Those people would probably say that it’s because Alexander is a known shit-stirrer and that the average gamer couldn’t pick Dan Golding out of a lineup even if he was surrounded by four albino midgets.
And those people wouldn’t technically be wrong, but it’s still not the real reason why SHE was targeted instead of HIM.
Perhaps rather than googling things, you should actually spend time reading what people say. I already admitted my comment was based on the inaccurate summary made in this thread. Part of that was in the very sentence you chose to quote.
Both of my posts about the game say I was discussing the game as described in this thread. Because that’s what was important. The game was being defended because it misled people and made them feel bad. As such, it was a horrible defense of a type of game that should exist, despite not being fun.
What the game is actually like was unimportant, as it was not what I was discussing.
Dude, come on. You constantly called Brenda Romero “he” or “him” even though she was mentioned by name in the post that first talked about Train. If you misread that, it’s pretty likely that you misread (and misunderstood) everything else everyone was saying.
I would guess that the primary reason is because attacking a “she” gets you a bigger reaction than attacking a “him” and seeing the big reaction is a major motivator for the sort of people who send Twitter threats.
I know exactly what you did–a piss-poor reading of the posts in the thread, coupled with no independent research, leading to a sanctimonious condemnation of the game. I know that because I read the words you say. As for your defense of your actions based on not researching independently or reading carefully, you come across as an idiot.
Yes, obviously. I guess that’s what I get for trying to be clever.
Heh, I assumed you meant “Because they hate women”. My mistake. I tend to assume that most of these things are less about hating women specifically and more sociopathic behavior in general and aiming for the soft targets when throwing rocks at the hornet’s nest.
This isn’t an excuse or good thing of course: “Hey, he threatened a woman with rape to troll the internet but at least he’s more of a sociopath than a misogynist!”
…it isn’t just “twitter threats.” Its Golding’s near complete absence from the Gamergate narrative. How many advertisers were threatened with boycotts because of what Golding wrote? The response to the two articles could not have been more different. Gamergate harassment isn’t just about a few trolls pushing for a reaction. You’ve been in this thread long enough to have figured that out by now.
Golding’s post was on Tumblr, wasn’t it? As opposed to being published on a gaming site?
Correct me if I’m wrong here because the place I saw it referenced and linked to was on Tumblr.
Correct: Dan Golding’s Tumblr
As much as Leigh Alexander got harassed and viciously attacked because she was woman, it would be disingenuous not to admit that at least part of the disproportionate reaction is because Golding is a nobody.
Above and beyond that, threatening a gaming web site that supposedly has some sort of editorial process with boycotting advertisers seems to make a lot more sense than threatening an independently run Tumblr page with the same. Who do you threaten with a boycott when you see a Tumblr posting you dislike?
Expecting equal reactions seems disingenuous.
I don’t know if ‘hate’ is the right word, but there is definitely a lot of fear and mistrust of women, and attributing malevolent motivation to them. Also some guys who really want women to go away. Feminist women, in particular.
If Alexander had written the tumblr piece, and Golding had written for Gamasutra, I think she still would have gotten all the negative attention. They would just have to have come up with a different cover-story.
…your entire response is disingenuous. It is obvious you can’t possibly contemplate more than a single example, so feel free to explore the different range of responses that both Alexander and Golding received in response to their articles. It isn’t just about twitter threats and it isn’t just about boycotts. Its about Golding’s near complete absence from the Gamergate narrative.
Do you know who else is a “nobody?”
Zoe Quinn. An indie developer, who developed a free game about depression. Being a nobody is obviously not a super immunity to gamergate harassment. And Jophiel suggests that “reacting” makes you a bigger target: yet Chris Kluwe “reacted” more than anyone and apart from a few harsh words in response he has been largely ignored. And he can continue to speak out against gamergate without fear. In contrast we all know what happened to Felicity Day after she posted the most gentle of blog posts in which she talked about her fear of speaking out, and how she has chosen not to speak out about since.
Do you know why I called you a “pathetic passive aggressive gamergate apologist” Jophiel? Its because you keep posting shit like this. Its pathetic. Its passive aggressive, and you are constantly apologising for the gamergate movement. There is no rational or excusable reason for why Quinn, Alexander and Sarkeesian have been targeted and singled out by gamergate. Quinn and Sarkeesian are not journalists. They have all been outspoken, but so has Chris Kluwe. If you can’t see that the response has been disproportionate, then I can only suggest you aren’t looking hard enough.
Congratulations. I think you’ve proven that you just skipped like the last five pages of this thread. We’re on to a serious discussion now. Arguing about who is and who isn’t getting harassed is done in this thread. We’ve moved past that because Gamergaters have made it clear that anyone with a vagina is the enemy. We get that and now we’re talking about what happened and the idea that games are more than just ACTION EXPLOSIONS AND TITS.
…what the hell are you talking about?
:rolleyes:
“How come this guy isn’t getting ad boycotts!?”
“Because he isn’t publishing on an ad supported site?”
“You’re disingenuous!”
Right then. You sure told me.
…Its a shame that you can’t be bothered responding to my entire post (hint: “Its Golding’s near complete absence from the Gamergate narrative.”) rather than just cherry picking an obviously rhetorical question.
Yeah, that was already responded to. He’s lesser known, gets less of a reaction from trolling due to his gender and his posting wasn’t on a gaming site but on Tumblr. I’ll also add that, having read both, his post seemed much less inflammatory than Alexander’s opening salvo that gaming culture doesn’t exist except for socially malformed mouthbreathers in Pikachu hats buying the latest games like sheep and speaking in memes. It doesn’t surprise me at all that Alexander’s post would create more ire, especially considering that she was presumably paid to write it (versus some dope with a Tumblr blog).
Look, you’re the one who asked the question. That you need to backpedal now and pretend that it was “rhetorical” just because you couldn’t come up with anything better than “Why aren’t people ad boycotting him?” isn’t really my problem.
…except of course, she didn’t say what you claimed she said. She did say this though:
“‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences.”
And based on everything that has happened over the last two months, this observation is entirely correct. When people can both argue for ethics in gaming journalism and for the halt of subjective game reviews that give low scores because of “politics” (so that the game developer doesn’t loose money, believe it or not!) in the same breath: it is pretty obvious these guys don’t know how the real world works. And they are oblivious to the real world consequences of their actions.
The point is there is plenty of things they could have gone after. They could have gone after his festival. They could have gone after his relationships with the media outlets he works with. They could have gone after Press Select.
The salient point, that seems to have sailed over your head, is that they didn’t do any of those things. Both of them wrote nearly identical articles, addressing similar (but different themes), both articles inspired a similar set of articles written by other authors in a very small time frame which became the basis of yet another gamergate conspiracy theory. Yet one person was subjected to a torrent of abuse in many different forms, and the other has been quietly ignored.
Here is one of the Gamergate boycott lists:
http://makealist.com/content/quinngategamergate-boycott-list
They’ve included things like the Neogaf forums and Something Awful. They are going after people who slept with Zoe Quinn. They are going after mainstream publications like the New Yorker and Salon. Golding doesn’t merit a mention. Are they going after men and women? Absolutely. Are the responses the men are getting the same as what the women have experienced? Absolutely not.
Can everyone that wants to jump into this thread and shout at all of us about how everyone here somehow supports Gamergate please just not do that…
Banquet Bear, you’re making a fool of yourself. There are no Gamergaters here. And if I say Gamergaters didn’t go after Golding because he is a man who is a nobody (even though I pretty heavily implied it a few replies back and everyone else seems to have understood), will you drop your tirade and let the adults get back to talking?