#GamerGate

DoNoKharms · Sep 16, 2014

Amadan said:
It's more complicated than that, and one can simultaneously believe that Zoe Quinn is a terrible person (and overrated as a game developer) and that people sending her rape threats are even more terrible people. Ditto Anita Sarkeesian - much of her behavior, and indeed, her entire campaign, is problematic, and open to criticism. But she's also gotten a lot of nastiness spewed at her, so that's pretty much the only thing open for discussion unless one wants to be accused of implicitly condoning or at least failing to condemn the trolls.

Imagine you walk outside and a find a group of teenagers savagely beating an elderly Mormon man; his head is smashed, his face is bloody, and he's desperately gasping for air. Do you think that's an appropriate time to say "Well, what these youths are doing is terrible... BUT did you know the Mormon church is pretty homophobic? Maybe we should talk about that right now." Because I have a whole lot of critiques of the Mormon church, but I'd sure as hell put them aside to focus on helping that poor man.

Of course, Anita and Zoe aren't perfect. Of course, there are rational and fair critiques to be made of their work; in a different world, I'd offer a number of intellectual dissents with Anita's videos. But that's not the world we live in. In the world we live in, the sheer torrent of hate, abuse, and harassment they've endured has so thoroughly drowned out the conversation that it's vastly more important an issue than the relative merits and flaws of their projects. It doesn't actually matter if Anita's arguments aren't sound or if Zoe's game isn't great; the abuse they've been blasted with is so far out of proportion with what they've done that to use this moment to try to criticize them, as opposed to stand with them, is to tacitly ally with those making rape threats. This isn't a nuanced, reasonable, intellectual battlefield; the people calling Zoe's father to tell him his daughter's a slut ensured that. If your first response upon reading the threats Anita got, the threats that drove her out of her home, is to say "Yeah, BUTTTTTT she misinterpreted a prompt in Hitman: Absolution", it is inherently to triviliaze the threats and shift the blame onto her. This is the time to either support the victims or look the other way from their attackers. So yes, I actually do think it's that simple and binary.

Xelebes · Sep 16, 2014

DoNoKharms said:
Imagine you walk outside and a find a group of teenagers savagely beating an elderly Mormon man; his head is smashed, his face is bloody, and he's desperately gasping for air. Do you think that's an appropriate time to say "Well, what these youths are doing is terrible... BUT did you know the Mormon church is pretty homophobic? Maybe we should talk about that right now." Because I have a whole lot of critiques of the Mormon church, but I'd sure as hell put them aside to focus on helping that poor man.

Of course, Anita and Zoe aren't perfect. Of course, there are rational and fair critiques to be made of their work; in a different world, I'd offer a number of intellectual dissents with Anita's videos. But that's not the world we live in. In the world we live in, the sheer torrent of hate, abuse, and harassment they've endured has so thoroughly drowned out the conversation that it's vastly more important an issue than the relative merits and flaws of their projects. It doesn't actually matter if Anita's arguments aren't sound or if Zoe's game isn't great; the abuse they've been blasted with is so far out of proportion with what they've done that to use this moment to try to criticize them, as opposed to stand with them, is to tacitly ally with those making rape threats. This isn't a nuanced, reasonable, intellectual battlefield; the people calling Zoe's father to tell him his daughter's a slut ensured that. If your first response upon reading the threats Anita got, the threats that drove her out of her home, is to say "Yeah, BUTTTTTT she misinterpreted a prompt in Hitman: Absolution", it is inherently to triviliaze the threats and shift the blame onto her. This is the time to either support the victims or look the other way from their attackers. So yes, I actually do think it's that simple and binary.

Bingo. It's a bout of whataboutery.

There are a lot of discussions to be had, but to deny a conversation on the rape threats or other such assaults?

robjvargas · Sep 16, 2014

Roxxsmom said:
...something similar is happening in the Skeptics community, which unlike the gaming community, has a lot of highly educated and politically liberal academic types involved in it.

You have a cite for that, right? Or was it supposed to go unchallenged?

Amadan · Sep 16, 2014

DoNoKharms said:
Imagine you walk outside and a find a group of teenagers savagely beating an elderly Mormon man; his head is smashed, his face is bloody, and he's desperately gasping for air. Do you think that's an appropriate time to say "Well, what these youths are doing is terrible... BUT did you know the Mormon church is pretty homophobic? Maybe we should talk about that right now." Because I have a whole lot of critiques of the Mormon church, but I'd sure as hell put them aside to focus on helping that poor man.

Of course.

Now imagine that someone, not on the scene of a beating, offers criticism of the Mormon church. And the response of Mormons is: "How dare you criticize the church? Don't you know that just last week, an elderly Mormon man was savagely beaten? Obviously you condone that!"

If your first response upon reading the threats Anita got, the threats that drove her out of her home, is to say "Yeah, BUTTTTTT

This assumes a certain sequence of events: Anita Sarkeesian put her work out there, she started getting death threats, and then people began criticizing her work. I would suggest the sequence was not quite that linear.

DoNoKharms · Sep 16, 2014

Amadan said:
Of course.

Now imagine that someone, not on the scene of a beating, offers criticism of the Mormon church. And the response of Mormons is: "How dare you criticize the church? Don't you know that just last week, an elderly Mormon man was savagely beaten? Obviously you condone that!"

Well, that's kind of an odd interpretation on the metaphor, because in this specific case you both know about the harm (beating/harassment), and are commenting not on the general issue but on the character of the specific individual under attack; you were specifically passing judgement on the victims by name. So even if I generously removed you from the site of the crime, it's still hearing someone say "My uncle Larry is getting badly beaten outside!" and responding with "Yeah, but I don't agree with who he voted for Senator, so why don't we talk about that?"

We're not talking about a general intellectual observation in contradiction with Anita/Zoe's beliefs. We're not even talking about a negative statement about "SJWs" or whatever. We're talking about direct, specific pronouncements on their work and character, happening as they're under an incredibly aggressive, humiliating, and public attack.

Amadan said:
This assumes a certain sequence of events: Anita Sarkeesian put her work out there, she started getting death threats, and then people began criticizing her work. I would suggest the sequence was not quite that linear.

1) Anita absolutely started getting threats as soon as she started her project. Ironically enough, it was precisely the intense and aggressive harassment her Kickstarter campaign got that even shot her to any sort of prominence.

2) Even that aside, my point is that the sequence doesn't matter. My point is that the degree to which she is being attacked is so out of proportion to what she's done that using this moment to criticize her work, as oppose to stand with her against harassment, is, to me, ethically unacceptable, regardless of whether or not you agree with her. Like with the beaten uncle analogy, it suggests either a deep lack of empathy, a lack of understanding of proportion, or, worst, an implicit suggestion that the harassment is somehow excused by her actions.

Roxxsmom · Sep 16, 2014

robjvargas said:
You have a cite for that, right? Or was it supposed to go unchallenged?

Sorry, that was badly worded. Didn't mean to imply that gamers were a particularly uneducated group overall. Actually, I know they're not, and as an aging demographic, I suspect the average education level is climbing.

But my point was that being a member of a group (skeptics) that is associated with high levels of educational attainment and affiliation with causes that are generally associated with left-leaning politics doesn't stop someone from being a sexist DB.

benbradley · Sep 16, 2014

Roxxsmom said:
If most men who gamed called out, ostracized and marginalized (and just plain avoided) the pricks that were doing this stuff, the behavior would become exceedingly rare, methinks.

If more Youtube commenters were called out for their racist comments, the behavior would ...

Maybe for some, but I think many of these people are basically trolls, and others getting visibly offended over their comments gives them the attention they crave.

... I gather something similar is happening in the Skeptics community, which unlike the gaming community, has a lot of highly educated and politically liberal academic types involved in it.

That's an interesting link. I've been following a few skeptic blogs, twitter accounts and podcasts/videocasts over the years, so I know a lot of the "big names" in the community and I inevitably hear about the scandals and such (one podcaster has just been sentenced to over a year in prison).

But your statement appears dismissive of many gamers. There's significant overlap between skeptics and gamers, including the author of the article you linked to, Rebecca Watson.

DoNoKharms · Sep 16, 2014

Roxxsmom said:
But my point was that being a member of a group (skeptics) that is associated with high levels of educational attainment and affiliation with causes that are generally associated with left-leaning politics doesn't stop someone from being a sexist DB.

I think there's a very specific type of sexism/racism that tends to emerge in nerd communities; it's usually the product of a high intelligence, a sense of personal marginalization, and a general lack of empathy/intimate experience with a diverse variety of people. That's why it tends to manifest so often in the form of arguments that seem initially rational ("If they get a Black Entertainment Television, why don't we get a White Entertainment Television"/"Guys make games for guys. Girls shouldn't complain, they should just make their own games!"); it seems valid when viewed solely through the prism of a privileged personal experience, and is challenged only when you actually gain an understanding of the differences in experiences of different individuals.

Liosse de Velishaf · Sep 16, 2014

There is no excuse, ever, for the sort of threats Anita or Zoe got. Doesn't matter what they did. These women are not the Hitler's of the feminist movement.

I don't happen to find Zoe's game all that compelling. I think Sarkeesian has some problematic aspects in her videos, although not as many as most of the people trashing her do. Other people are free to disagree. They shouldn't be free to send rape or death threats, or to dig up Zoe's personal or sex life in order to discredit her because they feel slighted.

Roxxsmom · Sep 17, 2014

What have these women done that is so horrible and controversial, out of curiosity?

Liosse de Velishaf · Sep 17, 2014

Roxxsmom said:
What have these women done that is so horrible and controversial, out of curiosity?

Zoe Quinn(a pseudonym?) wrote an interactive novel that got lots of press, despite many people (including me) thinking it was not particularly good. Then she slept around on her boyfriend with people in her social circles, according to a nasty screed he wrote after she broke up with him. (I wonder what possible reason she could have had to dump such a nice fellow.) Those people happened to include gaming journalists. Who never actually reviewed her game. Somehow, this is trading sex for publicity, or something. Also, she released the game soon after the suicide of Robin Williams, which some suggested was a scummy marketing ploy.

Anita ran a kickstarter, raking in around $100,000 to produce videos on sexism in the gaming industry. The videos weren't particularly, good, and apparently she stole some footage. People made suggestions and investigations of accounting discrepancies. (The kickstarter originally asked for $6000) To be fair, stealing people's Let's Play footage from youtube is kinda scummy. So is possibly mis-using kickstarter funds. So is the fact that she never actually played the games she reviewed, and made some derogatory comment when someone questioned that. But! That's no excuse for this sort of behavior. No excuse at all. Neither is the fact that she may have lied about the severity and follow-up on some of the death threats she got sent. (The truth of this is currently unclear.)

A couple bad youtube videos/games or blog posts on sexism is under no circumstances an excuse for the sort of behavior involved.

Albedo · Sep 17, 2014

Roxxsmom said:
What have these women done that is so horrible and controversial, out of curiosity?

Hard to tell! Sarkessian made a series of videos about myogynistic tropes in video games, and apparently some of her arguments and examples weren't very good or something, so rape threats. Except the rape threats started long before she even made the videos, so that can't have been the actual reason.

Quinn apparently slept with a man, so rape threats.

The thing with rape threats is (and people liked my original one liner above so I should probably explain my thoughts a little more) they tend to drown out what was being discussed. Spectacularly. People could have really good criticisms about Sarkessian's videos, fucked if I know. Maybe Quinn did sleep with a man. No skin off my back, but what do I know. But #gamergate at the moment is loud, vicious misogyny all the way down. Read the comments on any article in the game press. (For the love of God, don't read the comments.) Guys and gals who think #gamergate is important: sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of the shit hurricane! Wait till people are safe and we'll talk about the problems with games journalism.

If a woman is getting rape threats, death threats, is getting doxxed, if she's getting harrassed, if her family's getting harrassed, and if subhuman filth are trying to destroy her career, sanity and life, then to insist we talk about something else, to minimise the abuse, to respond with anything other than solidarity and support for her and condemnation for the trolls is to not take shit seriously.

I spend inordinate amounts of my spare time playing video games. There's no way I'd identify myself as a 'gamer' at this point. Not without some subculture-cleansing hellfire.

Liosse de Velishaf · Sep 17, 2014

A lot of gamers are saying they've moved beyond Quinn now and Quinn is the one fighting to keep herself in the news. I'm not sure I buy it.

lilyWhite · Sep 17, 2014

Helix said:
Maybe it's not a bandwagon. Maybe those who believe in social justice do so for well considered and legitimate reasons. Maybe 'bandwagon' is a term used to cast aspersions on the sincerity of those people.

Or maybe there's those who do express their personal and honest opinions regarding issues of social justice and those who do hop on bandwagons. (It doesn't necessarily mean that a "bandwagon" is a bad thing, just as much as one's opinion being based on their own personal views doesn't necessarily make their opinion innately superior.)

DoNoKharms said:
Of course, Anita and Zoe aren't perfect. Of course, there are rational and fair critiques to be made of their work; in a different world, I'd offer a number of intellectual dissents with Anita's videos. But that's not the world we live in. In the world we live in, the sheer torrent of hate, abuse, and harassment they've endured has so thoroughly drowned out the conversation that it's vastly more important an issue than the relative merits and flaws of their projects. It doesn't actually matter if Anita's arguments aren't sound or if Zoe's game isn't great; the abuse they've been blasted with is so far out of proportion with what they've done that to use this moment to try to criticize them, as opposed to stand with them, is to tacitly ally with those making rape threats.

This right here is one of the biggest problems regarding the discussion of these things. The mindset that, by virtue of the abuse they've received, their opinions should go unquestioned, because to express criticism is to "tacitly ally with those making rape threats."

Disapproving of the harassment of certain women in the gaming community and having criticism of those women are not mutually incompatible things. The "if you're not with us 100%, you're against us 100%" mindset only serves to stifle conversation and create hostility between those with differing opinions.

Liosse de Velishaf said:
A lot of gamers are saying they've moved beyond Quinn now and Quinn is the one fighting to keep herself in the news. I'm not sure I buy it.

As someone who has paid attention to the hashtag over time...I would. There had been little mention of Quinn just before she released her screencaps "proving" that #GamerGate was fake, and the more prominent voices on Twitter have suggested not giving Quinn attention.

Of course, there's still those who do continue to pay attention to Quinn, from those who focus only on possible corruption to those who are indeed stupid trolls. Ultimately, it just boils down to the fact that, like any group and particularly one that lacks any actual leadership like this one, there is no hivemind within #GamerGate.

TroubleEntendre · Sep 17, 2014

DoNoKharms said:
I think there's a very specific type of sexism/racism that tends to emerge in nerd communities; it's usually the product of a high intelligence, a sense of personal marginalization, and a general lack of empathy/intimate experience with a diverse variety of people. That's why it tends to manifest so often in the form of arguments that seem initially rational ("If they get a Black Entertainment Television, why don't we get a White Entertainment Television"/"Guys make games for guys. Girls shouldn't complain, they should just make their own games!"); it seems valid when viewed solely through the prism of a privileged personal experience, and is challenged only when you actually gain an understanding of the differences in experiences of different individuals.

I'm going to have to contend the notion that nerd communities attract people of higher intelligence.

Some of the stupidest people I have ever met, people I was surprised to learn were allowed outside without a minder, people whom I would not argue with in the same way I wouldn't argue with a goldfish, were also some of the nerdiest people I've ever met.

If you're going for the super classic definition of nerd, of MIT and pencil ties, then okay, I guess. But modern nerds are a cross-section of the culture they come from, and as such span the whole range of intellectual (failure and) achievement.

I totally agree with you about the sense of personal marginalization and lack of empathy, though. Nobody does put upon like a whiteboy nerd does put upon. Nobody.

TroubleEntendre · Sep 17, 2014

lilyWhite said:
Disapproving of the harassment of certain women in the gaming community and having criticism of those women are not mutually incompatible things.

Actually, right now they kind of are. Because right now the gaming community, to the extent that such a chimera exists, needs to decide if it is okay to threaten to rape and murder people. That's literally the consensus we are struggling with right now. We can't agree that it's not okay to do that. We can't take it for granted that doing that won't immediately cause someone to be ejected from polite company. And because we can't come to a consensus on that yet, everything else is a sideshow.

Because you can't have honest, fair, and productive dialog when some members of the conversation feel that it is okay to threaten to rape and murder other members of the conversation. Until we have that consensus, all the possible critiques and arguments you might have for Anita or Zoe are small change, essentially meaningless, unimportant noise. And to pretend that your critiques of them were even worth considering while it is still an open question about if it is okay to attempt to hound someone into committing suicide or not is inherently to dismiss their concerns for their safety and health as unimportant.

Which makes you part of the problem whether you like it or not.

You can have your critiques--I know I do--and that's okay, but now is not the time to voice them. We should all strive to have enough perspective and empathy to realize that those other, lesser conversations need to wait until the whole death-and-rape thing is finally put to rest. Have some perspective. Step outside yourself. Realize that your opinions about video games are tiny, insignificant concerns next to the safety and health of actual living human beings.

So if you really, really, really want to critique Anita's videos, get to work on doing your part to clean up the discourse so that you can have that conversation without implicitly dismissing the important of the fact that people are threatening to kill her.

lilyWhite · Sep 17, 2014

TroubleEntendre said:
Actually, right now they kind of are. Because right now the gaming community, to the extent that such a chimera exists, needs to decide if it is okay to threaten to rape and murder people. That's literally the consensus we are struggling with right now. We can't agree that it's not okay to do that. We can't take it for granted that doing that won't immediately cause someone to be ejected from polite company. And because we can't come to a consensus on that yet, everything else is a sideshow.

Because you can't have honest, fair, and productive dialog when some members of the conversation feel that it is okay to threaten to rape and murder other members of the conversation. Until we have that consensus, all the possible critiques and arguments you might have for Anita or Zoe are small change, essentially meaningless, unimportant noise. And to pretend that your critiques of them were even worth considering while it is still an open question about if it is okay to attempt to hound someone into committing suicide or not is inherently to dismiss their concerns for their safety and health as unimportant.

Which makes you part of the problem whether you like it or not.

You can have your critiques--I know I do--and that's okay, but now is not the time to voice them. We should all strive to have enough perspective and empathy to realize that those other, lesser conversations need to wait until the whole death-and-rape thing is finally put to rest. Have some perspective. Step outside yourself. Realize that your opinions about video games are tiny, insignificant concerns next to the safety and health of actual living human beings.

So if you really, really, really want to critique Anita's videos, get to work on doing your part to clean up the discourse so that you can have that conversation without implicitly dismissing the important of the fact that people are threatening to kill her.

There are millions of people who play video games. The overwhelming majority of them do not believe that this behaviour is acceptable. And if, somehow, you got every single gamer who disapproves of threats to speak up about that belief together, do you know what would happen?

You'd have millions of people condemning harassment.

And the trolls would continue to be trolls.

There are people you simply cannot reason with. Refusing to allow conversations to take place because of their existence is only giving them the attention and power they crave. All one can do is to ignore these people, to deny them attention and power, to prevent them from derailing the conversation like they seek to do.

The people who threaten these women (or anyone in gaming culture) do not represent every single person who plays games. Is it really a surprise when people disapprove of being judged not on the merits of their own views, but entirely based on what people who aren't them have said/done?

Alessandra Kelley · Sep 17, 2014

TroubleEntendre said:
Actually, right now they kind of are. Because right now the gaming community, to the extent that such a chimera exists, needs to decide if it is okay to threaten to rape and murder people. That's literally the consensus we are struggling with right now. We can't agree that it's not okay to do that. We can't take it for granted that doing that won't immediately cause someone to be ejected from polite company. And because we can't come to a consensus on that yet, everything else is a sideshow.

Because you can't have honest, fair, and productive dialog when some members of the conversation feel that it is okay to threaten to rape and murder other members of the conversation. Until we have that consensus, all the possible critiques and arguments you might have for Anita or Zoe are small change, essentially meaningless, unimportant noise. And to pretend that your critiques of them were even worth considering while it is still an open question about if it is okay to attempt to hound someone into committing suicide or not is inherently to dismiss their concerns for their safety and health as unimportant.

Which makes you part of the problem whether you like it or not.

You can have your critiques--I know I do--and that's okay, but now is not the time to voice them. We should all strive to have enough perspective and empathy to realize that those other, lesser conversations need to wait until the whole death-and-rape thing is finally put to rest. Have some perspective. Step outside yourself. Realize that your opinions about video games are tiny, insignificant concerns next to the safety and health of actual living human beings.

So if you really, really, really want to critique Anita's videos, get to work on doing your part to clean up the discourse so that you can have that conversation without implicitly dismissing the important of the fact that people are threatening to kill her.

Absolutely. This is brilliantly put.

I have never understood why, when devastatingly brutal attacks are being made, some people feel the need to say that not all people of the attacking class are attackers.

While it is always true, it is never relevant.

I have noticed that the people to whom this is so vital rarely say it in the first person or issue apologies or sympathy for the victims, which would presumably be the only civilized reasons to bring their own status up when someone else is being bludgeoned to death.

robjvargas · Sep 17, 2014

TroubleEntendre said:
Some of the stupidest people I have ever met, people I was surprised to learn were allowed outside without a minder, people whom I would not argue with in the same way I wouldn't argue with a goldfish, were also some of the nerdiest people I've ever met.

I could put just about *any* label for a defined group of people into the above, and it would still be true. Even Mensa-ites.

Neither the presence nor the absence of intelligence has any connection to the absence or presence of misogyny. Not that I've seen.

Amadan · Sep 17, 2014

TroubleEntendre said:
Actually, right now they kind of are. Because right now the gaming community, to the extent that such a chimera exists, needs to decide if it is okay to threaten to rape and murder people. That's literally the consensus we are struggling with right now. We can't agree that it's not okay to do that. We can't take it for granted that doing that won't immediately cause someone to be ejected from polite company. And because we can't come to a consensus on that yet, everything else is a sideshow.

Because you can't have honest, fair, and productive dialog when some members of the conversation feel that it is okay to threaten to rape and murder other members of the conversation. Until we have that consensus, all the possible critiques and arguments you might have for Anita or Zoe are small change, essentially meaningless, unimportant noise. And to pretend that your critiques of them were even worth considering while it is still an open question about if it is okay to attempt to hound someone into committing suicide or not is inherently to dismiss their concerns for their safety and health as unimportant.

I think this is false on many levels.

The "gaming community," as lilyWhite said, is millions of people connected only by virtue of playing games. I'm betting the vast majority of them think rape threats are wrong. What exactly would be the preconditions to establishing that the gaming community has reached a consensus on this? A complete absence of trolls sending rape threats? A minimum number of anti-rape threat articles in the press? (Pretty much the entire gaming press has come out against this behavior, and to the defense of Sarkeesian and Quinn.) Or every single person prefacing every single criticism they have of a woman with "I do not approve of threats"?

The idea that Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are beyond criticism because rape threats! is patronizing and also wrong. They are public figures and they have made their work available for public comment. Of course threats are not acceptable discourse, but a woman subjected to harassment is not entitled to a criticism-free bubble until all harassment ends. Yes, the harassers and trolls should be condemned, shouted down, and shut out of the dialog as much as possible. But we can hold two ideas in our heads at once.

RichardGarfinkle · Sep 17, 2014

lilyWhite said:
There are millions of people who play video games. The overwhelming majority of them do not believe that this behaviour is acceptable. And if, somehow, you got every single gamer who disapproves of threats to speak up about that belief together, do you know what would happen?

You'd have millions of people condemning harassment.

And the trolls would continue to be trolls.

There are people you simply cannot reason with. Refusing to allow conversations to take place because of their existence is only giving them the attention and power they crave. All one can do is to ignore these people, to deny them attention and power, to prevent them from derailing the conversation like they seek to do.

The people who threaten these women (or anyone in gaming culture) do not represent every single person who plays games. Is it really a surprise when people disapprove of being judged not on the merits of their own views, but entirely based on what people who aren't them have said/done?

To quote a disputed quote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

There is a huge distinction between the existence of trolls and the tacit approval of bigotry and threats.

Societies show their approval and disapproval of behavior by what actions are challenged and what are not. Overall, gamer society has been letting threats to women go by as part of the normal course of conversation, but it has been disapproving of anyone complaining about this.

Trolls will always be trolls, and boors will be boors. The question is what does society as a whole do, and what do individuals in society do as response to trollish and boorish behavior. If people say nothing the trolls and boors know they can keep going, that society does not object to them.

One more thing. If threats are an acceptable social norm, how does one distinguish real threats? Actually dangerous people have concealed themselves in societies that treat overt threats as jokes or unimportant. Jimmy Saville concealed himself for decades by playing a clownish version of what he really was: a serial rapist and child molester.

robjvargas · Sep 17, 2014

Alessandra Kelley said:
I have never understood why, when devastatingly brutal attacks are being made, some people feel the need to say that not all people of the attacking class are attackers.

While it is always true, it is never relevant.

Neither you nor TroubleEntendre have accused me of anything. Not directly, nor indirectly.

Still, I keep seeing this and accusations that a lack of public backlash equates to tacit acceptance of the threats. That simply does not stand up to any kind of rational examination.

As a user here at AW, I've been warned from time to time that I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. And that's fine. But that same concept holds here. No one in this thread, unless they know everyone involved IRL, knows what's happened behind the scenes. Nor do those involved have any kind of obligation to make that activity known (much less public).

It's entirely possible that the perceived silence *is* tacit or explicit approval of the rape and death threats. It's also possible that the perceived silence is not, in fact, silence. Perhaps it's been taken offline. Perhaps all these folks are snickering at the threats and thinking that both women deserve it.

We don't have the information to know which is the truth.

Alessandra Kelley · Sep 17, 2014

robjvargas said:
Neither you nor TroubleEntendre have accused me of anything. Not directly, nor indirectly.

Still, I keep seeing this and accusations that a lack of public backlash equates to tacit acceptance of the threats. That simply does not stand up to any kind of rational examination.

As a user here at AW, I've been warned from time to time that I don't know what's going on behind the scenes. And that's fine. But that same concept holds here. No one in this thread, unless they know everyone involved IRL, knows what's happened behind the scenes. Nor do those involved have any kind of obligation to make that activity known (much less public).

It's entirely possible that the perceived silence *is* tacit or explicit approval of the rape and death threats. It's also possible that the perceived silence is not, in fact, silence. Perhaps it's been taken offline. Perhaps all these folks are snickering at the threats and thinking that both women deserve it.

We don't have the information to know which is the truth.

I was not thinking of you at all, rob.

As for secret armies of decent people secretly being good guys behind the scenes and not being complicit at all, all I can know is the silence I do or do not observe in public.

I see no reason to presume backroom decency if the crickets chirp in the silence at every suggestion of decency or apology.

However, these people are not silent, and their public pronouncements reveal no goodwill whatsoever.

I see no reason to presume secret sincere apologies if all public statements are full of indignation and wounded pride.

I am not talking about lack of public backlash, I am talking about how in a crisis situation so many people interject their egos inappropriately into things and focus on their own niceness rather than the crimes committed, the victims, and the perpetrators.

One does not have to go on the attack towards rapists in order to deplore that they are a sheltered part of one's own community.

robjvargas · Sep 17, 2014

Alessandra Kelley said:
I see no reason to presume backroom decency if the crickets chirp in the public silence of these people.

I see no reason to presume secret sincere apologies if all public statements are full of indignation and wounded pride.

True, but neither can I see a reason presume the opposite. If I don't like the crowd in a bar or restaurant, I don't call it out. I leave.

Alessandra Kelley said:
I am not talking about lack of public backlash, I am talking about how in a crisis situation so many people interject their egos inappropriately into things and focus on their own niceness rather than the crimes committed, the victims, and the perpetrators.

One does not have to go on the attack towards rapists in order to deplore that they are a sheltered part of one's own community.

All fair. The latter was my point as well. We just don't know that they aren't deploring it (or, as I admitted, that they are deploring it, either).

Alessandra Kelley · Sep 17, 2014

robjvargas said:
All fair. The latter was my point as well. We just don't know that they aren't deploring it (or, as I admitted, that they are deploring it, either).

If Im not hearing deploring, I'm not presuming deploring.

And quite frankly, not hearing deploring in the face of rape and death threats says a hell of a lot about the speakers.

#GamerGate

DoNoKharms

Xelebes

Delerium ex Ennui

robjvargas

Amadan

DoNoKharms

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

benbradley

It's a doggy dog world

DoNoKharms

Liosse de Velishaf

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido

Liosse de Velishaf

Albedo

Alex

Liosse de Velishaf

lilyWhite

Love and Excitement

TroubleEntendre

TroubleEntendre

lilyWhite

Love and Excitement

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

robjvargas

Amadan

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

robjvargas

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian

robjvargas

Alessandra Kelley

Sophipygian