Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

[salm]

Is it of systematic nature? Systematic implies that there´s some entity behind the threats/attacks coordinating them.

The word "terrorism" is a rather ambiguous term. In fact, so ambiguous that different federal institutions within the same country use different definitions for it.

On the other hand, call it what you like. I´ve been of the opinion that the word "terrorism" has been watered down to mean everything and nothing in the last one or two decades for years.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Ah, so the Oklahoma City Bombing wasn't a terrorist attack because it was a one-off thing.

[salm]

Ah, so the Oklahoma City Bombing wasn't a terrorist attack because it was a one-off thing.

I don´t know much about the motivations and background of this bombing but that would be the case. At least if you use Websters definition of Terrorism.

[salm]

Look, I don´t want to talk violence/threats/whatevers on feminists or anybody else down. It just seems obvious to me why some people would not describe something like this as terrorism.

[Metahive]

So, Anders Behring Breivik's massacre wasn't of a terrorist nature because he did it by himself? How many people have to be behind terrorist threats and attacks before you accept it as genuine and "systemic" (where'd you get that from anyway)? Five? Fifteen? A hundred?

Yes, terrorism has been abused to gratuitously describe actions that might not fit the label, but you'll notice that this only ever happens if the suspected perpetrators are brown people and/or Muslims. Acts by white people almost never get labeled as terrorism no matter how much they might qualify. Don't tell me that you haven't noticed this trend either.

[salm]

I got this definition from here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent;

But like mentioned before it´s an increadibly ambiguous term.

[Broomstick]

Going public with it in the way that they've been doing it is getting people on both sides riled up

This gets back to "how dare crime victims complain about being targeted". It translates to sit down, shut up, and don't make waves. Basically, you don't want to be bothered hearing about other peoples' problems large or small.

When other online personalities get these threats, why do you think they don't deal with it the same way? Why do you think people like Total Biscuit, The Nostalgia Critic, the AVGN aren't making a big deal about the hate mail and specific threats they get on a daily basis? You know they must be getting them because channels smaller than them are getting them, so why isn't it news when somebody threatens, say, the Amazing Atheist saying they know his home address?

You're assuming these other people are being treated like the women in "gamergate", you don't actually know that as a fact and you have no evidence that they're being treated the same.

Why do people like Marilyn Manson play shows that they've gotten threats for (specifically Manson's show in Columbine) yet Sarkeesian is too afraid to speak? Does it not seem odd that a woman claiming women don't need knights and who claims to be fighting on principles has less conviction than a shock rock performer?

Marilyn Manson probably has a shit ton more resources to buy security for his shows than Sarkeesian does. Marilyn Manson is able to impose security on his shows to the level he desires, as opposed to the university in question which threw up its hands and said we can't do anything to protect you.

Yes; and the steps in question are legal action, with very real potential legal consequences for the person you are trying to protect yourself against.

The point is, harassment isn't a zero-consequence activity for the victim. And it damned sure shouldn't be a zero-consequence activity for the harasser.

Yet it is. The fact of the matter is even IRL the police won't do shit for harassment, if they did the paparazzi wouldn't be a thing.

That's largely because the papparazzi know exactly what the law is and put some effort into not stepping over it, and as a general rule the papparazzi are not making threats or carrying out violence on the people they photograph. You really can't see the difference between snapping photos in the bushes vs. making death threats and leaving dead things in mailboxes?

People are, to some degree, still expected to fend for themselves in this world. If Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian want to be equals and want to get shit done maybe they should just act rather than making sure they are seen acting.

In other words, the girls should tolerate misogyny if they want to leave off being barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen. And those black folks just need to man up and tolerate hearing n***** if they want to have real jobs. You don't see the problem because you're sitting there smug in your priviledged cocoon.

This is like... flamingly blatant blaming-the-victim. It's HER fault that she complains about grossly illegal and threatening actions, how DARE she speak up and expect people to care what's happening to her?

So why doesn't every person on the internet who's ever received a specific and targeted threat react this way? Could it perhaps be that throwing gas at fire doesn't tend to make less fire?

Few people bullied on the internet have the sort of platform to speak from that Quinn and Sarkeesian do. In any case, why should victims remain silent about being victimized? Do we tell victims of muggings they shouldn't talk about it.?

It's taking the one thing that did happen, the one worth standing on, to the end in a way that engenders respect in those you are trying to influence. These women are doing nothing to win over those that hate them and the shit storm around this is causing people outside of it to look at both sides as idiots (or it would if the media was reporting the dumb shit that both sides are doing).

The bullies attempting to victimize these women don't want to be won over they want to utterly suppress these women, to silence them. Again, do we tell victims of muggings that they need to "win over" the muggers so it won't happen again?

When did I saw it was? Where did I ever say that these women deserved this or that the other side has a leg to stand on? Both sides have a large share of assholes. The difference is one side is a faceless blob that won't stop until it gets bored and the other side is public figures with an agenda to push.

The "faceless blob" won't stop when it's bored, it will stop when the targets are both silenced and discredited. You don't get it. You so totally don't get it.

An often unwarranted and false fear. I could equally develop a fear of unwanted assault, after all the stats say it happens to more men than women.

Stats say 3 out of 4 women will be a victim of some form of sexual assault in her lifetime. You call that a false fear?

I could also say that I've been involved in a drunk alley fight that I wanted no part of but the other person did. Does that mean I should be spreading the word about drunken alley fights and advising men to carry a drunken alley fight kit? Should that color my view of alleys or people that stand in them at night? Should I take to twitter about unwanted nighttime assaults?

Why not? Why not discuss how to avoid drunken alley fights, advise others to avoid them, and talk about how to avoid other unwanted night time assaults? Isn't that a more rational approach than remaining silent? Or don't you think problems should be addressed?

Face it Broomstick, out of all the men you know, how many of them do you believe are rapists, molesters, or abusers of women?

Well, let's see... the asshole who tried to rape me in my back yard, the boyfriend who hit me hard enough to propel me across a room and into a wall, the group of young men who chased me through much of Rogers Park, Chicago describing in rather graphic detail what they were going to do with me once they caught me (which, fortunately, they didn't), the man who VERY strongly INSISTED on "helping" me carry my groceries home, to the point of prying the bags out of my hand and would not stop following me until had a male acquaintance intervene, my best friend's father who admitted to child molesting/rape, the man at the Wisconsin flying field I used to be based at who was convicted of child rape, the man who lived next door to us in Warren, Michigan who we could hear beating his wife through the walls of the apartment building, the in-law who in all seriousness asked my husband how often he hit me to keep me in my place, the client of the contractor I used to work for who bragged about keeping his wife in line with his fists and one afternoon I overheard advising his son on how to use violence to keep his daughter obedient and submissive... how long do you want this post to be?

It's not something I deal with every day but it most certainly is something I have personal experience with.

Now apply that number to the population at large and realize that as bad as the stats are, you needn't fear every male who has a few inches and pounds on you. You simply need to be ready for the ones that aren't so civilized.

No, of course I don't fear every man. I like men and most are, in fact, decent human beings and quite a few will come to the defense of others. The problem is the ones who aren't, which are a fuckton more common than you seem to realize. If I had to estimate I'd say between 1 in 20 to 1 in 10 are a problem. And I count the ones, like the Wisconsin child molester/rapist, who don't direct their violence at me because I give a damn about other people, especially little girls 6 or 7 years old forced to sexually service their creeper uncle.

Great, so I'm expected to be a vigilante now because some people can't fight back as well as I can? Why am I not allowed to just call the cops and wait for the pros to arrive?

Who says you're not allowed to call the cops? Isn't that how you're supposed to "get involved"? Call the pros and let them handle it.

I live next to a problem bar. The police have advised us to call them rather than confront anyone ourselves. They also made it clear that if we are directly attacked we have every right to defend ourselves, even with lethal force if that's necessary. That's way different than getting physically involved in someone else's fight. They've given that advice to our landlord as well, who is physically much stronger and more capable than any of his tenants here and normally carries a .45 on his person. Funny, the landlord actually adheres to that - he's not afraid of a fight, I think he sort of enjoys them on a certain level, but he doesn't make a special effort to seek them out, either.

I'm no hero I backed out of joining the military specifically because my fight or flight is set firmly on flee. So why should I get to deal with people saying 'oh look at him he should have stepped in' when I'm not suited to fighting?

Fighting isn't the only way to intervene or deal with violence.

So you're saying that you feel that having the police doubt you were acting in self defense is as bad a problem as getting raped?

It can be. If you get prosecuted for hurting someone who was trying to rape or kill you and wind up in jail for a bunch of years yes, it can be as bad as getting raped.

I realize that's heresy for some people but that's how I see it.

If you wanted to find a specifically male problem as bad as being raped you likely won't find one, but that isn't because rape is uniquely terrible. How is, outside of the stigma and gender issues attached to it, getting violently raped (without pregnancy afterwards) that much different than getting violently beaten? In both cases you were overwhelmed and limited in your ability to fight back. In both cases your body was violently violated. In both cases the attacker held power over you. Yet one is a big media issue and the other is battery.

To start, you're more likely to get an incurable and possibly fatal disease from actual rape than from "merely" being beaten with fists. Even without it being fatal, getting an STD from an assault sucks.

Second, you can actually say that in a world where, in some places, women can be executed for being raped because it was sex outside of marriage? Even in the west, there is still a strong tendency to blame the victim, say she was asking for it or deserved it. There is still a long-term stigma in many communities. Oh, and getting mugged is unlikely to interfere with your ability to enjoy sex for years at a time but that does happen to some rape victims.

How many rapes have happened that can be linked to #gamergate thus far? How many violent assaults? How many shootings?

I don't know - do you? Have you even looked into the matter? Maybe there have been. Of course, with your feeling that the victim should shut the hell up and not discuss it how would you ever know?

That aside - it is, in fact, illegal to threaten people even if violence is not involved.

Has anybody found proof that the person who had a threat had the means and will to carry it out?

I thought that it was found one of the people making the threats did, in fact, have access to weapons capable of doing the job. If that is true, yes, they had the means. That the university was either unwilling or unable to assure the audience was unarmed is also a warning flag as I see it.

It didn't happen at other events where people received threats and carried on anyway, what are the chances it would have actually happened in this case? Should controversial figures just not hold public events in Utah these days or what?

Have you been to a "public event" lately? Have you ever walked through a metal detector? Part of the objection to the Utah event was that the university was NOT going to take such steps to ensure safety.

[Thanas]

I'll bet you dollars for donuts the guy will not get jailed for terrorism, but for making death threats.

[salm]

Yes, terrorism has been abused to gratuitously describe actions that might not fit the label, but you'll notice that this only ever happens if the suspected perpetrators are brown people and/or Muslims. Acts by white people almost never get labeled as terrorism no matter how much they might qualify. Don't tell me that you haven't noticed this trend either.

Actually the members of European terror organizations usually get labled as terroists. And they consist mainly of white men and women.

[Siege]

Anders Breivik was convicted of terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was not. I'm not sure why not, I don't much care what charges they slap on these abusive fucksticks threatening rape and murder either as long as they get some hard time to ponder the idiocy and consequences of their actions.

[Elheru Aran]

McVeigh was convicted of using a weapon of mass destruction, explosives, and first-degree murder. I'm not sure if the broad term of 'terrorism' exists as a legal crime in the States, I think we tend to go for the actual deed (blowing people up in McVeigh's case) rather than the objective or motive (terrorism).

I could certainly be wrong, though...

[Siege]

The FBI helpfully provides the definitions of terrorism in U.S. law. It definitely is easier to prove an act than a motivation though, that is a fair point. And when the prosecution has enough to put a perpetrator away for multiple consecutive life sentences and doesn't want to drag the trial out unnecessarily I could see how it might be preferable to just not bother with an additional terrorism charge.

Looking at the statute as the FBI quotes it I imagine that threatening to shoot up a meeting because one doesn't like the speaker firmly qualifies as "intending to intimidate or coerce a civilian population". Then again if it's easier to beat these jackasses down with another law, then as far as I'm concerned by all means proceed with all due dispatch.

[Simon_Jester]

Going public with it in the way that they've been doing it is getting people on both sides riled up...

When you have received dozens of such threats, not just one or two? Is a person not somehow within their rights to seek support from their social group when being persistently threatened by a small army of people from another social group?

If somebody came to your house trying to creep on you and moments after the police left you posted about in on facebook and moments after that people on your friends list started harassing the person. How much sympathy do you think the police would have for you the second and third times you called them?

I don't know; it depends on whether they threaten to kill me over and over?

See, perhaps you don't quite get this, but blaming the victim of a crime is bad. I can explain this in more depth but you have to be willing to listen about it.

Trying to diffuse the responsibility away from the criminal onto the victim's reaction to the crime is insane.

Why do people like Marilyn Manson play shows that they've gotten threats for (specifically Manson's show in Columbine) yet Sarkeesian is too afraid to speak? Does it not seem odd that a woman claiming women don't need knights and who claims to be fighting on principles has less conviction than a shock rock performer?

Marilyn Manson can afford bodyguards and Sarkeesian can't? Marilyn Manson has long experience getting threats from psycho fans and has a reasonable way to predict how many of them are serious and Sarkeesian doesn't?

I mean, we could apply the same logic in reverse by asking, if the President of the United States has a whole government agency responsible for tracking down random people who even publicly contemplate attacking the president and charging them with felonies... why can't Sarkeesian bitch about specific, personal, brutal threats to her safety on Facebook? That strikes me as quite restrained by comparison to the Secret Service's attitude.

Again, you seem to be arguing that as soon as a person becomes slightly famous, there should be ZERO consequences and ZERO recourse if they get insane, irrational threats and harassment. Because, well, they're supposed to just shrug it off and be quiet, because obviously nothing is wrong, and obviously no one actually wants to kill you, even if they said so, repeatedly, while leaving dead animals in your mailbox and making random calls threatening to rape your relatives.

So why doesn't every person on the internet who's ever received a specific and targeted threat react this way? Could it perhaps be that throwing gas at fire doesn't tend to make less fire?

Does she not have a right to complain?

I mean, if a gang threatens me, and I complain to the police, and the gang disapproves and beats me up... am I somehow "pouring gasoline on a fire" by complaining to the police rather than just complying with the gang's orders?

You seem to be saying that if I try to blackmail or threaten you into silencing yourself or performing certain actions, you should be expected to let me get away with it, rather than make waves by complaining about my conduct, because complaining about me might make it worse.

Credibility is a basic survival tool. <snipped for length>

So yes, this is a very real issue, that women feel (with reason) that they can openly complain about violence and abuse directed against them, and no one will notice, or they will be told to shut up because obviously nothing is really wrong. And then all the men around them will be shocked, shocked on the occasions where one of the violent creeps actually does rape or murder the woman who was trying to complain.

The way to build up credibility isn't through volume of calls, it isn't complaining every time a thing happens. It's taking the one thing that did happen, the one worth standing on, to the end in a way that engenders respect in those you are trying to influence. These women are doing nothing to win over those that hate them and the shit storm around this is causing people outside of it to look at both sides as idiots (or it would if the media was reporting the dumb shit that both sides are doing).[/quote]You missed the point again.

Women should not HAVE to "build up" credibility. They should not HAVE to somehow 'convince' you that it is a serious problem when someone threatens them with death. The only reason that women have to do this often in real life is that men tend to dismiss threats to women's safety, and treat women as though they are not "real people" whose concerns and needs are valid. So that when a man cries for help you assume it's serious, but when a woman cries for help you assume she's just being flighty and flaky.

This tendency is only starting to fade in the developed world now, over the past 30-40 years. And it still hasn't reached some people... like you.

Why is she more to blame for this than the aforementioned horde?

When did I saw it was? Where did I ever say that these women deserved this or that the other side has a leg to stand on? Both sides have a large share of assholes. The difference is one side is a faceless blob that won't stop until it gets bored and the other side is public figures with an agenda to push. Which side is going to have an easier time convincing its horde to de-escalate things?

You seem to be more concerned about ending the Internet flame war than you are about Sarkeesian's right to freedom of speech without receiving threats to her safety.

---

Face it Broomstick, out of all the men you know, how many of them do you believe are rapists, molesters, or abusers of women? Now apply that number to the population at large and realize that as bad as the stats are, you needn't fear every male who has a few inches and pounds on you. You simply need to be ready for the ones that aren't so civilized.

Except, you condescending pile of shit, that the only way for a woman to be ready for the 'few uncivilized' men is to practice a great deal of vigilance and paranoia.

She cannot know which men it's safe to be with in a dark stairwell or a slow-moving elevator, versus which men will get violent or disturbing. So either she methodically avoids everyone who might be a threat, or she risks getting hit by that threat whether she likes it or not.

And the fact that even I can see this, when I am not exactly a psychic expert at reading female minds, should really tip you off that you are showing a serious deficiency here.

There was a bullying ad made in my town that specifically targeted adult males not breaking up fights between teenagers. So don't give me that socially not really bullshit.

Did everyone in town automatically buy into that ad? Do people actually call you cowardly for not breaking up such fights?

Because "social pressure" isn't when you happen to remember one advertisment from three years ago that said to do X. It's when every day you have to do X or the people who actually know you and care about you will think less of you as a human being.

Great, so I'm expected to be a vigilante now because some people can't fight back as well as I can? Why am I not allowed to just call the cops and wait for the pros to arrive?

Well, you are- but then you should perhaps own up to the fact that whereas for you, backing out of fights is a CHOICE, for others it is a NECESSITY. They don't get to decide "well, I could get into this fight but I choose not to because I don't like fighting and it's scary." They have to decide to stay out of fights because if they actually get into a fight, then with nearly 100% probability it will end in an beating, a mugging, a rape, or even a murder.

So they're taking bigger risks than you are by even getting anywhere near the possiblity of a fight, even if you personally have wound up involved in such fights in the past.

Besides, I thought women want men to stop fighting battles for them.

I think an intelligent person would interpret this as "women want society to become a place where women can express themselves and operate as independent, autonomous adults, without needing male protectors to protect them from bigotry and brute force assaults by other males."

I can't see why this would ever be hard for any functioning human to understand.

So you're saying that you feel that having the police doubt you were acting in self defense is as bad a problem as getting raped?

Not exactly the same, but both can leave you with a social stigma attached to you and lead to long term issues. Both can also lead to added doubts about the capabilities of a system that should have protected you and failed. So while winning a fight in a way that caused legal troubles for you isn't even a tenth as horrific as being raped, it carries many of the same side effects at a much more limited scale.

If you wanted to find a specifically male problem as bad as being raped you likely won't find one, but that isn't because rape is uniquely terrible...

It is also common, in that it's happened to a large fraction of all women. If women didn't take precautions to avoid situations where it might happen to them, including some that are quite onerous, it would be very common.

How is, outside of the stigma and gender issues attached to it, getting violently raped (without pregnancy afterwards) that much different than getting violently beaten? In both cases you were overwhelmed and limited in your ability to fight back. In both cases your body was violently violated. In both cases the attacker held power over you. Yet one is a big media issue and the other is battery.

Are you perchance asexual?

If not, then surely you can grasp the idea that a violation which impacts your sexuality, your sense of yourself as a sexual being, might be more serious than a violation which impacts, say, your shoulder.

She can talk all she wants, it's her right. However it's not actually helping her cause the way she thinks it is. This won't end internet harassment or cyber bullying, nor will it be the thing that takes feminism over the top, it might get some people talking but even that has an equal chance of people reacting to this as I have. If she wants to get her message out, let this pass, and get you story out when it isn't being overshadow by a gong show that you're fans are helping propagate. Don't try to milk these threats to squeeze a few more seconds from this 15 minutes of fame.

And of course, complaining about her reaction takes precedence in your mind over complaining about the crime itself. Again, this is what I mean. Basically, you seem more bothered by the fact that Sarkeesian is an "uppity" woman who refuses to suffer silently than you are by the fact that Sarkeesian was being threatened with death, rape, and beatings by people who knew her home address before she started acting "uppity."

Has anybody found proof that the person who had a threat had the means and will to carry it out?

The means to carry it out are trivially available in most of the United States to any citizen with a normal level of resources. The will to carry it out is not measurable.

When it comes to threats, we don't ask "did this person have the will to go through with it" before charging them with, for example, assault.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I got this definition from here:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective. It has been used throughout history by political organizations of both the left and the right, by nationalist and ethnic groups, and by revolutionaries. Although usually thought of as a means of destabilizing or overthrowing existing political institutions, terror also has been employed by governments against their own people to suppress dissent;

But like mentioned before it´s an increadibly ambiguous term.

A more useful part of the definition for you to be arguing here is the bit about destabilizing or overthrowing political institutions.

[Broomstick]

Anders Breivik was convicted of terrorism. Timothy McVeigh was not. I'm not sure why not, I don't much care what charges they slap on these abusive fucksticks threatening rape and murder either as long as they get some hard time to ponder the idiocy and consequences of their actions.

Given that McVeigh was given a sentence of death that has since been carried out, whether or not he was a terrorist is sort of academic at this point. I think that the year in which he committed his crimes was a factor. Post 9/11, I think he'd have been labeled a domestic terrorist.

(Personally, I consider him a terrorist but I'm pretty powerless.)

[GuppyShark]

If #gamergate were actually about 'journalistic integrity' (which is hilarious considering we are talking about video game reviews) they would have been going after, you know, the journalists? And the publications that employ them?

Yet for some reason the only names that come up are women who are not the ones writing video game reviews.... #uncoveredmeat

[Vendetta]

If #gamergate were actually about 'journalistic integrity' (which is hilarious considering we are talking about video game reviews) they would have been going after, you know, the journalists? And the publications that employ them?

And the PR agencies which attempt to control the media message about their product by refusing to release review codes unless the recipient agrees to a paid promotional deal where they can only show positive things about the game (which happened with the PC version of Shadow of Mordor). Or the fact that videogames journalism as a whole is structurally broken, an entire arm of the business (previews) consists of nothing more than regurgitating press releases (hence why previews all read the same), and reviews often lack intellectual rigour and critical thought about the game.

But they're not talking about any of that, because that's not their definition of "ethics". Their definition of ethics is apparently "no feminist critique ever". Because that's a biased agenda (and people trying to mislead them into buying products isn't).

Gamergate was intentionally astroturfed into existence by people close to the original abuse of Zoe Quinn as a smokescreen, and has been taken up by a horde of useful idiots who can sell the lie that it's "about ethics" without ever doing anything to campaign for real ethics (because they're too busy explaining that it's about ethics not abuse of women to do anything about ethics).

It's all very much like how the Tea Party was astroturfed into existence by lobbyists for corporate interest (particularly the health insurance industry).

[Jub]

Simon et al. instead of making more quote spaghetti here let me try clarifying my point and asking a question. We might still not understand each other after that, but at least it'll save another volley of quotes.

My position on the issue is that currently the signal to noise ratio is very low with static drowning out feminists, SJWs, those members of gamergate who actually care about ethics in journalism, and pretty much every other good point that this even could have. Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are, if not directly and purposefully, contributing to this white noise and, on some channels, drowning out their own worthy message. I have no issue with what they have to say or why they want changes made to the way society treats women. I have an issue with how they and those that follow them are going about it and I'm unsure if they're trying to stop this and simply don't know how best to deal with things or if they want this to keep going so they get to stay on the soapbox.

I do know that a person such as Total Biscuit will often have good advice to give on topics such as these and, given that he's got better things to do than kick hornet's nests, I don't think he's trying to stir up a shit storm by saying that the best way to deal with threats is go to the proper authorities and not make them public. My desire is to see these women stop making themselves targets in the near term so that, in a few months or weeks, when this all dies down, they can get their message out via clearer channels. I don't see them getting anywhere by trying to swim up stream and neither do other internet celebrities who have been through this type of situation before.

I must also ask if you would be as forceful in your stance if these were white men of status being attacked in this fashion, or if the fact that they are women colors how you view this event? I myself don't see this as a gender issue, because these sorts of threats also happen to males, instead I see one side striving to make it a gender issue and the other side simply using this new angle as another attack vector. The thing that is keeping this going is that both sides seem to like the attention they're getting from it. The issue is that while one side has clearly defined key figures, the other lacks any form of leadership and thus has nobody credible (to them) to get them to stop. Thus if the women truly want this to end they are in a better position to influence things towards that end than any single or even large plurality of the 4chan/reddit/MRA side of things can ever have.

Now, might I ask you where you see this ending up if both sides continue on as they have been? What do you think the final outcome will be if neither side gets bored and goes home and this drags on into the new year?

[Vendetta]

My desire is to see these women stop making themselves targets in the near term so that, in a few months or weeks, when this all dies down, they can get their message out via clearer channels.

Maybe you should remind yourself what happened when Anita Sarkeesian so much as announced the kickstarter for a web series offering feminist critique of videogames.

Oh right, it was a massive shitstorm of abuse and harrassment, mostly with a deeply sexual tone.

As soon as anyone tries to speak about that kind of issue the noise happens, there is no such thing as "clearer channels", because there are people absolutely dedicated to rendering them unclear, and GamerGate are their patsies, unknowingly recruited to raise a false spectre of "teh ethics" and deny that GamerGate is about misogyny.

[Jub]

My desire is to see these women stop making themselves targets in the near term so that, in a few months or weeks, when this all dies down, they can get their message out via clearer channels.

Maybe you should remind yourself what happened when Anita Sarkeesian so much as announced the kickstarter for a web series offering feminist critique of videogames.

Oh right, it was a massive shitstorm of abuse and harrassment, mostly with a deeply sexual tone.

As soon as anyone tries to speak about that kind of issue the noise happens, there is no such thing as "clearer channels", because there are people absolutely dedicated to rendering them unclear, and GamerGate are their patsies, unknowingly recruited to raise a false spectre of "teh ethics" and deny that GamerGate is about misogyny.

Part of the issue is that Sarkessian's analysis of video game culture comes across as shaming men rather than empowering women. She could focus on the cool women in games, yet she instead focuses on their negative depictions. You won't get anywhere if you're alienating those that you need to convert.

[Vendetta]

No, that's not part of the issue, because the toxic response happened before she released a single video.

The toxic response was to her announcing the video series and asking for crowdfunding.

The response was not to the content of her videos, it was to the mere prospect of their existence.

And even if it was, the response didn't have any pertinent criticism of her previous videos, there was a massive ad hominem campaign aimed at silencing the critic not addressing the criticism.

So no, there aren't "clearer channels", there are a bunch of mewling pissbabies who can't cope with any criticism and so they don't address the content of it or even wait for it to happen, they mount campaigns of abuse and hatred against the critic to either silence them or distract the argument. (Also PS: Try and find any arguments against TvW that aren't massive strawmen which miss the point that the individual examples are not under criticism but the context which the prevalence of those examples cause. If they're about the arguments at all and not the source of the backing video).

[Jub]

No, that's not part of the issue, because the toxic response happened before she released a single video.

The toxic response was to her announcing the video series and asking for crowdfunding.

The response was not to the content of her videos, it was to the mere prospect of their existence.

And even if it was, the response didn't have any pertinent criticism of her previous videos, there was a massive ad hominem campaign aimed at silencing the critic not addressing the criticism.

So no, there aren't "clearer channels", there are a bunch of mewling pissbabies who can't cope with any criticism and so they don't address the content of it or even wait for it to happen, they mount campaigns of abuse and hatred against the critic to either silence them or distract the argument. (Also PS: Try and find any arguments against TvW that aren't massive strawmen which miss the point that the individual examples are not under criticism but the context which the prevalence of those examples cause. If they're about the arguments at all and not the source of the backing video).

I'd like to see her message get out and achieve the goal of getting better female characters in video games and increasing the respect for women overall. Given what I'm starting to see about this issue, and honestly I haven't looked as deeply into the roots of this as others may have, I'm not sure what else she can try except maybe trying to get a person that the mewling crowd respects on her side. As its stands her message isn't getting out and doing more of the same likely won't increase the levels of positive reception much.

[Vendetta]

, I'm not sure what else she can try except maybe trying to get a person that the mewling crowd respects on her side. As its stands her message isn't getting out and doing more of the same likely won't increase the levels of positive reception much.

Functionally that's "I'm not sure what she can try except not being a woman".

From the pissbabies nothing will increase the postive reception, but by speaking up in spite of their pissbaby antics then maybe the message will reach the people it needs to (which are actually the people who make games and can actually affect the content).

[Jub]

, I'm not sure what else she can try except maybe trying to get a person that the mewling crowd respects on her side. As its stands her message isn't getting out and doing more of the same likely won't increase the levels of positive reception much.

Functionally that's "I'm not sure what she can try except not being a woman".

From the pissbabies nothing will increase the postive reception, but by speaking up in spite of their pissbaby antics then maybe the message will reach the people it needs to (which are actually the people who make games and can actually affect the content).

Perhaps, as much as may gall her to do so, she might want to try reaching out to channels and content creators that embrace the male gaze and see if she can get a civil discussion going with them. Some people will still be butt hurt over it, but I suspect she might win over a few fans if she comes off as inviting rather than preachy. It might also fail for a myriad of reasons, but it seems worth a shot.

[Vendetta]

But why should she do so instead of producing her own content espousing her own views?

Trick question, she shouldn't. She should have done exactly what she has done and anyone who was willing to have a civil discussion could have gone to her.

Except it turns out that we can't have a civil discussion because of mewling pissbabies who resent critique of videogames as if it's a personal attack and so respond with actual personal attacks in the form of ad hominem, threats, and harrassment.

Now, some people like to say that there are "extremists on both sides", but really, if the extremists on one side are saying "maybe videogames could do women better" and the ones on the other side are saying "I will rape you to death and murder you and here is your address" then I am not sure you can draw equivalence.