Wolfire Games Forums

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:Essentially, but it's horrible and guilt by association kinda thing. Which is giving a few people bad vibes of SJWness (With good reason).

The site originally read "A Twitter tool to block some of the worst offenders in the recent wave of harassment".

Now, there's two ways to consider that statement. Is it factual? And, is it wrong to say it?

First, let's consider whether it's factual.

It claims that SOME of the worst offenders, not all of them, not a majority of them, not the worst, but SOME of the worst. It's not even claiming that some of the worst are gamergaters, just that they follow certain people that are in gamergate. Maybe it works because third-party trolls want to make Gamergate look bad by attacking anyone these vocal people mention.

Now, I've noticed some people are trying to spin this as "IGDA SAID ALL GAMERGATERS ARE HARASSERS" which they have, in fact, NOT done by linking to this tool. They have implied that if you block the majority of gamergaters, you block some of the worst recent harassers. It names no names.


Once more for emphasis, IGDA implies that if you don't want to be harassed, blocking all gamergaters is a good option. Which is NOT factually incorrect. The people experiencing harassment have said that they experience less harassment after they started using autoblocker, so... it seems to work.

Which gets us to whether it's wrong to say that using autblocker is a good thing.

I think that using the autoblocker to avoid harassment or bullying is a good thing, assuming it works - that is, that it blocks at least some of the harassment. If it doesn't, using it isn't wrong, but saying that it will help against bullying is incorrect.

What if you're using the autoblocker not because you're bullied, but because you want to ignore gamergaters?
Using a tool to not hear what gamergaters are saying is... not wrong. It isn't a good, right thing, but it's not an evil or wrong thing either. It's a thing. It's like walking away, or not going to a bar, or not going to the church. Passive.


TL;DR using autoblocker seems to make people happier, and isn't wrong, so why would it be wrong to recommend people to use it?

Also, not being bullied is more important than listening to gamergaters' issues. If you disagree, please explain why someone's personal health and wellbeing is less important than what some people are saying about some people's hobby.

This is how Sony sees gamers: horny (young?) men for whom gaming is like masturbating, and for whom women are like toys:



http://www.coloribus.com/adsarchive/pri ... -16717855/

The general gist of this tool seems to be:

A: Protect the special little snowflakes from getting their feelings hurt by criticism.

B: Kill of GG by preventing it from making any progress.

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:The general gist of this tool seems to be:

A: Protect the special little snowflakes from getting their feelings hurt by criticism.

B: Kill of GG by preventing it from making any progress.

A)
Something being criticism doesn't make it acceptable. Are these sorts of discussions acceptable? If this targeted you, wouldn't your feelings be hurt too?

https://twitter.com/alexlifschitz/statu ... 9560694784
https://twitter.com/alexlifschitz/statu ... 3420983296
https://twitter.com/freebsdgirl/status/ ... 7046500352

B)
Is it wrong to ignore someone you don't agree with?

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:The general gist of this tool seems to be:

A: Protect the special little snowflakes from getting their feelings hurt by criticism.

B: Kill of GG by preventing it from making any progress.

C: Offer people who have been harassed by groups with that background, or who are not interested in this stuff a way to block that bullshit.

Why do you always have to assume the worst and talk down people who have a different opinion from your own?
The whole stuff that has happened to Wolfire with the Gamer Gate crowd has shown me that a good chunk of the people who identify with that label seem to be malicious or just trolls. If I want to discuss equality or journalism ethics, Gamer Gate would be the last group I would approach. The label is tainted beyond repair by now and I still don't see any reasonable attempts to distinguish the genuine crowd from the idiots we have seen on the Haphead video.

I agree that the filter they seem to use for their tool is not particularly good, but it's a tool to offer people a very easy solution to a problem they might have, If you want something more sophisticated you'll need to do it yourself. And no one is forced to use it either. You're blowing it way out of proportion.

EPR89 wrote:If I want to discuss equality or journalism ethics, Gamer Gate would be the last group I would approach. The label is tainted beyond repair by now and I still don't see any reasonable attempts to distinguish the genuine crowd from the idiots we have seen on the Haphead video

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on Gamer Gate. They seem like a bunch of armchair activists, inflated MRAs, and the sorts of people who would be subscribed to /r/theredpill. Essentially the male equivalent in credibility and exact opposite in philosophical view of the 'feminazi' label. I can't take anything that comes out of Gamer Gate seriously, which is ironic given how important they view themselves.

Ragdollmaster wrote: the sorts of people who would be subscribed to /r/theredpill.

What's that? I've heard several gamergaters refer to taking the red pill or somesuch as the moment they decided to join in, but I thought it was a generic Matrix reference. Is it something more specific?

www.reddit.com/r/theredpill

It is a subreddit that, by its own description, is for "Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men."

It's basically sleazy douchebags who seriously believe in things like "being Alpha," "negging," reverse psychology, etc. In general they are the same sorts of people who think that men are oppressed and women are entitled.

Ragdollmaster wrote:http://www.reddit.com/r/theredpill

It is a subreddit that, by its own description, is for "Discussion of sexual strategy in a culture increasingly lacking a positive identity for men."

It's basically sleazy douchebags who seriously believe in things like "being Alpha," "negging," reverse psychology, etc. In general they are the same sorts of people who think that men are oppressed and women are entitled.

Ah. They state a problem, which exists (although it's somewhat subjective and not that critical for anyone's daily life), and then go about fixing it in a way that doesn't actually help solve the problem.

Yep! I can say with complete confidence that following a 'red pill' philosophy will do you no good. It is more likely going to be counterproductive, both for you as an individual and to the cause you support.

EPR89 wrote:

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:The general gist of this tool seems to be:

A: Protect the special little snowflakes from getting their feelings hurt by criticism.

B: Kill of GG by preventing it from making any progress.

C: Offer people who have been harassed by groups with that background, or who are not interested in this stuff a way to block that bullshit.

That too, but generally people have a thick enough skin to press the block button and give zero fucks.

Endoperez wrote:
A)
Something being criticism doesn't make it acceptable. Are these sorts of discussions acceptable? If this targeted you, wouldn't your feelings be hurt too?

That was more or less about people who can talk shit left and right but bitch and moan as soon as someone says similar shit back at them.

B)
Is it wrong to ignore someone you don't agree with?

Then you would have blocked those GGers already or avoided the discussion all together, which makes the tool redundant and a catch all solution to a delicate issue that REQUIRES case-by-case basis handling of opinions, or else you alienate a group of people who simply use the same banner as the people you intended to alienate in the first place. Not to mention this tool isn't effective at all, it simply carpet bombs as many people as possible regardless of knowledge or intentions, simply by relation.

Burying your heads in the sand isn't going to make it go away.

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:That was more or less about people who can talk shit left and right but bitch and moan as soon as someone says similar shit back at them.

The first link I gave was part of a twitter conversation where it was shown how an IGDA representative answered a Gamergater's polite question, and was then ridiculed on a Gamergate board.
The third link was a doxxxing of a person who wrote an online tool, and as far as I know she hasn't doxxed anyone or been accused of it. How did they deserve this shit?

B)
Is it wrong to ignore someone you don't agree with?

Then you would have blocked those GGers already or avoided the discussion all together, which makes the tool redundant and a catch all solution to a delicate issue that REQUIRES case-by-case basis handling of opinions, or else you alienate a group of people who simply use the same banner as the people you intended to alienate in the first place. Not to mention this tool isn't effective at all, it simply carpet bombs as many people as possible regardless of knowledge or intentions, simply by relation.

Burying your heads in the sand isn't going to make it go away.

Do you think gamergaters are a movement? If they are, there are too many of them for all the people who don't want to listen to them to have manually blocked them. And yes, it is a simple tool that uses a simple algorithm and isn't very precise. Is that wrong?

Speaking of that...
Is it wrong to ignore someone? Is it wrong to alienate a group, who cares more about the message they want to deliver than your mental wellbeing? Is it wrong to do your own thing, instead of someone else's thing?

People KNOW ignoring Gamergate won't make it go away, at least not instantly. It's what they tried doing, before. That doesn't mean that their only option is to go WITH it.
They step out, take a deep breath, and do their own thing. Gamergate keeps doing its thing. How's journalism?

Endoperez wrote:
The first link I gave was part of a twitter conversation where it was shown how an IGDA representative answered a Gamergater's polite question, and was then ridiculed on a Gamergate board.
The third link was a doxxxing of a person who wrote an online tool, and as far as I know she hasn't doxxed anyone or been accused of it. How did they deserve this shit?

How some GGers act is not representative of the entire group. If you alienate the entire group because of the actions of a few you always run the risk of alienating the good ones in the bunch. Especially if you are part of the discussion actively.

Do you think gamergaters are a movement? If they are, there are too many of them for all the people who don't want to listen to them to have manually blocked them. And yes, it is a simple tool that uses a simple algorithm and isn't very precise. Is that wrong?

Not directly, but the result of using it is. If you didn't want to listen to them you can simply ignore them, block the most aggressive ones, or simply bow out. GGers aren't going to go out of their way to harass you, not en mass anyway. Since the main point of this is to "End harassment", people should use it to do that.

Speaking of that...
Is it wrong to ignore someone? Is it wrong to alienate a group, who cares more about the message they want to deliver than your mental wellbeing? Is it wrong to do your own thing, instead of someone else's thing?

If you're well-being is at risk because some asshole said things over the internet, you have much bigger problems to sort out.

Phoenixwarrior141 wrote:
How some GGers act is not representative of the entire group. If you alienate the entire group because of the actions of a few you always run the risk of alienating the good ones in the bunch. Especially if you are part of the discussion actively.

If some gamergaters act like that, and someone doesn't want to see that, ignoring all gamergaters is an option. Alienating the good ones is an acceptable loss, especially as even the good ones seem to focus more on people they disagree with than on journalism.

It is a simple tool that uses a simple algorithm and isn't very precise. Is that wrong?

Not directly, but the result of using it is. If you didn't want to listen to them you can simply ignore them, block the most aggressive ones, or simply bow out. GGers aren't going to go out of their way to harass you, not en mass anyway. Since the main point of this is to "End harassment", people should use it to do that.

A: What end result is wrong? The fact that people can ignore people they don't want to listen to, or something else?

B: If muting all gamergaters at once is wrong, is it then good and right to listen to gamergaters? If so, is it just about being polite, or is it somehow a duty to listen to those who want to talk?

Plus, sometimes some gamergaters absolutely single someone out as their target.

If you're well-being is at risk because some asshole said things over the internet, you have much bigger problems to sort out.

MENTAL wellbeing. Being bullied, getting targeted isn't fun. It can in fact be horrible.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ng-up.html

Any time I see someone post something like "just ignore anonymous assholes on the internet" or something similar, my only reaction is this. It's not so simple for some people.