Is #GamerGate misogyny posing as concern for ethics?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Also, our stories/media etc are not just a reflection of our culture. We have to learn our culture from somewhere, and that is most often the various stories we tell, our art , literature etc. Art is created by our dominant culture, but also reinforces it, and can change it.

To put it in short form. Acceptance of gay people goes up when there are more gay characters in widely consumed literature/media. You cannot get said gay characters in said media until there is a certain critical mass of support, but that critical mass is not very high.

[Wild Zontargs]

That IS censorship. Saying that we "as a culture" should decide what "we" want to do implies that there exists such a thing as a single monolithic culture we can all agree on. And that is as you so nicely put it bullshit.

No moron. Censorship comes from the top-down. Not from the people involved being convinced that they dont want to do it anymore. Is it censorship for me to be convinced by an argument that the Dachau Rape Machine in Cthulhutech is fucked up, and thus I do not wish to have anything to do with Cthulhutech? Or for the makers of the said game to remove their twisted rape fantasies after being convinced that the degree to which they have tentacular rape machines in their game is too disturbing even for 4chan?

Obviously Not.

Take your strawmen and shove them up your own ass.

Am I to understand that you don't believe in the concept of self-censorship?

Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one's own work (blog, book, film, or other forms of media), out of fear of, or deference to, the sensibilities or preferences (actual or perceived) of others and without overt pressure from any specific party or institution of authority. Self-censorship is often practiced by film producers, film directors, publishers, news anchors, journalists, musicians, and other kinds of authors including individuals who use social media.

[emphasis mine]

People can be convinced not to say something even though they still believe it is worth saying in principle, because the personal cost of doing so is too high. I don't know what you want to call that, but I call it censorship.

[Alyrium Denryle]

People can be convinced not to say something even though they still believe it is worth saying in principle, because the personal cost of doing so is too high. I don't know what you want to call that, but I call it censorship.

Sure. That would be. But convincing someone that you are right so they no longer agree it is worth saying or doing in principle does not qualify, now does it?

There is a difference between "We will no longer have the Dachau Rape Machine as an official part of Cthulhutech because we are afraid of the consequences" and "We will no longer have the Dachau Rape Machine in Cthulhutech because it is fucked up"

Or are all efforts at getting people to change their minds to be decried as censorship, now?

[Wild Zontargs]

OK, so when Group A "take the position that we should examine what we put in our literature (and yes, games with a narrative are literature) and decide if we as a culture want to continue certain practices" and says "no, we should stop doing that", but Group B says "we disagree and will continue to do so", do we agree to disagree and carry on, maybe while having a civil dialog on the subject? Or does Group A take up pressure tactics, carry out coordinated shaming campaigns, blacklist people, start calling up their employers and insisting that they're terrible people for disagreeing, and so on until they shut up? If the latter happens, we both just agreed that that's censorship. Even if Group A is feminists and Group B is gamers.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Even if Group A is feminists and Group B is gamers.

First of all, nice false binary there. I am both. And let's not pretend that unacceptable behavior does not go in both directions on this issue.

Second. A civil dialogue is to be preferred. Certain pressure tactics are acceptable in the same vein that public sit ins and demonstrations at business with discriminatory hiring practices are acceptable.

Calling up Joe Schmoe's employer to harass him at work is not acceptable.

Alerting the public that a game publisher puts out horrifically rapey material alongside less objectionable work in order that people can make informed boycott related decisions is perfectly fine.

And yes, it is perfectly acceptable for the basement neckbeards to do the same and boycott bioware for having gay characters in their games. They are horrible rancid bigots, but their conduct is not unacceptable if they restrict themselves to that.

[Wild Zontargs]

Even if Group A is feminists and Group B is gamers.

First of all, nice false binary there. I am both. And let's not pretend that unacceptable behavior does not go in both directions on this issue.

Oh, indeed not. Just making a relevant example, and using "feminists" and "gamers" in the GamerGate sense. I'm not going to use the various colorful terms I've seen tossed around on either side instead.

Second. A civil dialogue is to be preferred. Certain pressure tactics are acceptable in the same vein that public sit ins and demonstrations at business with discriminatory hiring practices are acceptable.

Calling up Joe Schmoe's employer to harass him at work is not acceptable.

Alerting the public that a game publisher puts out horrifically rapey material alongside less objectionable work in order that people can make informed boycott related decisions is perfectly fine.

And yes, it is perfectly acceptable for the basement neckbeards to do the same and boycott bioware for having gay characters in their games. They are horrible rancid bigots, but their conduct is not unacceptable if they restrict themselves to that.

So, dialogue: OK. Bugging employers: not OK. Publicity campaigns and boycotts: OK. I'm with you there.

But where along the spectrum do we move from "educating" (which is good) to "fomenting self-censorship" (which is bad)? I'd put coordinated public shaming campaigns, journalistic and industry blacklisting, and blanket deletion of dissent without prior warning in the latter category, and those are some of the things GamerGate was (and is) up in arms over.

[Joun_Lord]

Did anyone actually boycott Bioware over gay characters though? I remember people being pissed about oh so cleverly nicknamed Hamburger Hepler attempting to force the player to view moderately graphic gay relationships but not actually anger about gay being in the game. There was actually more anger over the proposed "skip gameplay" button then the "see gay people make out" thing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But where along the spectrum do we move from "educating" (which is good) to "fomenting self-censorship" (which is bad)? I'd put coordinated public shaming campaigns, journalistic and industry blacklisting, and blanket deletion of dissent without prior warning in the latter category, and those are some of the things GamerGate was (and is) up in arms over.

And here I was under the impression that what they were up in arms over were those things applied to things like video game reviews.

I will grant, there is a degree of overlap, but a bunch of feminists on the internet cannot engage in blacklisting or content deletion.

What is going on is, as I see it, the following:

An angry ex boyfriend posted things that may or may not have been outright slander about Zoe Quinn, his ex, on the internet. This riled up two classes of people. People sick and tired of IGN having Forbidden Numbers, and basement neckbeards who want to keep computer games their private straight boy's club. Behold, gamergate was born. Oh, and trolls. So Many Trolls.

Because they used the same Hashtag, not only did it become difficult for actual human beings to distinguish between these two (well, three really with the outright trolls) groups of people on the internet because of the high degree of comment thread overlap, but it was in the best interests of the large companies that own most media outlets including game publishers to intentionally conflate them in order to avoid airing their own Corruption Skeletons. Adam Baldwin does not help.

So, they push a particular narrative "Gamergate is full of misogynist trolls. Pay no attention to the fact that we ignore and hate the same feminist critiques of our games that said misogynists also hate". They (media) engage in blacklisting, content deletion etc. None of this has anything to do with the feminists who hang around on twitter, facebook, and tumblr, but is instead a cold rational strategy taken by a bunch of soulless asshats with degrees in Public Relations and Marketing. But they get hit with that brush anyway.

Trolls operating on both sides of the fence (often for the same organized groups of trolls) go to town and start Doxxing and Swatting people, and sending death threats to people on both sides as a means of stirring shit.

The people who actually want to deal with shitty journalism are both outnumbered by and less loud than the misogynist asshats, who have long since started using them as a cover anyway. They try changing their Hashtag. Twice. Get followed by trolls and polluted by troll filth until they say "fuck it, we are not going to bother changing our name anymore. We will be over here in the corner ruining Gawker's day"

The arguments of feminists and the merit thereof, have absolutely nothing to do with bad acts you refer to. Nothing. Whatsoever. Barring the occasional troll, the two groups dont actually overlap. In much the same way that the misogynists and trolls are separate from, and have no bearing on the arguments of, those gamergaters who are legitimately concerned with journalistic ethics.

Moral of the story: Stay the fuck away from twitter. The lack of ability to internally police hashtag use is a poison pill for anything good you might want to accomplish.

[Wild Zontargs]

But where along the spectrum do we move from "educating" (which is good) to "fomenting self-censorship" (which is bad)? I'd put coordinated public shaming campaigns, journalistic and industry blacklisting, and blanket deletion of dissent without prior warning in the latter category, and those are some of the things GamerGate was (and is) up in arms over.

And here I was under the impression that what they were up in arms over were those things applied to things like video game reviews.

I will grant, there is a degree of overlap, but a bunch of feminists on the internet cannot engage in blacklisting or content deletion.

Well yes, the overlap between "Gawker & friends game journalists" and "prominent game-related feminist figures" was part of the initial issue. As I understand it, the two groups were coordinating various activities, agreeing to promote or ignore various people for one another, direct traffic to one another, attack each other's opponents, push one another's themes, etc. That's what the fuss over their mailing lists was: not the fact that they existed, but what they used them to coordinate.

As for the fact that the various factions on both sides overlapped, fragmented, contained bad actors who were operating for their own benefit (or entertainment), etc, you'll get no argument from me. The kittens have been in that basket of yarn for so long that you can only follow general colors, not individual strings, and even that's messy.

[madd0ct0r]

Those kittens have also made it impossible to satisfy your request for point c) - I'm not sure spending a few months building a profile for everyone posting under #gamergate to establish whether people posting threats are trolls or believers is a good use of anyone's time. It's also irrelevant since I said 'people associated with #gamergate' - anyone who posts using that tag is associated by definition. They're a kitten in the basket. I thought it had already been well established in this thread that female feminists and vid game critics were getting far more abuse and comments (and comments focused on their sex in particualr) then male feminists and vid game critics who espouse the same views?

a) People can honestly believe in the principle of equal rights and opportunity rather than equal outcomes without being self-interested assholes.

b) The pay gap is yet another issue we can go 'round and 'round on. Side A says it exists, and provides studies. Side B says that when you control for factors A-Z, the pay gap dwindles to nearly nothing or even disappears. Side A insists that B is controlling for too much and defined the gap out of existence on purpose. Side B says A is moving the goalposts. And so on and so forth. I'm not going there.

c) Abuse of anyone is bad. That said, if you're not implying that said outspoken women are being targeted because they are women rather than because of their opinions, it's irrelevant to this particular point. If you are, kindly show that it's a core attitude of the group rather than a comparatively small number of bad actors who may not even properly identify with the group.

d) People can honestly believe in unfettered free speech without being self-interested assholes.

At best these guys are not pro equality, they are pro the right of everyone to behave as badly as they do. I wonder if you asked them are men and women currently eqaul how many would say yes? They are pro the current situation, the status quo, claiming 'grey liberal' positions, which is the default position of any group already at the top since it lets them do what they like. This is like fucking kindergarten level politics, are you just trying to not see it?

No, I'm simply not ascribing malicious intent or even apathy to them. If we apply the principle of charity, don't start from the assumption that 'they're assholes for the sake of being assholes', and consider that they really are in favor of free expression and equal rights and opportunities because they think that those are good values (rather than 'because assholes'), it is entirely possible that they have a rational complaint against what they see as authoritarian censorship and social engineering.

Yeh, the thing is, I don't see a good reason to apply the principle of charity. Your points a) and d) and the final point all hang together so I'll discuss them at the same time. I doubt sincere people, even saying the nastiest things, consider themselves assholes. They're crusaders, outsiders, fighting for truth and democracy and sticky buns and things! Of course, nowadays, we look at what the historical crusaders did and call them assholes. We look at the protestors against black education and call them assholes. We look at the soldiers torturing people in Abu Grahib and call them assholes. None of those groups considered themselves assholes. They were courageous individuals, doing what needed to be done, saying what needed to be said. And yet, assholes.
It's fully possible for a person to consider themselves fine upstanding and meritocratic and committed to equality and act in ways that don't help promote that aim. An obvious example is the hatred of trigger warnings on the part of people who answered that survey. It's not censorship. It's explicitly not censorship since you only use a trigger warning when you say something you know will cause pain to some people and you are going to say it anyway. It's politeness. It's more subtle then the 'rah I want say what I want free speech nigger rah', but it's much more useful in building a civilised society.
And you are right, it's "entirely possible that they have a rational complaint against what they see as authoritarian censorship and social engineering." But it's also entirely possible they are mistaken. I believe the evidence points to the latter.
Who is trying to censor games? Who is actually in a position to censor games? I'm talking real censorship here, the kind that gets you arrested and sentenced. This is a real threat to some of my friends in Vietnam. These whining, entitled kids have no fucking idea. In a later post you talk about self censorship. Are we talking about companies that make games doing that? Becuase they follow the profit. Are we talking about people on the internet having to self-censor? Because if people are actually doing that, the mind boggles at what they'd really like to say. So what exactly are we talking about? What is unsayable, and what is the cost to saying that makes people stay silent?

Second phrase, social engineering. Another scary word. Pity it's something we use every day of the year. "Don't shit in the corner Jason. Don't drive on the wrong side of the road Philip, Don't shout 'fire' in a crowded cinema Andrew, don't masturbate in public Greg, teach your goddam kids these rules Mark!". When it comes to games, who are the central architects carrying out this social engineering? What are their goals? What is the current situation, and if they have their way, what would be the new situation? Because I'm not seeing much beyond some clickbait articles and a metric tonne of people going "Hey, can we have something other then a 30ish white guy with stubble as the protagonist?"*

Finally, let's loop back up to your point b). Gender gap and gender ineqaulity in general society. You don't want to go there, apparently the evidence is too confusing, yet you are happy to debate the intricacies of the population using a thrice hijacked hashtag? I smell a weakness in your argument.

Question: Do you think the videogame industry is currently equal opportunities? Two kids, differing only in their gender, would do equally well working within it?

----

*a recent post on tumblr was pretty interesting, in that it notes that game protagonists have become more boring as graphics have improved. They suggest it's becuase the old crap graphics needed really funky character design to be identifible. I personally think it's becuase the better graphics go in hand with bigger budgets and an increased aversion to risk.

EDIT: I think Alyrium covered everything else. Purple, without wanting to give you flashbacks again (see trigger warnings are useful ) the reason for analyisis a piece of art according to a single narrow point of view is that there's only so much you can fit in an essay, and it's better to go in deep and write more then one essay then it is to superfically cover everything in a few pages. A wonderful satire on this is The Pooh Perplex - http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Pooh-Perple ... 0226120589

[Wild Zontargs]

OK, so you're saying that since we can't know for sure, you're going to assume that people are disagreeing with women because they're women, and treat people who have different values than you as assholes. Aside from the argument from ignorance, you've got an implied affirming the consequent:

1) If GamerGaters are misogynists, then they'll disagree with whatever women say about gaming
2) GamerGaters disagree with certain women about video games
3) Therefore GamerGaters are misogynist

1) If GamerGaters are self-interested assholes, then they'll support things like unfettered free speech
2) GamerGaters support unfettered free speech
3) Therefore GamerGaters are self-interested assholes

For the "censorship doesn't count unless you can go to jail" bullshit, read the self-censorship posts up-thread. I reject your overly narrow definition. Convincing people who still believe in something to not say it because you'll ruin their professional and/or personal lives if they do? Censorship.

As for the gender wage gap, I didn't want to get into it because a) it's not directly relevant to the issue, b) I already mapped out how that debate's going to go, and c) I don't know what the criteria for Queue's "anti-feminist speech is a banning offense" rule is. It's a fairly central pillar of many modern schools of feminism, and attacking it with any vigor will require hitting several other core premises of many feminist schools. Since your attitude is "if he says what a misogynist would say, he must be a misogynist", pardon me for not wanting to open that can of worms.

The short, not rigorously-defended or cited answer to your questions is this: after accounting for factors like hours worked, raises negotiated for, time in position, time taken off to bear and raise children, field of work, specific position accepted, etc, women have equal pay within the error bars. Young childless women are even out-earning young men.

For the video game industry, you've asked two different questions. Is there equal opportunity? Yes. Would a man and a woman do equally well (have equal outcomes)? If they were absolutely identical aside from the plumbing, yes. If the woman wants any sort of home-life with any hypothetical children, which women statistically desire more than men? No. Will the woman have identical social interactions at work? Depends on the workplace. Would a randomly-selected woman and a randomly-selected man have the same success? Given that the STEM education gap opens well before high school, probably not. And I do not believe that said gap comes down to sexism, Patriarchy, or any of the modern feminist explanations. But again, to argue that with vigor would require that I argue against "physical strength and plumbing aside, men and women are the same". See my concerns outlined above.

(I'm self-censoring in the very post where I had to point out that yes, self-censorship is a thing. How droll.)

[Alyrium Denryle]

Finally, let's loop back up to your point b). Gender gap and gender ineqaulity in general society. You don't want to go there, apparently the evidence is too confusing, yet you are happy to debate the intricacies of the population using a thrice hijacked hashtag? I smell a weakness in your argument.

As one of the residents of this board who has mastered the arcane sorcery of statistics, I would be happy to discuss the evidence related to that particular subject

Hint: It usually has to do with people "controlling" for variables that themselves strongly relate to gender. Like taking maternity leave. Say I have five variables.
Y: The Dependent, or Response variable. In this case, wages
X: Predictor variable, independent of other predictors. In this case, degree of qualification quantified on a continuous 0-10
P: Predictor variable, independent of other predictors. In this case, total work experience, weighted for part and full time work (so a year of full time work is equal to two years half time etc). Quantified in years.
N:Predictor variable, covaries strongly with Z. In this case, number of cumulative months taken in parental leave. Does not count toward work experience, and is thus independent of P.
Z: Predictor variable, categorical. In this case, Gender.

It is appropriate to control for X and P. However, if I want to look at the effect of Z, I cannot control for N, because the coefficient of determination between it and Z is high (in other words, Gender largely determines how much parental leave one takes. Because men almost never take it), and if I control for it, any effect of Z that does exist would be washed out. The only way to address N is to look at it within Gender cases. So, exclude men, and only include women in that analysis, or vice versa.

What people who argue against the existence of the Gender Pay Gap do, is include numerous variables like N, and thus define the Gender Pay Gap out of existence through the dishonest use of mathematics.

[Wild Zontargs]

As for the gender wage gap, I didn't want to get into it because [...] I already mapped out how that debate's going to go

Side A says it exists, and provides studies. Side B says that when you control for factors A-Z, the pay gap dwindles to nearly nothing or even disappears. Side A insists that B is controlling for too much and defined the gap out of existence on purpose. Side B says A is moving the goalposts.

What people who argue against the existence of the Gender Pay Gap do, is include numerous variables like N, and thus define the Gender Pay Gap out of existence through the dishonest use of mathematics.

Insert "treating people differently because of their demonstrated individual choices rather than prejudice isn't discrimination as originally implied" here. There, done.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And I do not believe that said gap comes down to sexism, Patriarchy, or any of the modern feminist explanations.

Except it does, because women are conditioned from an early age to not gravitate toward STEM fields. There is a vast literature on the subject in everything from sociology to educational psychology.

Here are some references.

http://stem.gstboces.org/Shared%20Docum ... rences.pdf

http://link.springer.com/article/10.102 ... 0518104346

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 3198913737

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... R/abstract

Insert "treating people differently because of their demonstrated individual choices rather than prejudice isn't discrimination as originally implied" here. There, done.

Except the studies done that actually examine the gender pay gap control for profession. And as far as having children goes, women are looked down upon or percieved as strange/bad for not wanting them. So if THAT is where you were going to go, they are damned if they do (and in fact, even the fact that women are capable of having children sometimes costs them jobs/wages), and damned if they dont. You dipshit.

[Alyrium Denryle]

In fact, while we are at it...

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/511799
This one demonstrates that women are penalized on the job market for having kids, while men benefit from it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.short
This one demonstrates that in science faculty, female applicants are rated as less competent than their otherwise identical male counterparts.

Would you like me to go on? I can go on and on about discrimination in STEM fields. Given that I see it every day on account of my own profession.

[Wild Zontargs]

Alyrium, we've already established that you and I fundamentally disagree here. To include the rest of the context on that quote:

And I do not believe that said gap comes down to sexism, Patriarchy, or any of the modern feminist explanations. But again, to argue that with vigor would require that I argue against "physical strength and plumbing aside, men and women are the same". See my concerns outlined above.

I do not agree that the only differences between men and women are plumbing and musculature. However, given the ruling on "sexist or anti-feminist speech", I will not enter into debate on that specific topic. I will say that I believe that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men, and treating individuals differently based on group-level prejudice is wrong.

[Civil War Man]

As for gaming, no one wants to censor games. What feminist critics do is take the position that we should examine what we put in our literature (and yes, games with a narrative are literature) and decide if we as a culture want to continue certain practices. Practices like the objectification of female characters (this is different from having sexy female characters), excluding women from being main protagonists, erasing gay and transgendered people from narratives etc.

To add to this, a lot of these feminist critics are not arguing against the existence of problematic themes in stories, but are arguing against them being ubiquitous. Of course, for the dudebro demographic that has been exclusively catered to for around 30 years (video games were marketed as much more gender neutral and for-all-ages prior to the 1983 industry crash*) even this could be viewed as a threat, because if the themes that cater to them are no longer ubiquitous, then the industry is no longer catering exclusively to them.

At this point, it doesn't even really matter whether this angry demographic is a small minority or not, because the truth is that they are incredibly loud and most of the more reasonable gamers are not. It's a lot like all of the stories coming out with police brutality and corruption, whether it's the worryingly frequent killings of unarmed black men or the equally worryingly frequent collateral damage suffered by families who are targeted by SWAT raids looking for drugs that are often not there. It doesn't matter that the overtly bad cops might be a tiny majority (5% of NYPD cops are responsible for 40% of "resisting arrest" charges, which has a reputation for being a tacked-on charge used by corrupt cops to punish people who piss them off, while 60% never file one), because even if they are a tiny majority, there is currently nothing being done to punish the bad cops, and there is considerable resistance to any attempts to change that. Whether it is fear, indifference, or collusion, the legal system has been openly protecting the bad cops. In a similar vein, the Gamergate community is either unable or unwilling to police their own, based on the lack of action in response to the SWATing, doxing, rape threats, and death threats that have been made in their name.

*From the first linked article about gaming and gender:

In a magazine advertisement for the Atari game Millipede (1982), a young girl stands in front of the arcade machine with her hands on the buttons, her face visibly excited by the action on the screen. An older woman, presumably her mother, stands beside her, hand on her shoulder, equally excited, a little bit awkward.

In another ad for Atari's home computers demonstration center, a woman with red hair and brightly flushed cheeks stands in front of the center with a controller in her hands while a man stands behind her. Cheesy grins on faces, both appear to be enjoying a game of Pac-Man. There's a company making Christian video games for Atari 2600 it also has a magazine ad. "Bible Video Game BRINGS FUN HOME," it declares, as a little blond boy and girl sit in front of the television guiding a pixelated Moses across the Red Sea.

In the 1990s, the messaging of video game advertisements takes a different turn. Television commercials for the Game Boy feature only young boys and teenagers. The ad for the Game Boy Color has a boy zapping what appears to be a knight with a finger laser. Atari filmed a bizarre series of infomercials that shows a man how much his life will improve if he upgrades to the Jaguar console. With each "improvement," he has more and more attractive women fawning over him. There is nothing in any of the ads that indicate that the consoles and games are for anyone other than young men.

(more examples snipped)

The video game industry created something of a chicken-and-egg situation. When it conducted market research during the '80s and '90s, it found that more boys than girls played video games. Boys were more likely to be involved with new technology, more willing to be early adopters and more encouraged by their teachers and families to pursue science, technology, engineering and math in school. Girls have always played video games, but they weren't the majority. In wake of the video game crash, the game industry's pursuit of a safe and reliable market led to it homing in on the young male. And so the advertising campaigns began. Video games were heavily marketed as products for men, and the message was clear: No girls allowed.

[madd0ct0r]

OK, so you're saying that since we can't know for sure, you're going to assume that people are disagreeing with women because they're women, and treat people who have different values than you as assholes. Aside from the argument from ignorance, you've got an implied affirming the consequent:

1) If GamerGaters are misogynists, then they'll disagree with whatever women say about gaming
2) GamerGaters disagree with certain women about video games
3) Therefore GamerGaters are misogynist

1) If GamerGaters are self-interested assholes, then they'll support things like unfettered free speech
2) GamerGaters support unfettered free speech
3) Therefore GamerGaters are self-interested assholes

For the "censorship doesn't count unless you can go to jail" bullshit, read the self-censorship posts up-thread. I reject your overly narrow definition. Convincing people who still believe in something to not say it because you'll ruin their professional and/or personal lives if they do? Censorship.

As for the gender wage gap, I didn't want to get into it because a) it's not directly relevant to the issue, b) I already mapped out how that debate's going to go, and c) I don't know what the criteria for Queue's "anti-feminist speech is a banning offense" rule is. It's a fairly central pillar of many modern schools of feminism, and attacking it with any vigor will require hitting several other core premises of many feminist schools. Since your attitude is "if he says what a misogynist would say, he must be a misogynist", pardon me for not wanting to open that can of worms.

The short, not rigorously-defended or cited answer to your questions is this: after accounting for factors like hours worked, raises negotiated for, time in position, time taken off to bear and raise children, field of work, specific position accepted, etc, women have equal pay within the error bars. Young childless women are even out-earning young men.

For the video game industry, you've asked two different questions. Is there equal opportunity? Yes. Would a man and a woman do equally well (have equal outcomes)? If they were absolutely identical aside from the plumbing, yes. If the woman wants any sort of home-life with any hypothetical children, which women statistically desire more than men? No. Will the woman have identical social interactions at work? Depends on the workplace. Would a randomly-selected woman and a randomly-selected man have the same success? Given that the STEM education gap opens well before high school, probably not. And I do not believe that said gap comes down to sexism, Patriarchy, or any of the modern feminist explanations. But again, to argue that with vigor would require that I argue against "physical strength and plumbing aside, men and women are the same". See my concerns outlined above.

(I'm self-censoring in the very post where I had to point out that yes, self-censorship is a thing. How droll.)

I'm arguing that since we don't know for sure AND based on the behaviour of people associated with the hashtag, including the instigator of the whole thing. We're not exactly operating with zero evidence here are we?

You reject my definition of authoritarian censorship as censorship imposed by an authority? Okkkk.
In my previous posts I asked you a little about self censorship. Let's recap:

"Are we talking about companies that make games doing that? Becuase they follow the profit. Are we talking about people on the internet having to self-censor? Because if people are actually doing that, the mind boggles at what they'd really like to say. So what exactly are we talking about? What is unsayable, and what is the cost to saying that makes people stay silent?"

This links back to an earlier point I made about trigger warnings. Those aren't censorship, they're politeness. The same goes for self censorship. There's a lot of things that are unsayable in polite company. There's a lot of opinions I hold that I would never expose at work. To do so would be unprofessional, and would, quite rightly, result in disciplinary action or worse if my actions imposed a cost on the company. I'm not going to go around crying self-censorship!
Few countries are obsessed with free speech the way america is, and even there I believe the saying is 'sunlight is the best disinfectant'. You are free to say what you like, and other people are free to ostracise you because of it. Censorship may be a dirty word, but so is nigger and I think we agree we'd prefer it not to be used to demean people.

As for your difficulties reconciling the baord rules regarding presentation of evidence and anti-feminist speech. I think you will be ok as long as you refrain from attacking any member of the board personally and are careful to stay with the evidence. There were incidents in the past, and that was one of the reasons for this approach. The other being the mods didn't want the board overrun by gamergate trolls.

[Exonerate]

So, I've been observing the Gamergate fiasco for a while and Cracked actually put out an note that does a pretty good job of summing up what I think:

Editor's Note: A few weeks ago our message board and general inbox were bombarded with demands we address something called the "GamerGate Scandal", posts written with the urgency and rage one would associate with, say, discovering that Chipotle burritos are made entirely from the meat of human babies. It's apparently a big deal in some circles, so we followed the links and read the piles of data presented, and had to stop and take a deep breath just to grasp it all. "Gentlemen," we said amid the stunned silence, "do you realize that if what they're saying is true, then this is still the most pointless fucking bullshit anyone has ever forced us to read?"

The "scandal" turned out to be an excuse for an Internet harassment campaign against a random indie game developer who, like many such targets, was a female and a feminist.

It was all sparked by a single forum post from a jilted ex-boyfriend, but the ensuing outrage was so fierce and relentless that the story made it all the way to The New Yorker. This kind of spontaneous shitstorm is depressingly common these days, so we reached out to Zoe Quinn to see what it's like to be the Internet's Most Hated Person (well, for a couple of weeks, anyway). Here's what she told us ...

It's never been about ethics, it's a reactionary backlash by predominately young men having their norms challenged. GamerGate appeals an angry, socially alienated demographic that have made being a Gamer a core part of their identity and they're mad at perceived attempts by "outsiders" (aka "Social Justice Warriors") to enact any sort of change.

Despite the common refrain that it's just a few bad apples in GamerGate, it says a lot that the ugly figureheads who have come to prominence for the movement aren't rejected.

Edit: Fixed tag, rephrased

[Ziggy Stardust]

Despite the common refrain that it's just a few bad apples in GamerGate, it says a lot that the ugly figureheads who have come to prominence for the movement aren't rejected.

This is my problem with the constant refrain that it's just "a few bad apples." The fact is that there has been no apparent public attempt by the gaming community to condemn all of the stupid misogynist bullshit. It is just constantly defended and swept under the rug. Yes, there are people who care about ethics in gaming journalism; but the fact that the GamerGate movement has spent all of its energy harassing people like Sarkeesian and other female developers instead of, you know, harassing any of the big gaming companies or game reviewing companies is indicative that it is all really a smoke-screen.

It's the same thing that comes up in a lot of our discussions on police brutality. Yes, it may only be one cop in the department that beat someone half to death for no reason; but the rest of the cops become just as culpable when they go out of their way to protect that one cop and pretend there is no problem whatsoever. (Please note this is just an arbitrary example and I do not want to drag this discussion into one about police brutality in general).

If "GamerGate" really wanted to distance themselves from the the horrible SJWs, why are they not uniting against the misogynist element?

[Vendetta]

The thing with the "few bad apples" is that, well, they're the core around which the movement crystallised and are its most frequently followed and repeated members.

GamerGate is about the bad apples. Always was.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Alyrium, we've already established that you and I fundamentally disagree here.

By all means, ignore the consensus of the social sciences.

I do not agree that the only differences between men and women are plumbing and musculature. However, given the ruling on "sexist or anti-feminist speech", I will not enter into debate on that specific topic. I will say that I believe that women should have the same rights and opportunities as men, and treating individuals differently based on group-level prejudice is wrong.

Oh there are a few cognitive differences, but nothing substantial or inherently performance related (and this is coming from a behavioral biologist who knows the brain pretty well). There are some real differences in the olfactory bulb and women tend to have a more sensitive sense of smell and are sensitive to certain pheromones. There are some sexually dimorphic regions in the midbrain that process information related to mate selection. And of course there are the hormonal differences that lead to differences in physical aggression.

None of it translates to something like math performance or occupational preferences save for the most particular of cases. And a lot of those where there are differences are the result of neural plasticity. In the teen years the brain undergoes something called Neural Pruning, where the brain cuts back on unused connections to make room for new things. In childhood, everyone is basically an information sponge. In adolescence, the brain cuts back on things that are not used, and so someone who has been systematically discouraged and prevented from doing something and practicing it can actually lose capability in that thing.

I am sure you can do the math there.

As for the board rules, you will be fine so long as you dont go off on a blatantly misogynistic rant, start calling women "bitches" etc.

[Flagg]

The thing with the "few bad apples" is that, well, they're the core around which the movement crystallised and are its most frequently followed and repeated members.

GamerGate is about the bad apples. Always was.

Well I would argue that gg is really consisted of 2 main groups, and even this is a pretty big generalization. You have the bad apples of the entire (and now deceased) "gamer" culture who are basically fat neckbeards who tend to be misogynist as hell concerning their precious hobby and don't want no dames around to "spoil their fun" aka change the stupid culture in order to be inclusive to women, LGBTQ people, and at the farther extremes anyone who isn't white. This group began as the post several posts above mine is described by the cracked.com article. They got backlash when they decided threatening and tormenting innocent women in the now dead gamer community for nothing more than expressing their opinions so they wrapped themselves in the bullshit flag of concern regarding "gaming journalism" being corrupt as hell, which everyone should have figured out when they were 11 and all the magazines did nothing but hype Mortal Kombat for 2 years.

The second main group are the ones that are so incredibly stupid (I'm talking playing with their own poop stupid) as to believe the lie, ignoring the truth with the gusto of the Ape Science Council in the original Planet of the Apes where the more of the truth they are presented with, the more hostile they become until they literally screw their eyes shut and put their fingers in their ears. Another form of bad apple, IMO.

[mr friendly guy]

This is a silly question about "gamer" culture, but I am going to ask it. What exactly constitutes gamer culture, since gaming is a multi billion dollar industry bigger than Hollywood, and intuitively one would think it could have only gotten this way (ie bigger than Hollywood) if it appealed to a broad demographic. That is there are games which I cannot imagine appealing to these hard core gamers or those stereotypical basement dwellers appearing in popular culture. For example games like candy crush, angry birds seem designed for the casual person who plays games, while various game types like virtual trading card games such as DoTP or Infinity Wars, Hearthstone just seem to me to be something that seems not designed for those who use xbox, playstations etc.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is a silly question about "gamer" culture, but I am going to ask it. What exactly constitutes gamer culture, since gaming is a multi billion dollar industry bigger than Hollywood, and intuitively one would think it could have only gotten this way (ie bigger than Hollywood) if it appealed to a broad demographic. That is there are games which I cannot imagine appealing to these hard core gamers or those stereotypical basement dwellers appearing in popular culture. For example games like candy crush, angry birds seem designed for the casual person who plays games, while various game types like virtual trading card games such as DoTP or Infinity Wars, Hearthstone just seem to me to be something that seems not designed for those who use xbox, playstations etc.

Well, there are people who play games to pass the time or because they are enjoyable. Then there are people for whom various forms of gaming form the focus of their social lives which are structured around their interactions with a relatively narrow group of people who are similarly situated. Their individual identity largely revolves around this.

It is the difference between someone who goes outside for a game of flag football every now and again, and Athletes.

Now, I am not sure that gamer culture is dead, but it has certainly evolved, with various sorts of gaming now catering to a much large set of demographic and personality characteristics and the group of people who identify as gamers has expanded beyond the meatspace isolated adolescent males it once did.

Some of them view this expansion as threatening to their own individual identities in a way similar to how right-wing reactionaries in some westernethnic nation states react to foreign immigrants.