Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

bits.blogs.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#31

Post by daleharvey »

[deleted] wrote: post #23
douche wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which side is which here? I'm not really clued into the whole GamerGate thing... I have seen Randi Lee Harper say some very unpleasant things, and some even more unpleasant things said about her. I know nothing about the Open Gaming Society, but reading their website it seems like a relatively sane organization.

[deleted]

It is not a complicated situation, from the start its been clear that gamergate is solely a vehicle for organised harassment (primarily of women). There isnt any moral quandry or naunced position about it, its just harassment.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#32

Post by striking »

MBCook wrote: post #25
striking wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's fair to either side of the discussion, or to SXSW. They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. And I guess people from both sides made sure neither could have nice things. (SXSW didn't blame anyone, but that's my guess.)

> They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. What, exactly, did they think would happen when they stepped into GG? > They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. That's bullshit. When one group is infamous for dragging the other through the trash, issuing death threats, bomb threats, etc. there is no 'neutr…

> I seriously doubt

> the hate mob

I've looked for evidence for which "side" did the harassment. SXSW didn't make specific who was part of the "hate mob". That's why I guessed it was both sides.

> On the other hand I can easily see the pro-GGers

On the other hand, you sound biased (as far as text can provide "sound"), without any specific data to back it up. If you know something I don't, I'd be glad to hear it.

EDIT: I'm not picking a side here, and I'd be willing to defend either in a debate. I really hope I don't sound condescending, and apologize if I do.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#33

Post by eertami »

MBCook wrote: post #25
striking wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's fair to either side of the discussion, or to SXSW. They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. And I guess people from both sides made sure neither could have nice things. (SXSW didn't blame anyone, but that's my guess.)

> They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. What, exactly, did they think would happen when they stepped into GG? > They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. That's bullshit. When one group is infamous for dragging the other through the trash, issuing death threats, bomb threats, etc. there is no 'neutr…

>But I seriously doubt the anti-GG people sent death threats.

No true scotsman

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#34

Post by MBCook »

kylec wrote: post #21
onewaystreet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's hilarious about this whole thing is that I have no idea which "side" you are on by your comment. I've seen this exact sentiment expressed about SXSW's decision on both /r/KiA and /r/GamerGhazi.

I don't know much about GamerGate, but I'm definitely not on the side of people threatening violence.

That's kind of the unfortunate thing. Any valid point they have is basically erased by the actions of a few that they (on the whole) refuse to condem and distance themselves from. I'm sure there are tons of people in the 'movement' who don't want any part of the death threats, but their arguments are tainted by association.

One side seems to want to simply be, a (hopefully) tiny number on the other side want their lives ruined; and a bunch of other people are caught up with them (based on beliefs, right or wrong, strong or weak) as 'silent majority' justifications and cover for bad actions.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#35

Post by [deleted] »

daleharvey wrote: post #31
[deleted] wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

It is not a complicated situation, from the start its been clear that gamergate is solely a vehicle for organised harassment (primarily of women). There isnt any moral quandry or naunced position about it, its just harassment.

[deleted]

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#36

Post by Zikes »

The Gamergate/Anti-Gamergate movement has to be a Sociology PhD Candidate's thesis topic. It's fascinating how utterly polarizing it is, I mean just look at the sort of comments we're seeing right here on HN, and we tend to be the levelheaded and civil ones!

Both "sides" are victims of their own success. In spite of whatever potentially valid points they have, the moment someone figures out which "side" you are on you are immediately lumped into one group or the other and considered completely guilty by association. And the folks that do that are so absolutely certain of how "vile" or "evil" you are, as certainly as if you'd come out as a Nazi or somesuch.

But if you could somehow make your argument without getting either label attached, someone might actually want to listen to you as though you were a rational human being.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#37

Post by chiaro »

MBCook wrote: post #34
kylec wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know much about GamerGate, but I'm definitely not on the side of people threatening violence.

That's kind of the unfortunate thing. Any valid point they have is basically erased by the actions of a few that they (on the whole) refuse to condem and distance themselves from. I'm sure there are tons of people in the 'movement' who don't want any part of the death threats, but their arguments are tainted by association. One side seems to want to simply be, a (hopefully) tiny number on the other side want their li…

This video series does a pretty amazing job in describing those two groups and their motivations (the harassers, and those caught up with them): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ&list=PLJA_jUddXv...

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#38

Post by flycaliguy »

daleharvey wrote: post #31
[deleted] wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

It is not a complicated situation, from the start its been clear that gamergate is solely a vehicle for organised harassment (primarily of women). There isnt any moral quandry or naunced position about it, its just harassment.

You may be right, but by making a polarized response to a comment claiming its a complicated issue with polarized sides... Its hard to take away much.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#39

Post by MBCook »

striking wrote: post #32
MBCook wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They reportedly received threats and piles of attention over both panels, and they didn't want to deal with that. What, exactly, did they think would happen when they stepped into GG? > They allowed both panels to sign up in the name of neutrality and diversity of ideas. That's bullshit. When one group is infamous for dragging the other through the trash, issuing death threats, bomb threats, etc. there is no 'neutr…

> I seriously doubt > the hate mob I've looked for evidence for which "side" did the harassment. SXSW didn't make specific who was part of the "hate mob". That's why I guessed it was both sides. > On the other hand I can easily see the pro-GGers On the other hand, you sound biased (as far as text can provide "sound"), without any specific data to back it up. If you know something I don't, I'd be glad to hear it. EDIT…

As I said, it's clear I'm anti-GG. Biased is defined as 'unfairly prejudiced' against someone. After watching people driven out of their homes and numerous death threats and doxxings I don't think my view of GG is 'unfairly prejudiced'.

SXSW hasn't said who is at fault and I imagine plenty of anti-GG people were... 'less than cordial'... about their thoughts.

But since one side of this 'debate' is know for issuing death threats I'm willing to make a firm guess on who is at fault.

> I'm not picking a side here, and I'd be willing to defend either in a debate.

At a certain point, when there is enough evidence, 'neutrality' in the face of a hate group isn't neutral.

Perhaps you don't know anything about GG and this is (more or less) the first you've heard of it. Because I know of it I tend to assume others in tech know of it (it's made the national news after all, multiple times).

So when I continue to see people couching things as a 'debate' and 'being neutral' to me it looks a lot like the people still 'asking' for 'debate' on the 'possibility' of climate change (or the dangers of vaccination, or the possibility of fake moon landings). They say that but clearly they've picked a side.

Re: SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats

#40

Post by falsedan »

eertami wrote: post #30
striking wrote: post #6

#SavePoint on why their panel was cancelled: http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community... LevelUp on why their panel was cancelled: https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/658780409765994496

I know nothing about the subject, but I've seen this twitter account before and instantly assumed it was parody. Is it a character being portrayed or a real person because I still can't tell.

A parody of what? Seems like a regular human making normal tweets about interacting with ridiculous close-minded misoginist chaps.
Post reply on HN