How is this about making money?
On the pro-GG side, look at the supposedly pro-gg websites that have sprung up that sell things or review things basically do everything that they are saying the current status quo is doing wrongly or unethically.
On the anti-GG side, look at how much the leaders are charging for talks related to inclusion issues, something that they want to help spread. I am not saying they should run a charity (which they actually do from what I remember, literally run a NPO), but at some points it just looks like they are doing it for the money. The talks are weird, after seeing them, they looked like more about the person giving the talk and less about the actual issue at hand.
Every Time things quiet down another shitshow start from nowhere. It's like a massive online bait. If things keep going, the people making money keep making money.
If you look at it from an outside perspective, both sides are right. There are huge inclusion issues in gaming. Actually there are huge inclusion issue in almost everything, not sure what makes computer games special. On the other side, there are certainly ethics issue in game media. But then there are ethics issue in every media. Not sure what makes game media special. So now the question why all the fight, especially when both sides are fighting for different things. Both sides are obviously right. The only reason I can think of it is, and it's actually pretty evident, that people have found ways to make money out of it and they rile up the crowd every time things calm down to ensure the money keeps coming in.
If both the sides worked on this together both of their problems can be solved mutually, but I am not sure why that is not happening. It's like they don't want to work together. I am sure the people smart enough to figure out how to control this also know that neither side is the picture they have painted, so if they actually wanted to solve this, they can easily do it.
> If you look at it from an outside perspective, both sides are right.
That's kinda how it feels to me. In most of the conflicts I've read about, one side is right (look at this - if what she writes is true - and there's no reason for me to believe otherwise, how would you reasonably argue against that?, but then I read about "safe spaces" at universities and can only think how dumb of an idea this is), but instead of a civilized discussion which might actually change people's opinions, a shirtstorm ensues.
Please disagree with me if you think that I'm wrong on this - I'm really just an outsider who occasionally reads about this on Twitter and shakes his head.
I wish you knew how... devastatingly lonely it can be as an outcast in society. How everyone treats you. Solidarity is really important.
Can you also imagine who you are constantly being criticized? Your problems constantly being made out to be false? That you have the burden of proof with everyone because nobody knows your struggle?
I feel like the most important takehome is that we need recourse for ensuring the safety of the less represented of people, e.g., trans.
The way I understand it, safe space is not only a place where people can a particular group of people are "protected" but also a place where idea can grow without any challenge or even merit. Do you think that is a good idea? I may be totally wrong about what a safe space is, but this is the impression I have got till now.
But I also see how "safe spaces" would be useful and how critical discourse could be used for bullying. I've not read enough about this to make up my mind on this. Was the Yale thing an unexpected outcome?
The experience of being trans, queer, female, etc., today is not summed up by text. It is the adrenaline and vomit from death threats, it's falling behind at work because of harassment, I could go on and on.
Safe places are a way to ensure that everyone at least can truly empathize with each others' experiences, and as such, a place where they don't have to worry about that.
It's a counter, a reaction to all spaces practically being for (white) men. Who's voices are heard? Who's narratives are enforced? Safe places are the only places we have.
I could go on, but...
We should feel secure for our lives. Indeed it's one of the inalienable rights defined in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
What many people now know as safe places, however, overreach their stated goal of providing security for minorities. They sacrifice liberty for life. You can put someone in jail for threatening your life, but you can't put someone in jail (or fire them or ruin their livelihood otherwise) for saying something you don't agree with. If you force someoen to empathize, they aren't truly empathizing, they are remaining quiet for fear of being called a bigot and getting their reputation ruined. They shouldn't have the right to make you fall behind at work because of harassment. Then again, no one should have the right to do that on anyone, no exceptions based on arbitrary classes/categories.
The fact that you suggest this is proof that you've never had to do so. This is literally part of what I do for a living. I work with people going to law enforcement, sometimes as an advocate. Your local police have no idea what their laws are regarding online stalking/harassment, nor do they have interest in prosecuting it without a significant amount of external prodding, usually from reporters. You're welcome to look up anything I've written on the subject about this for reference.
> anyone receiving threats online should report it to law enforcement so the person making those threats can be dealt with and so that person can't continue to terrorize other people online.
I can see how you'd think that's a good response, but calling the cops isn't a no brainer for minorities, indeed crimes against minorities are drastically underreported. There's some good information in this thread about why (freebsdgirl's reply, for instance), but there are other reasons. Dealing with law enforcement can make a problem much, much worse; google around for the experiences that victims of sexual assault have when dealing with police and the courts. Reporting crimes like this can also get you blacklisted as an "HR problem". Victims sometimes blame themselves. Reporting a crime is a huge time and money sink. Statements, testimony, attorney's fees... it all piles up (and don't forget about the wage gap!). Again I'm only scratching the surface, but there are fundamental problems with the criminal justice system that need to be resolved before "just call the cops" is an adequate recourse.
> What many people now know as safe places, however, overreach their stated goal of providing security for minorities.
But what I think you mean is that you think it's too easy to experience disproportionate consequences for violating a safe space, for example Brendan Eich was forced to resign after his donations to an anti-same-sex-marriage campaign came to light. I'm guessing you feel like that was unjust: Eich was exercising his right to free speech, and he lost his job (one could argue it was more than just a job for him).
It's not unjust. Besides the fact that everyone who pressured Eich to step down was exercising their own free speech (blog posts, board resignations, public opinion campaigns, browser boycotts), all opinions are not valid political views, and not all political views are equal or even acceptable. For example, some people believe that all first-born children should be male, and all female fetuses should be aborted until a male child is born. If any CEO donated to a campaign supporting this cause, they'd likely lose their position, as it's pretty reprehensible.
Being racist, or homophobic, or transphobic, or misogynistic, or bigoted in general, is also reprehensible. It always has been. The friction here is that these attitudes are deeply entrenched in our culture; it takes time to clean them up, and people who are slow to change their attitudes are experiencing serious consequences for things that used to be completely acceptable (yet, importantly, still reprehensible). Victims of these attitudes rightly have no patience with this effort: their whole lives they've been oppressed for who they are, and their oppressors hide behind "free speech", and "well that's just my opinion" while minorities labor under the disparate impact caused by large numbers of relatively powerful people holding these beliefs. For example, 40% of managers admit to avoiding hiring women of childbearing age because they might use maternity benefits. That creates a bias against women that goes far beyond free speech and opinion.
The state constantly has to balance everyone's rights. There are tons of examples: free speech vs. harassment; freedom of religion vs. freedom from religion; liberty vs. safety (you have to get a license to own a gun or drive a car, etc.). You're arguing that, along the free speech vs. harassment continuum, safe spaces go too far to protect minorities from harassment, balancing the right to be bigoted against the right to feel safe and not be discriminated or prejudiced against. You need to take a closer look at the current state of things, because we're far, far away from "overreach" on this issue. Minorities continue to experience wildly disproportionate levels of harassment, physical violence and injustice. Over 80% of sexual harassment claims are made by women. African-American men are far overrepresented in our prisons. The wage gap between white men and white women, men of color and women of color is real. LGBT people face the threat of violence and discrimination every day.
> If you force someoen to empathize, they aren't truly empathizing, they are remaining quiet for fear of being called a bigot and getting their reputation ruined.
If someone does not empathize with the minority experience in the US, they're either ignorant or a bigot. You can dislike the facts, but you can't disagree with them.
Most of the 'Anti-SJW' crowd seem to believe that a conservative, propagandist mouth-piece like Breitbart is a shining example of unbiased journalism. Ayn Rand seems to their demi-god and fat-shaming and victim blaming seems to be the norm. But this is not what really bothers me, because frankly, it's just the same-old stuff in new packaging. I expect nothing less from that crowd.
What bothers me is that the same techniques are being used on the side I identify myself with.
A lot of white men suffer. To me this is not just a question of race, color or gender, but of class and social dynamics. I find that a lot of the language used on the progressive side simply ignores this fact or even tries to deny it.
Also privilege isn't about who's life is harder, it's about the abilities afforded/predisposed to you by society because of how you're labeled.
Also nobody doubts that poverty is a huge issue. Imagine being a poor man. Now imagine being a poor trans woman. Do you have any idea?
Most arguments are I support A, and the opposition is I oppose A. Somehow GG is different, it's I support A, and the other side is fuck your A, I support B ,when they don't actually have any problem with A. The first side then responds with, no fuck your B, A all the way. It's mind boggling, it can just as easily be we support A & B.
And that bring us to this post, it has nothing to do with GG. Its simple harassment and the core community handled it poorly. It looks like a good case of lack of precedent on how to handle it.
Earlier harassment used to of the "your mother is fat type" or "shut up you fukin brit" because people didn't have much to go on. Now as diversity increases people have more difference that can be attacked and those differences are very personal and hence affects a person on a deeper level. It's a classical case of school bullying, just that no one here is in school anymore, some people just don't grow up.
Once self regulating communities (those without HR departments) figure out how to handle these cases the right way, which I believe they will, these events should have a quick end.
I'm more worried about articles like this one. To give some context, the author of this article has a lovely habit of telling anyone she disagrees with to go kill themselves over on Twitter. She also thinks that complaining about this is harassment and has got Twitter support to force people to delete Tweets that do so in the past. For obvious reasons, some people thought this made her unsuitable to speak about online harassment. This article is her attempt to lump everyone who did so in with a literal rape supporter.
The anti-GG crowd, as a whole, complains about GG and calls them misogynists. They can be annoying.
The GG crowd peppers anti-GG people with with threats, doxxes them, and sends SWAT teams to their homes and the homes of their relatives. They can be terrifying.
There may be opposing viewpoints, but when it comes to opposing behaviors, there's no contest. One side is a lot more embarrassing for the gaming community than the other.
GG has become a hive mind with an enemies list. As a group, it lashes out at anyone who criticizes it or disagrees with it.
This is why they come up in this particular mess - Randi got called out to the GG groups as a feminist or whatever. Once she got on the list, she became as much of a target as anyone else they don't like.
There are plenty of good people who want to address ethics in gaming journalism, but they aren't going to do it with GG. It's too far gone. They'd do better to form a new group that isn't driven by hate and doesn't make decisions in an echo chamber.
So I voted your comment down for its lack of style.
Mobs don't take responsibility for their actions, which is why we always see people talk about one side being made from evil and one side being made from good (if annoying).