of our own attitudes, assumptions and actions could be subtly contributing to the whole fiasco.

Anyway, that's my own personal thoughts on the matter, now that I've had time for them to percolate in my mind for a little while.