[HoosierDaddy]

 D, on 31 January 2015 - 04:34 PM, said:

 TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 31 January 2015 - 07:25 AM, said:

 Illuyankas, on 30 January 2015 - 06:43 PM, said:

I think the point I'm trying to get across there is that uproar over men's issues only ever comes up in a discussion that starts with women's issues. People don't bring up, say, racism against black people in an antisemitism discussion, even though there's more than a bit of overlap there.

Put up a thread about the issues men face and I will gladly post about what shit they go through and how we can fix it over there, as well as problems women face over here.

Agreed. It should be perfectly possible to reasonably discuss both - since both are entirely valid. However, the same as Illy, I've only ever seen men's issues and rights begin to be discussed by means of hijacking a discussion about women's issues. That's not to say reasonable separate discussion doesn't and can't happen, but in the vast majority of cases that's what I see - and I find that's what gets people's backs up. It can very easily come across as "But this is what happens to men, so shut up" or as an attempt to shut down the previous discussion - and I'm not for a minute suggesting anyone in this discussion is doing that. I'm speaking very generally.

Also, as someone who works in family law (albeit in the UK and not the US), you have no idea how tired of that "gold digger" myth I get....

Agreed, but I think it probably goes the other way a lot, too. Given how much publicity the "red pill" extreme MRAs get it probably leads to a lot of people jumping on any original men's issues discussions aggressively, too. Both sides need their own space but the public perception (particularly on the web) seems to be that the women's and men's side are at war and the vocal idiot proponents from each side feel the need to argue against each other relentlessly.

So maybe we (ie this forum) should be the good example? Anyone want to have this topic split into a feminism thread and a meninism thread? (and maybe split the video-game centric stuff into a third thread?)

I just wanted to adds my 2 anecdotal cents to what I was reading.

However, the thread has seemed to take a left turn somewhere. Perhaps a "Gender rights" discussion thread would be a place to start. Frankly a "meninsim" and "feminism" thread would only make my migraine worse. No reason to prejudice people going into it by labeling it as one group or the other.

[worry]

I think it's fine as is. The issues have the same root cause: patriarchy. Factionalism can get annoying, but that's exactly the point re: MRAs succumbing to Red Pill logic. Broadly speaking, the issues that hurt men are already being addressed by so-called Social Justice Warriors (yes, including feminists), and it is MRAs by and large who are exclusionary, regressive, and backwards-thinking. It's the ever-fragile male ego that gets defensive and considers critiques of patriarchy as takedowns of men. And you can see its parallel in other Red Pill types as well: the aforementioned "gamers are dead" articles were every bit about how the stereotype of gamers-as-neckbeards was dead and we're all better off for it -- it was a message of broadening definitions and inclusivity (at the expense of say one or two games fewer per year where you get to shoot strippers/prostitutes/etc). That these articles were seen to be attacks from the outside (ie by non-gamers) tells you what you need to know from that rotten core abscess of thin-skinned reactionary men whose gaming-ownership delusion bubble had been punctured. It's not about ethics, it's about power and the misconception that it's a zero-sum game. GG logic isn't any different from every other wrong side of the 'culture wars': http://wehuntedthema...gate-manifesto/

[HoosierDaddy]

Yeah, sorry Worry but you seem about as close-minded as it comes to anything that might address issues that aren't framed the way you think they should be. You seem to be a bit blinded by Reddit's ridiculousness. No person here has, in my limited reading, tried "Red Pill" bullshit. Nobody has tried "GamerGate" bullshit. You seem to be lumping everything into a category of "objectionable asshole man" and projecting.

[worry]

I'm not sure what that's reacting to, frankly. I'm not talking about anybody here in that post and I'm not sure why you'd even think that. I'm explaining why I don't think the thread should be split up: because it's all the same topic (even if it wanders down a few tributaries here and there, we do tend to come back around). I'm kinda flummoxed why or how you'd think I'm conflating the topic with the people discussing the topic.

[HoosierDaddy]

 worry, on 31 January 2015 - 11:25 PM, said:

I'm not sure what that's reacting to, frankly. I'm not talking about anybody here in that post and I'm not sure why you'd even think that. I'm explaining why I don't think the thread should be split up: because it's all the same topic (even if it wanders down a few tributaries here and there, we do tend to come back around). I'm kinda flummoxed why or how you'd think I'm conflating the topic with the people discussing the topic.

I blame alcohol. Sorry.

[worry]

No problem. I promise I'm not being glib, even if I use shorthand like MRA to mean a certain kind of self-identified counter-feminist movement participant. I'm not referring to every man who's interested in protecting his own rights, and I'm not discounting your personal experience or observation in family court (though I also agree with Grief's point about proportional caregiving pre-divorce; I never meant violence was always a deciding factor, it was just one example, I just meant there's more nuance than raw anti-man bias than MRA's argue).

And from what I've read, actually, the courts really prefer not even to be the ones to decide custody or child support and do their best to encourage parents to decide this outside of court if they can, and in fact most do, at least with custody (around 4% of cases go to actual trial: http://www.divorcepe...com/stats18.htm ). So often when a court is involved, it's in an already volatile situation. It's a hard, imperfect process for sure.

[worry]

http://internet.gawk...d-th-1683271908

[Aptorian]

 worry, on 02 February 2015 - 09:27 PM, said:

http://internet.gawk...d-th-1683271908

I'm not going to go into the myriad reasons why this article is bad but this is the terrifying video where the psychopath is assaulting some guy over a stolen Xbox.

Trigger warning: May induce laughter.

http://www.liveleak....=cd0_1416355576

I don't know whether this is some long con of epic trollage or the guy is serious and Brinna Wu is being stalked by the Wet Bandits.

This post has been edited by Apt: 02 February 2015 - 10:59 PM

[worry]

I too am completely disinterested in a discussion on whether this article is "bad" or not. I think equating this situation with trolling is off base, minimizing, and demeaning. You (broad "you", meaning everybody, but including you) don't get to decide if she feels threatened. She faces daily harassment including death threats and stalking that have led to her having to leave her home, she was mercilessly taunted about her dying (and, eventually, dead) dog, and there's absolutely no reason for her to not take this guy seriously. You can laugh all you want, of course (while misidentifying which video is referred to as "terrifying"...it's actually this one, which explicitly threatens her and calls for the "Wu-pocalypse": http://youtu.be/jYPC-YMdJFI). But none of it's funny.

[Aptorian]

I find that guy hilarious. And that is the problem with article. It wants to inform us of the plight of Brianna Wu. It wants us to look at the footage and the tweets, etc. are realize the dire situation Wu is in. It wants to paint a picture of a movement that is dangerous, but here is where I get confused:

1. None of the stuff I see from him seems "normal". Meaning either he's simply an idiot too dumb to realize what he is doing or, this is the serious part, the guy is mentally ill.

2. The rest of the stuff is a similar mix of pranks and threats.

But there's no journalistic research in the article, which is not surprising because it's Gawker.

A guy who "calls himself", you haven't tracked him down and found out whether this is his real identity?? He may or may not be a former marine or Navy SEAL? Really Gawker? Besides the idiotic notion that the guy in this footage is a trained killer, how hard is it to confirm these claims? The police refuses to do anything and the politicians are powerless? Can we get some quotes from an interview?

I don't know how the American justice system works but if you took this footage and this conversations to a police station in Denmark, this guy would be going in for a psych evaluation.

Lets say he is mentally ill. Then why are you linking him to GamerGate? Is the implication that the rest of the loose collective of disenfranchised/disgruntled people are all in on it?

I'd love to read some serious work on this but this article is so slanted that it reads like an attack add, not journalism.

[worry]

Hey now I thought we agreed not to do the whole focus-on-the-messenger thing! Anyway, I'm not going to defend Gawker as a journalistic enterprise, but I will say that I cannot impeach the Awful-inhumane-stupid-thing-GGers-did Of The Week approach, because for half a year already it's been exclusively that. At this point there's zero reason to explain -- yet again -- why anyone with sense or conscience now refuses to give them any benefit of the doubt. It's tiresome and unnecessary. Slant is an irrelevance.

Re: this guy, I'm not linking him to GamerGate. He self-identifies, and GGers engage with him as a comrade (or, more cynically, they don't but egg him on anyway). I'm not implying anything. I'm outright stating that GamerGate -- a misogynist hate group as a matter of fact -- deliberately remains a loose collective so that it may benefit from its fringe-of-the-fringe elements without having to be accountable for them. It's embedded in Chan culture. They don't have to be "in on" any one thing in particular to benefit from it, because the goal is intimidating critics out of the conversation. The threats, the doxxing, the SWATing, the sealioning, the storm of harassment: it all goes hand in hand.

Law enforcement in the US is -- to put it politely -- several technological generations behind. They are not equipped nor are they even necessarily inclined to police online harassment in any form. The CP on 8chan and the SWATing have gotten some attention and ire, as have the more open threats like the one against Sarkeesian in Utah, but this is also the country where the NRA regularly introduces legislation at the state level to allow convicted domestic abusers to own guns (eg one such law that would allow concealed carry just passed the legislature in MI, but public pressure got the governor to veto it, against his own prerogative). They're not especially better when it comes to mental illness. I was just reading about the prevalence of cases where 911 is called because of a family member's schizophrenic episode where the police end up shooting the ill person. I'm not saying that's the norm or anything, I'm just saying the justice system might not be as good a choice here as it is in Denmark.

Anyway, if you want an alternative to Gawker, with more content and (yes) confirmation that law enforcement was contacted, here's another source: http://www.bustle.co...-out-of-control

[Aptorian]

I've been thinking about GamerGate most of the day. Why do I bother to even defend this organisation? By all accounts, as Worry states, the fact that you have these crazy people spearheading the movement makes them lose credibility. It can't be ignored that many of the people who identify vocally and publicly, do so more for fun and out of some kind of hatred of feminism.

I think the reason why I object is because of articles like the Gawker one. And the boing boing one for that matter. I can understand the disgust with the people related to GamerGate. I can understand how people, who believe in changing the industry, feel a need to circle the wagons. However the legitimate part of GamerGates quarrel is the behavior of the media. The fact that journalists and media people continue to publish this sort of trash makes me feel like GamerGate needs to continue. To be allowed to call one self a journalist you should do the minimum amount of work required. Most importantly there should be objectivity and transparency. I seldom see that in the articles that are centered on this topic, which is a shame because I feel like there will be no progress before both sides want to meet in the middle.

[amphibian]

Again, you speak of video game journalists and journalism as monolithic things.

Most of the people focused on video games are bloggers/vloggers - people doing this as a hobby that occasionally pays. They have no journalistic training. They figured out how to launch things out into the ether and have people pay attention to it. They have no formal organizational framework to learn the craft of journalism in or organizational resources to begin doing so. Only a few get on TV or are hired on by larger organizations with actual journalistic intent and standards.

The vast majority of the people you are pointing at have not, cannot and will not fit the ideals you are trying to make them reach. They are not journalists in the actual sense. They don't have the capacity or the drive to be so. Furthermore, the larger audience awaiting them doesn't actually demand that move/improvement. I would also say that Kotaku isn't a larger organization capable of instilling journalistic standards and practices in all of its freelance/permanent employees too.

You want an industry-wide standard that never existed and probably can never exist in the current landscape of video games and coverage of such.

The best path to changing that landscape involves divorcing one's self and group from the 4Chan culture, from the harassers, from the misogynists and from the people who tacitly enable these groups to proliferate and gain power.

[QuickTidal]

Amph is right.

The sad truth is that the Internet and the social media age have basically made actual "journalism" a completely defunct activity. Even full out news sites no longer have what I would call journalistic integrity with regards to anything approaching "organization". This is why sites like Gawker and Buzzfeed (who are kind of recently having a war of words over what should and shouldn't be published) DO actually believe that they employ journalists (even though they don't)...when what they employ are actually just severely opinionated bloggers. Every post is an editorial. Every single one. It's why the site has mutated into a place where Kinja voices now have a podium/soapbox with which to deliver whatever scathing indictment of *insert trigger topic here* they like. It's all about clicks. All of it.

I would put money on it being VERY hard to find any site reporting on anything on the entire net that will fit with the ideals of journalistic integrity. It simply doesn't exist anymore. Not when you can have clicks instead.

[worry]

I'm with you on the industry cancer that is payola. That said, GamerGate's issue is progressivism "infiltrating" game reviews; addressing "social justice" story issues over raw game mechanics. Legitimate concerns about payola can and do exist; they did before GG, they have during, and they will after. GG's focus on attacking indie game developers (particularly already-marginalized ones) belies their pretense. Point being I guess is that they aren't the middle ground you'd want to shift toward if your actual goal is journalism ethics (likely unnecessary disclosure: I'm not actually the biggest proponent of finding middle ground anyway). Also not sure that the clickbait/glib blog aesthetic -- regardless of how sour on the palate it tastes -- is equatable to payola or other such actual breaches in journalism, though they can certainly work in tandem.

[amphibian]

The more I read about Western journalism's history (which tracks with the rise of absolutely massive newspaper and magazine companies, as well as advertising), the more I think that the journalistic standards that are pointed to in J-school or by the average person are an ethical blip in the larger history of laziness, widespread payola and raw need of grist for the relentless mill of the dailies/weeklies/monthlies. SOMETHING MUST GO UP > Holding onto your scruples (usually).

The journalistic standards only existed to a somewhat industry-wide extent for a short period of time - in the 1940s-1960s - and since then, it fell off. A few of the large organizations have retained them, but those are the major leagues while most of the industry works in the minor leagues. Think of the millions of soccer players worldwide vs. the ones in the Champions League. That's the type of dynamic I'm referring to.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 03 February 2015 - 10:08 PM

[Gust Hubb]

[amphibian]

Adam Serwer has a longer biopic article on one of the prominent figures in the MRA movement (hint: he's probably a crook) - http://www.buzzfeed....dad#.kgRoLX7oK2

Elam is not the "leader" of the movement, but since he's gotten hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations, he's fairly prominent and what he says appears to be resonating within that community. What he says is also nonsense and full of hate and hypocrisy.

[worry]

Apparently the lowlifes of the SF/F community are (quite lately) aligning with GG because they feel dismissed by the SJW conspiracy running the Hugo awards ("big" article on Breitbart about it yesterday). It's got folks shaking in their boots, obviously: https://twitter.com/...723864086417408

[worry]

And to go with that Elam article, a profile of less radicalized but still self-identified MRA. Pretty interesting, it goes into the GG parallels as well as the divergences. There's still the preoccupation with SJWs, the awkward libertarianism, the obsession with "logic" and debate, the weird conspiracy-focused conflation of feminism and big institutions like the church, the notion that modern women are "ruined", and the absolute inversion of privilege. But it defies other stereotypes, because it's very personal and human.

http://www.vox.com/2...rights-movement