GamerGate -- The Great Trap MRA's Need to Avoid

Many MRA's are upset about GamerGate, and ever enticingly, GamerGate has done a great deal to drive MRA's into the conversation. I say wait one minute and lets take some time for introspection and thought.

As MRA's, we have an exceptionally strong argument against feminist tactics of censorship, especially of games. People are responding. There is much more to GamerGate than censorship, though.

Feminists are right on part of GamerGate. Yes, I said it, Feminists (even the radical ones) are RIGHT! It's okay! The world isn't ending. What are they right about? They are right about the sexualization of women in streaming and women playing games.

If you think about it, we've all heard it. We're playing on our XBOX One (because screw Playstation), we get into a lobby, it's silent, and then a female speaks. Suddenly the chatter is jumping, people are flirting, people are making sexist jokes, people are talking about boobs, etc.

Lets look at streaming on Twitch.TV. Watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLAeW4GjuSw

That is of a woman who sells the sexualization of women, she takes shots for money, she flirts with her viewers, etc. Her received donation: $6,969.69.

Now some women are okay with this, and some women aren't. Some women are married, have boyfriends, are single, etc. and just want to play games without constantly hearing about their boobs, sex, etc. And I'm not talking about something like catcalling on a street. No, the anonymous aspect of the internet makes everything a lot worse, and women get severely harassed OFTEN.

In summary, some of GamerGate is just over-the-top censorship that is good for the MRM, and women do see many advantages in gaming (women streaming can get away with being much worse at a game then men and still get viewers and donations), HOWEVER, many women do face significant unwanted attention (yes, even after they tell someone to stop), and this is not a small minority. This is a significant group.

Gaming culture is such a huge topic that when we talk about it we should really take on specific issues and not gaming culture in general, which has been hashtagged GamerGate (although that's not what GamerGate originally was). Lets be more specific when we talk about this subject.

[–]SnickerSnak5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SnickerSnak3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I tried to reexplain myself through a different angle to jtaylor so you might want to read that explanation and maybe that will help, but I want to address something you said that seems to be the basis of our disagreement.

You are claiming that we need to see who's definition is right in reality when MRA's and feminists disagree on a definition, but I completely disagree with that. When we are talking to feminists or even the general public that might hold the definition feminists hold, the "correct" definition really doesn't matter.

If we want to communicate properly with feminists, we have to understand how they are going to interpret terms. This is not a matter of right or wrong, which is when reality would be the decider, but a matter of how to communicate properly with someone (and I'd also argue that there really isn't a right or wrong most of the time).

What message are we sending if we don't try and communicate with their definitions? We're saying, you think a term means that, but we think a term means this, and we're right so you have to think about things as we do. Well obviously that's not a very good way to communicate with and convince somebody of something.

I think communicating how we think about the term can be beneficial, but in the end what they think is really what matters. If we understand their definition, even if we disagree with it, we can reword what we are trying to say to fit in with their definitions of terms.

If we understand their definition, even if we disagree with it, we can reword what we are trying to say to fit in with their definitions of terms.

Once you start using their words to talk to them you're limiting yourself to their concepts. The definitions they use are designed to constrict thought to conform with their ideology. For example, sexism=power+prejudice, gamergate=harassment of women, due process for rapists=rape culture, saying 'hello' to a woman on the street=harassment, female privileges=misogyny, male suicide=misogyny, men dying in war=misogyny, etc.

If we want to communicate properly with feminists...

There is no way to effectively communicate with feminists and use their terms. The concepts behind their definitions are not grounded in reality and thus cannot be used to describe reality.

For instance, there is no way you can address female privilege using feminist terms. The very concept of female privilege doesn't exist for a feminist, only male privilege exists. Female privilege exists in reality, there's just no way to talk about it using feminist definitions of words/terms.

Because you're using their definitions you're stuck equating GamerGate with the sexual harassment of women even though that concept doesn't conform with reality. You've been trapped into holding a position that has no supporting evidence. Your post is urging action based on a world view that doesn't reflect reality. In that respect it's no better than astrology.

[–]atheist4thecause-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

On your first point, absolutely not. You simply have to reword things, but I don't think you realize how much you proved my point. If by using terms as they think of them restricts what we are saying, that shows that they are bound to take things as we don't mean them if we explain things as we do.

On your second point about how we can't use their definitions to describe reality, this is really just a talking point that sounds good. In reality, we can reword things to be understood better.

By saying that you can't address female privilege using "feminist terms" (aka terms as feminists understand them), you are saying that it is literally impossible for feminists to understand what we are trying to say. I disagree with that idea, and I think that's a dangerous concept. That's the kind of idea that leads people away from discussion because it becomes futile.

On your final point about equating GamerGate with sexual harassment, I am not stuck equating the two. If I want to communicate with feminists, I actually try not to use the term GamerGate at all. I have found when I used the term GamerGate then the conversation instantly devolves due to confusion and a misunderstanding of what is being said. When I don't use the GamerGate term, I get understood much better.

We have to ask ourselves, if we refuse to communicate in a way that those we try to communicate with would best understand us as a matter of principle, are we really trying our best to be understood?

By saying that you can't address female privilege using "feminist terms" (aka terms as feminists understand them), you are saying that it is literally impossible for feminists to understand what we are trying to say.

Not at all. I'm saying you cannot use feminist concepts when talking to feminists about something that their ideology doesn't already accept as valid.

The feminist lexicon (much like Newspeak) is constructed so as to disallow the thinking of certain thoughts. There are no 'feminist words' to describe the concept of female privilege.

If I want to communicate with feminists, I actually try not to use the term GamerGate at all. I have found when I used the term GamerGate then the conversation instantly devolves due to confusion and a misunderstanding of what is being said.

Hmmm, so you find yourself unable to effectively communicate with feminists if you use terms they've already defined in a way not congruent with reality? This is exactly what I've been arguing, nice to see we agree.

[–]Teeder3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Teeder1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Teeder2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Teeder4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ghebert0013 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ghebert0012 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]xNOM1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jtaylor730033 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jtaylor730037 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jtaylor730035 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

1) I wasn't saying you weren't a MRA, just that other MRAs who might not know what GamerGate is about might see your post, and wrongly side with you.

2)GamerGate is multiple issue subject with many sides, but the main issues are; feminist believes that women in gaming are harassed and the games made objectify women, while the majority of supporters believe that is about ethics in game journalism. GamerGate has been linked to several issue such as the Quinnspicary where supposedly slept with male writers to get better reviews of her games which she was outed by her ex, The Young Capalist issue where Quinn try to shut there fundraiser down because of sexism yet 4chan raised enough money to help them get there project/contest successful, The Day where Gamers Died where 10 separate Gaming Reviewer websites publish articles that the Gamer is dead, several threats on both sides of GamerGate, the mock threats to Anita, etc etc.

3) You purposely gave false information or misleading information to turn a complex issue into women being harassed on stream. That is lying.

Point 1 doesn't pay to address, and assuming I am wrong for the sake of argument, you can't show what I said was purposefully misleading.

On the important point of Point 2, allow me to take this at a different angle because you are clearly still seeing GamerGate only through the eyes of our side, and I'm trying to get people to see it through the eyes of the other side.

So we had people playing games. Feminists saw some things they didn't like and decided to infiltrate gaming. One issue they took on was the harassment women receive while gaming. Another issue they took on was how women were portrayed in games. I'd call a third issue to be representation of women in gaming. Part of what the feminists accomplished was getting games banned.

Because feminists started getting games banned, a group of gamers created GamerGate. The main response was to the censorship of games, and when people from the MRA end talk about GamerGate, it tends to have to do with censorship by feminists. I think you'd agree with that, but maybe I'm wrong.

Censorship is not the main goal of feminists, though. The feminist's primary goal seems to be to create a comfortable environment for women to play games. Feminists want games with violence against women censored such as GTA5 usually citing things about how it can make rape victims feel, which they see as primarily women.

As part of creating that comfortable environment, feminists are also against women having their breasts talked about, people harassing women on team chats, etc.

To feminists, all of these things are tied together. For MRA's, they are separate issues. This is where I believe the confusion is coming in. This is why feminists see many MRA's/GamerGaters as so disgusting, and why MRA's/GamerGaters see feminists as so radical on this issue. The two sides really aren't seeing the issue through the same lens, and the end goals aren't close to the same. (MRA's/GamerGaters want to stop censorship while feminists want a comfortable gaming environment for women.)

Does that help explain my position a little better?

[–]jtaylor730036 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You are purposely provided information when you are purposely unaware of the facts yet act like you are knowlegdable. Since you purposely remain ignorant to the facts of GamerGate, and are trying to sway opinion, in my opinion you are lying.

GamerGate wasn't created by gamers. #GamerGate was coined by Adam Baldwin, and then used by supporters during the Zoe Quinn conspiracy. I mention it as the Quinnspiracy which is one of the major starting factors of GamerGate. Feminist have repeatly said that games objectify and alienated women, and claim that since speaking out they have received harassment and death threats. If they included harassment during streaming it is just another complaint not major issue.

The Supporters of GamerGate have repeatly claimed it is ethics in gaming journalism. They also denounce any threats made by social media supporters using the hashtag, and the threats made by feminist supports on the same sites. #NotYourShield was created to show feminist that women and other ethic groups were both gamers and supporters of GamerGater.The issue of censorship over GTA V is another cog to the issues that supporters of GamerGate rely behind.

This doesn't even cover all the facts and issues of GamerGate. It is complex and worth of several months of issues. You are trying to reduce this subject to two issue and seem to be creating a My Way or the Highway fallacy out of it. That is dishonest in my opinion.

I also believe, in my opinion, you should heavy edit your post to reflect your lack of knowledge and simpfilication of the issue, or remove your post till after you done more research.

Out of curiosity, are you the Jonathan Taylor that spoke at KSU? I am watching that Youtube speech right now and noticed your name was jtaylor.

Your definition of a lie seems to have shifted and you're just being ridiculous. You're going out of your way to find a definition that can paint me as a liar, which is really unfortunate.

We can disagree on how GamerGate started, that's fine. I really don't think it matters if gamers started GamerGate or if Adam Baldwin did and then gamers took a hold of the term to protect gaming from feminism. To be honest, I'm more interested in the guts of the issues, where up to this point you seem more interested in trying to paint me as a liar and discredit me with trivial things such as if Adam Baldwin created GamerGate and then have gamers adopt it or if gamers created it themselves. All too often when I try to talk real issues with people on here the conversation gets reduced to this trivial petty crap.

I think the crossroad has been moved a bit, but we're definitely still having issues with communication. You are thinking about ideas and ideas only. I'm thinking about people. You are worried about things like crushing the ideology of Feminism, but I'm trying to talk about how to reach the people who believe in the ideology, and people who don't believe in the ideology but identify with the ideology.

I really hope you aren't the speaker at KSU, because even Paul Elam said that changing the dialogue was important. You don't seem interested in dialogue or communication. You seem interested in right and wrong of ideology.

This is a major mistake on your part IMO. Something like 97% of scientists believe global warming exists at least partially due to human activities. Only about 50% of the American public believes global warming exists at least partially due to human activities. This shows that if all you care about is ideology you won't effectively communicate with people, because communication and dialogue is about much more than right and wrong ideas.

I haven't change my definition of lying, just counter that because you claim you are not purposely giving false or misleading information that you aren't. Actually you are purposely giving false or misleading information, which is what I defined as lying.

I am hung up on details, because GamerGate cover several issues spanning months. Yes it is important to know how GamerGate started because that leads to Quinnspiracy and the Young Capitalist which is why Adam Baldwin tweeted using #GamerGate in the first place.

As with every debate you have to be aware of all the issues and facts trying to sway opinion, but you refuse to admit you know little to nothing about what you are writing about. If you were a journalist I would write you editor about how you failed to do research and fact check.

Stop hiding behind claiming that you only want to offer a olive branch to feminist on one issue you feel they have correct. Especially since the debate is more than just that one issue.

[–]atheist4thecause-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

1) Did you ever notice how much you like to talk about me?

2) You stating that you are right doesn't make you right.

3) On the Adam Baldwin thing, okay. I don't see how it matters because the result is the same about gamers ending up with the GamerGate term.

4) How am I hiding? Ironically, I asked you if you were the speaker at KSU and you didn't answer. Who's hiding?

5) How did I claim that I am only offering an olive branch? By talking about communication and dialogue? Again, you talk about being "correct". You absolutely cannot get over ideology and think about how to communicate with the people that hold that ideology.

I've come to realize that a lot of this is about being anti-feminist and ego. I bow out leaving those reading this with what I've already stated. I see no gain from continuing communication with you on this topic.

1) Since one of my purposes became to defend how my opinion of you lying is correct, yes quoting you and speaking of you purpose is necessary. I don't know you nor spoke of who or not who you are. I guess I only spoken of your post and my opinion that you are lying.

2) Never stated I was right, actually I stated

This doesn't even cover all the facts and issues of GamerGate. It is complex and worth of several months of issues.

Which was to point out that I nor you knew the whole story.

3) That's your opinion. It still shows you don't know how GamerGate started nor all the issues involved, which is my overall theme or my side of discussion.

4) I don't have to answer that question, because who I am or not has no concern on my opinion of your post. That is called an ad hominem fallacy. Before you state I am doing the same fallacy, I like to point out that most of my post has been on you integrity.

5) You claim you want communication and dialogue, and to work with feminist against GamerGate. That is wanting to extend an oliver branch is it or not. I never posted how I felt about this idea, and yet you posed I was against, and still do.

You absolutely cannot get over ideology and think about how to communicate with the people that hold that ideology.

This is not what I been against you in this post. I have stated repeatily that you dishonestly represented the facts of GamerGate to sway unknowing MRAs. I have repeatily presented facts of the issues of GamerGate to show that you lack knowledge of the issues involved.

I stand by my opinion that you should heavily edit your post to reflect your lack of knowledge or remove it completely.

Title	GamerGate -- The Great Trap MRA's Need to Avoid
Author	atheist4thecause
Upvotes	0
Comments	32
Date	December 8, 2014 7:04 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/2omk49/gamergate-the-great-trap-mras-need-to-avoid/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/gamergate-the-great-trap-mras-need-to-avoid.1623698 https://theredarchive.com/post/1623698

Comments