SXSW Cancels Gamer Panels After Threats
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
bits.blogs.nytimes.com
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.
I've seen a lot of things discussed on HN. I think that may be wishful thinking. Just because HN isn't full of straight out cussing and insults doesn't mean we're level headed or civil.
LevelUp on why their panel was cancelled: https://twitter.com/randileeharper/status/658780409765994496
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.
Randi Lee Harper is noted for making tools to help victims of online harassment. Level Up panel description was "A panel from experts on online harassment in gaming and geek culture, how to combat it, how to design against it, and how to create online communities that are moving away from harassment."
The GamerGate crowd claim that they care about "ethics in game journalism" and that the abuse that feminist gamers experience doesn't have anything to do with them. So theoretically, there aren't opposing sides here.
And I do not see that as too strong a word, either. Making threats against an event because it's against your ideology is the textbook definition of using fear to shape thought and policy.
These threats are never credible. It's high time to stop treating them as such.
edit: Added clarification of which "side" I'm on
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.)
Ultimately I think this will hurt their bottom line by driving diversity away from their event. Will discussions of racial diversity now be cancelled at the whim of the KKK? These groups operate through threats and intimidation, and I think there is a real risk of other hate groups catching wind of this and using similar tactics to stir up attention for their cause.
And the anti-GG, anti-harassment people are mad at them for hosting the others and then cancelling the good side... so they'll boycott and yell at the sponsors.
So instead of having neither group at no monetary cost, they found a way to have neither group and take a hit to their reputation and possibly pocket books.
And of course they didn't take a moral stand either way (which both sides likely see as a stand with their enemy).
Way to go SXSW. Playing with fire has a reputation for a reason.
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 'neutrality' to be found.
> And I guess people from both sides made sure neither could have nice things.
Again, bullshit. One side is know for getting death threats for existing, the other for sending death threats. One side is clearly to blame.
> (SXSW didn't blame anyone, but that's my guess.)
Clearly.
Now I know that the anti-GG people I know of have been VERY critical of SXSW for giving GG a panel in the first place. I know they've been campaigning and complaining. I'm sure they've expressed disappointment and probably personally boycotted the events.
But I seriously doubt the anti-GG people sent death threats.
On the other hand I can easily see the pro-GGers waning they would send them if their panel was cancelled, or the anti-GG panel wasn't cancelled, or because of some other perceived issue (such as one getting a better time slot or bigger room).
And now that SXSW was cowered to the hate mob, I imagine they'll get threats for for cancelling the pro-GG panel and letting the anti-GG people 'win' (despite losing their own panel too).
It's clear which side I'm on. I'm not trying to hide that I think GG is ruining my hobby. I'd say they're setting our image back 20-30 years but I don't remember death threats over NES games.
If SXSW wanted to be 'neutral' and stay out of it they could have. I don't understand how they went forward with scheduling the panels and didn't see all this coming. It's so predictable and sadly status-quo.
> 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.
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.
No true scotsman
No true Scotsman would be if someone clearly anti-GG was proven to send a death threat and I redefined them to not be anti-GG for some reason.
We haven't reached that point yet in my argument. I'd have to be proven wrong first.
Since the reason I'm anti-GG is the harassment and threats (don't agree with their ideas but I think they'd be ignorable without the problematic behavior), I wouldn't want to see someone on my side do the same. But they could.
I won't make any further comment about those threats. I have no info about them, all my thoughts on the possibility are heavy on bias (could be right, but clearly bias).
Anti-GG have in fact called in bomb threats against pro-GG meetings multiple times, so that doesn't follow.
Look, it's clear you feel strongly about this, but when you dismiss the misdeeds of people on your "side" you are doing exactly the same thing you're condemning on the other "side." It's better to take a civil attitude towards everyone. Discussion is good, threats and hyperbole are not. Gaming would be better off without the trolls and frothers on both sides of this mess.
I'm not convinced about the reverse, but that may be because I'm on my side. People can go pretty far to rationalize things.
There are people who enjoy playing video games, and laughing at life.
Then there are the SJWs out to shit on every game, and tell you that you're an asshole for laughing at anything.
Very clear lines drawn by the second group. The first group generally couldn't care less... it's just when the second group causes there to be more censorship or causes a game to be delayed because they don't want their little feels hurt that the first group takes offense.
We're on the outside looking in as two horseshoe theory extremist groups duke it out. They both have a lot of valid points, but the value for most of us is just drama and entertainment.
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.
http://www.theopengamingsociety.org/savepoint-dear-community...
That doesn't really follow from the facts as a reason to be concerned about violence. Austin's crime rate is lower than that of most other major American cities, including ones such as Chicago which have heavy gun control. (As per Wikipedia, Chicago's murder rate for 2014 was 15.1, Austin's 3.5.)
Though I can see them being overly cautious as a result, I think context is important here: that was a drunk driver running from the cops. SXSW being there was a tragic coincidence.
There's some super heavy flagging going on to censor this whole thing.
If you're just interested in making fun of nerds for liking video games... Again, you've had a Hacker News account for 8+ years. Might want to watch you you call "loser" for liking stuff related to technology.
(8+ years? Unless you first created your account when you were 10 years old, you're literally an adult who wrote the comment above. Wow!)
The problem is that the original issue (that level of online harassment is simply not acceptable irrespective of gender and how do we stand against it) and the original victims are now long forgotten in preference to a bunch of new actors who are all about the "political theatre" of their supposed "cause".
See: http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/3/8539733/gamergate-bomb-threa...
http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/16/9161311/bomb-threat-shuts-d...