Slashdot Mirror
SXSW Cancels Panels On Harassment Due To Harassment (sxsw.com)
New submitter rMortyH writes: Two panels on online harassment in gaming scheduled for the upcoming South by Southwest festival have been cancelled due to online harassment and threats. According to a statement from SXSW Director Hugh Forrest, "... in the seven days since announcing these two sessions, SXSW has received numerous threats of on-site violence related to this programming. ... If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised."
This is one of those things that's gotten too far out of hand. Now is not the time to have a rational conversation, that's impossible, now is the time to sit on it for a while so that we can come back to it later without quite so much yelling.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with a "politically correct narrative." This is a bunch of asshole teenagers on the internet being led by a couple basement dwelling 40 year olds who are mad at everyone for no good reason.
It's the dregs of humanity...on the internet...being assholes. Plain and simple.
Not a single "threat" would have been followed through on because these people either never leave their homes, or they're still under their parent's jurisdiction.
When you define disagreement as harassment, there is no way to have discussion.
Within game journalism. Hosted by The Open Gaming Society. Lynn Walsh was slated to speak.
Had nothing to do with harassment, unless the fact that Gawker apologists keep sending them bomb threats and trying to portray them as some kind of anti-women terrorist group counts. They pulled the same shit at an SPJ meeting, crickets from the press.
FWIW, the cancelled panels and some info from Googles cache:
SavePoint: A Discussion on the Gaming Community
We are attempting to organize a panel that we’d like to hold at SXSW 2016’s Interactive (Gaming) conference. The panel will focus heavily on discussions regarding the current social/political landscape in the gaming community, the journalistic integrity of gaming’s journalists, and the ever-changing gaming community, video game development, and their future. We will encourage honest critique and open dialogue between panelists and audience members, and will attempt to create a space where we can all speak on the social-political issues.
Speakers:
Lynn Walsh
Mercedes Carrera
Nick Robalik
Perry Jones
Level Up: Overcoming Harassment in Games
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 panel will dive into data around abuse in larger gaming communities. One of our panelists will talk about about ways to actually develop the social aspects of games - including UI decisions and how they can influence accuracy and usage of reporting abuse. Another will dive into UX design choices to stymy harassment in social media spaces.
Speakers:
Caroline Sinders
Katherine Cross
Randi Harper
Was run by someone who passes around blacklists and tells people to set themselves on fire. Tells you everything you need to know about these "harassment" accusations.
http://www.ship2block20.com/hidden-face-hypocrisy-randi-harper/
Meanwhile Savepoint had a journalist and a game dev on board.
From what I've seen there was 1 panel for each side. #SavePoint by the open gaming society Level Up panel organized by Randi Harper Both sides were harassed. Both canceled. OGS statement here: http://www.theopengamingsociet...
So, GamerGate's first large meetup in Washington, D.C. was disrupted by a bomb threat.
Then, GamerGate's panels in Airplay were disrupted by several bomb threats, despite precautions taken against possible bombs by the SPJ at the venue.
Now, their panel at SXSW was cancelled due to threats of violence and harassment.
The fact that they cannot seem to peacefully assemble, which is defined as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations (among many other human rights documents), should be concerning no matter what your position on GamerGate is.
"Gee I wonder what this Slashdot comment thread will look like...."
Yeah.. It's just as likely that this 'cancellation' is nothing more than a publicity stunt design to 'signal boost' 'awareness' of the 'problem.'
If people can not agree, disagree and embrace new ways of thinking in a safe and secure place that is free of online and offline harassment, then this marketplace of ideas is inevitably compromised."
Interesting. Marketplace of ideas, eh? I guess this guy's been watching certain vids on youtube. Too bad his 'new way of thinking' is newspeak jargon for 'politically correct' speech, which has no room for any other kind.
Bullshit.
The feminists like Anita Sarkesian and Zoe Quinn always play the victim card but never back up what they say.
If Gamergate taught me anything, it was to start looking really critically at wikipedia, because I was surprised at how their article on GG has nothing to do with reality. Since I followed this from the beginning. Of course, they only cite as "truth" the very journals and journalists that were directly involved in the scandals to begin with.
And here is this feminist shit again. In another victim ruse. Basement dwelling losers don't give a shit about these too. Threats wouldn't be followed up on, not because they're losers, it's because I don't think the threats exist in the first place.
Loved the humor you two a/cs, even if the moderator is too PC, I laughed. Also GGP is not a -1, troll, people are sick of the politically correct narrative and it is their way of rebelling.
This reminds me of my sister in law. I was teasing my brother, and he was smiling and happy, and she misunderstood the teasing as insults. She came screaming across and had a go at me. The smile on my brothers face dropped, like "oh no not again", and he tried to calm her down, explain that we were joking and he was having fun.
She insisted we spend the holiday apart after that, she couldn't simply admit she was wrong, it had to become a PC thing.
She doesn't interact in social situations much, and isn't use to the concept of ragging or teasing for fun. So she doesn't know how to behave in groups among friends, and they try to avoid her.
In short, she's a real cunt who can't admit she's wrong and makes REAL problems from her IMAGINED issues. For us, we had to find another hotel at peak season, which meant walking 2 miles with heavy bags on a hot summers day with no water. Fucking cow.
I see the same things here with these people. They don't interact much with real people in the real world, and so don't get to develop the thicker skin needed to be happy in social situations.
So the take actions which do serious harm, in order to be protected from the most minor imagined slight. As if their slight is more important than the real harm to free speech they're doing.
Thinking of just a recent example, some feminist (Laughing Witch) started and participated in a letter-writing campaign in order to get a particular anti-feminist (Thunderf00t) fired from his job. This letter contained several falsehoods and embellishments, and sought to leverage laws that could potentially lead to an unwarranted arrest. Pretty damn low.
In response to this, Thunderf00t found out where Laughing Witch worked and initiated a campaign to leave negative reviews of that business, since she was one of the company's officers. Answering the call with cult-like obedience, several of Thunderf00t's followers left fake, negative reviews of the business, and also tried writing letters of their own to get the woman fired. They reasoned that anyone else who happened to work for the business simply should have known better than to work alongside such a woman. Just as low.
Out of curiosity, I tried to point out how unethical the actions of both Laughing Witch and Thunderf00t were. Talk about bonkers. On the SJW side, Laughing Witch was of course justified, and any criticism of her tactic was somehow victim blaming. On the MRA side, any employees who would be harmed were just acceptable collateral damage in a round of karmic justice. On both sides, reasoned argument was something no longer considered of any use; instead, silencing the opponent (somewhat viciously) was considered the only option.
Both sides of this thing now view the debate as a war, and both sides are resorting to ever more despicable tactics.
"Is not a sentence" is not a sentence. Well damn.
The "panel" included Randi Harper - one of the most notorious trolls on the internet. I can only guess she's considered an expert because she has engaged in so much abuse that she can spot it a mile away.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-j...
This person is a horrible human being who should not be given any kind of soap box from which to speak.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
"People are sick of the politically correct narrative! SJWs won't stop playing the victim card!"
THIS WAS A PRO-GAMERGATE PANEL YOU NUMBNUTS. MERCEDES CARRERA WAS ONE OF THE PANELISTS.
I'm not even IN it anymore and I knew that, but people here see "panel about harassment in gaming at SXSW" and they go full fucking cultist. Incidentally, this kind of dumb shit is WHY I'm not in it. The longer any given group exists on the internet, the more likely it will turn into a bunch of howler monkeys that get triggered and assblasted by words they're afraid of. The fact that tumblr SJ trash did it first and loudest doesn't make this any less idiotic.
Curiously when Christina Hoff Sommers get threat from SJW, to the point where she need police protection, it doesn't make it to /. ...
Do they mean shit talking? I thought talking shit was part of the appeal of online gaming? What am I missing here?
People having varying personalities and approaches to social interactions. Some people (male and female) enjoy trash talk, as friendly competitive banter. Others find it aggressive, stressful, immersion-breaking, and plain annoying.
Plus there is trash talk, and there is plain insulting, discriminatory aggressions (racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist and ableist, notably), sexual harassment, and real-life threats and stalking (and there are sometimes 'real' consequences to this, with 'doxxing', 'swating', harassing family or co-workers/bosses, etc.).
There's also a matter of time and place. Starting to insult a complete stranger after he crushed you, flooding the chat with stupid binds, calling cheat and starting a voteban, isn't "friendly banter". You're just an annoying sore loser brat. Same with bragging about 'winning' a round, in a completely unbalanced game because of stacking or pros going pub-stomping, with people leaving, or going spectator to join the 'winning' team, even after having been switched to the 'losing' team as part of autobalancing.
And there's also the problem of griefing and cheating in multiplayer games, not just trash talking. They are often linked.
Of course, this is mostly a mirror of society (and kids imitating adults), it has absolutely nothing to do with computers, Internet, and gaming in particular, although the sense of anonymity and distance sure make it easier for people to 'slip'.
In some cases, people don't use smileys when they should too, particularly with strangers. There is a huge difference between a "Go die! :P" and "go die". Even when the person might actually have the exact same state of mind.
One important thing to note is that trash talkers in a carebear world, would just find things boring. While the opposite situation can lead to depression and suicide. A good society has to take the side of people more sensible and vulnerable to aggression, even if in many cases, this is actually just 'friendly' (albeit often clumsy) trash talk.
To summarize, you can trash talk all you want with your friends who enjoy it, particularly when you're on your own server, or isolated from strangers. But you're supposed to tread lightly with strangers, until you know they're receptive to friendly banter. And finally, many aggressive behaviors are just plain annoying, and I'm sure you are of the exact same opinion, most likely very openly. So, when we are talking about these problematic behaviors, just don't take it personally, right? 'Cause that's precisely what you're trying to argue is an error on the part of more sensible persons... Yes, there is overgeneralization in many news articles about it, like on most other subjects. That's not a reason to throw everything out in reaction.
Beyond faking screenshots (editing the shot, editing the page), maybe not a 3-minutes-storm of multiple tweets with perfect punctuation and grammar by an account with no other posts, that were some how 'caught' within 12 seconds of its final message while not logged in to twitter? Cue Patreon link
I'd also accept threat notifications submitted to the FBI and deemed credible, as opposed to submitted to twitter and deemed fund-able.
If words were that worrisome, pretty sure most of us would be dead by that Navy Seal that likes to post.
Skills is irrelevant, only the victory is. Even in real life. Those who succeed are more often than not those who perverted the system to fit their gain...
They don't give a shit about their own female folks in the islamic world. All they want is easy gain and power to satisfy their ego.
I will continue to play violent game because its fun. No body will tell me what I should or should not play.
Not a native english speaker, I presume?
No one is telling what you should play. Let's take Anita Sarkeesian. The people she's actually criticizing are game DEVELOPERS for overusing tropes.
That's it.
But YOU are taking her criticism of GAMES and developers personally.
"She's saying I'm a bad person when she says the games are bad."
But she's not saying the games are wholly bad, she's criticizing the tropes. That's it. Your problem is that your identity is too tied up in the games. In other words, you need to grow up.
The feminists like Anita Sarkesian and Zoe Quinn always play the victim card but never back up what they say.
Anita Sarkeesian reviewed a bunch of games, or more accurately started a kickstarted to make "Tropes versus women in videogames" and got a shitstorm of harassment. Are you claiming she wasn't in fact a victim of harassment?
And Zoe Quinn got a shitstorm of harassment over a review allegedly paid for by sex, except the review doesn't exist. So she got a shitstorm of harassment for something that never happend. Still going to claim she wasn't a victim of harassment?
[And if you claim that the review did happen, then post a link. So far after asking this of gentlemen such as yourself, the only link I've received that even mentions the game is a two word comment---that hardly qualifies as a review.]
It seems what happened is a bunch of bullies picked on some people and are now deeply upset that other people sympathise with the victims of the harassment. Well crap, what did you think would happen?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The review does not exist. If it does, I'm sure you can post a link to the review or a reputable archive such as the wayback machine. Two things to note, in order to pre-empt a bunch of non-review links I've been given before:
a) two words is not a review.
b) A mere mention along the lines of "Zoe Quinn (who you may remember from such games as Depression Quest) is doing something else which I'm now talking about" is also not a review of the game.
Now as I'm sure you're an honest, upstanding chap, I'm sure you will have no trouble providing me the evidence for what has essentially been the rallying cry.
I also fully expected to get modded down for this because it seems nothing is quite so trollish as actually demanding hard evidence. I've got Karma to burn so bring it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Anita Sarkeesian reviewed a bunch of games, or more accurately started a kickstarted to make "Tropes versus women in videogames" and got a shitstorm of harassment. Are you claiming she wasn't in fact a victim of harassment?
Would that be, before or after she said she doesn't play video games? Oh she got some harassment, of course in her world criticism = harassment. She even said as much in front of the UN. And of course one can't forget that she refuses to debate anyone, or anything she says. But wants her garbage to be put in place in schools, and used as teaching material. Well that seems great, how'd that work out for Jack Thompson and his "games cause people to become psychopaths" bit.
And Zoe Quinn got a shitstorm of harassment over a review allegedly paid for by sex, except the review doesn't exist. So she got a shitstorm of harassment for something that never happend. Still going to claim she wasn't a victim of harassment?
You still can't figure it out huh? It wasn't a review, it was favorable coverage. She got mentions over a pile of other indie games, not once but several times. Those articles were written by the same person, without disclosure. And if I remember right, I posted the links on that to you the last time. You simply got all upset and stuck to the "but it was a review" which of course is what anti-gg people have been saying for a year, which gg folks haven't said. Of course one can't forget the amount of harassment that she's engaged in, like doxing the owner of a credit collection company, or Of course you have to be pretty damn pathetic to dox a bunch of 30 year old loners and virgins who are already a mental wreck. Of course she also belonged to helldump(part of SA), which was a notorious group of doxers who drove at least one person to suicide. Yeah great face, for anti-harassment.
Of course, one can't forget that PC gamer deleted all of Tyler Wilde's articles either. You know why? Because he was shacked up with Anne Marie Lewis who was a Ubisoft comm. associate. PC gamer believed that the articles were biased, and deleted them all and went further to have all existing search results on those articles purged.
It seems what happened is a bunch of bullies picked on some people and are now deeply upset that other people sympathise with the victims of the harassment. Well crap, what did you think would happen?
Well it appears people didn't want to hear anything about her, or her little talk going by the polling that SXSW had up. So she went crying off to twitter when she discovered that the GG panel was approved, and they pulled it on both.
But I can't really blame SXSW. Considering the amount of crap that GG has put up with in the last year, it becomes more of a safety issue for pro-GG individuals. Since there have been at least a dozen confirmed bomb threats where GG has had their talks, panels and so on in the past. The most recent of course was the SPJ Airplay event, where the building was evacuated because of another credible threat that someone wanted to blow up pro-GG people.
Can't forget people like Geordie Tait either, who said he wanted to use sarin gas to kill pro-GG people at PAX.
Om, nomnomnom...
Enough GamerGaters are pro-harassment (with excuses as to why it's justified) to where you really can't argue that GamerGaters aren't a factor when harassment occurs.
Really? I'm sure you've got some non-citeogenesis articles to prove that. Especially since you won't find people who lean pro saying that harassment or doxing is justified. But then you'll get the "big name people" in the anti-GG side like Randi Harper or Zoe Quinn who have doxed people, have harassed, or have belonged to things like Helldump(which of course has caused people to commit suicide). Saying that doxing, harassing, and all that is perfectly fine. Or people like Bob Chipman saying "No bad tactics, only targets." Which explains a lot in terms of how far SJW's are willing to go.
Om, nomnomnom...
Would that be, before or after she said she doesn't play video games?
Depends. Did she do the reviews of the games after playing them or not?
Or is gaming so super special that someone who's not a gamer isn't allowed to start playing, form an opinion and then write about it?
And of course one can't forget that she refuses to debate anyone, or anything she says.
Yeah and? Did Roger Ebert ever engage his readers in debate? You have no right to expect someone to engage you in conversation. That's making a completely unreasonable demand on their time.
You still can't figure it out huh? It wasn't a review, it was favorable coverage.
That's blatantly rewriting history there. It was over a review of depression quest that the whole thing started. You know the one that didn't exist.
Because he was shacked up with Anne Marie Lewis who was a Ubisoft comm. associate.
Good point! That entirely justifies harassing Sarkeesian and Quinn.
Well it appears people didn't want to hear anything about her, or her little talk going by the polling that SXSW had up.
I'm lost: who are you talking about now?
Since there have been at least a dozen confirmed bomb threats where GG has had their talks
Confirmed? Where are the police reports?
Can't forget people like Geordie Tait either, who said he wanted to use sarin gas to kill pro-GG people at PAX.
Another good point! That entirely justifies the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Depends. Did she do the reviews of the games after playing them or not?
Or is gaming so super special that someone who's not a gamer isn't allowed to start playing, form an opinion and then write about it?
Well no one knows if she's played the games she's supposedly writing on. Though she has had people play them, in order to choreograph specific things in order to make up a talking point. The hitman section in the stripclub dressing room would be a good instance of that.
Perhaps it's just me, but if I was writing on a subject, I'd actually turn around and learn about it before writing about it. Especially if I want to have what I'm writing, be used as an academic source and for teaching materials. But who knows, maybe you have a much lower standard than most people, and are perfectly okay with that.
Yeah and? Did Roger Ebert ever engage his readers in debate? You have no right to expect someone to engage you in conversation. That's making a completely unreasonable demand on their time.
Roger Ebert never stated that his work should be used as an educational tool. She has. Of course people have offered her upwards of $10k to her, or the charity of her choice to have an open debate on what's she's written and she's never responded.
That's blatantly rewriting history there. It was over a review of depression quest that the whole thing started. You know the one that didn't exist.
Nope, the only person who's rewriting history is you. I've posted the articles for you before, and it was favorable coverage. You know, the ones that existed. Kind of like the stuff that was written by anna anthropy as well and another indie game developer, who anna was shacked up with and writing about. And there's the friends of hers she would write about and not disclose it.
Good point! That entirely justifies harassing Sarkeesian and Quinn.
So you keep saying, so why are you justifying the harassment of pro-GG people? Of course, you might also believe that disagreement and criticism of their work is harassment. Sure explains a lot, especially since most people once they reach highschool have to start defending their work in front of their peers.
I'm lost: who are you talking about now?
The stuff that's pertinent to the discussion. You did know that the polling information on the panels was posted and open. You do know that people voted in such low numbers on Harpers panel that it was declined. And she threw a hissyfit, and so did several other people calling on SXSW to cancel the Open Gaming Society panel.
Confirmed? Where are the police reports?
Well I'm guessing you're in the US, I'm not. So it won't cost you any money. But you can contact the Metro PD of Washington DC, and ask for the police reports on Local 16 bomb threats. They may or may not fill that one, because of the location and they've probably classified it as a possible terrorist event. And you can also give the PD in Miami Florida and ask specifically about the bomb threats at Koubek Center.
Another good point! That entirely justifies the harassment of Quinn and Sarkeesian.
So that explains why you're openly supporting the harassment of people in Gamergate huh? Sure explains a lot, they're "not the right kind of people" for you.
Om, nomnomnom...
Uh, wait a second here. You absolutely will find people who lean pro saying that harassment and doxing are justified, and furthermore, this whole fucking flap began because some of them doxed and harassed.
Really, let's go look at /r/KotakuinactionHmm...nope...doesn't look like it...and where people made mention of it, they were called out and shouted down. Well let's look at GG's current 8ch board. Hmm...nope, and when someone tries, they're shouted down and auto-saged off. Let's go look at the8chan archivesHmm...again it looks exactly like what happens in GGHQ. Well that's troubling...how about #gamergate? Well even WAM Didn't find that, and their own data said it was mainly the work of trolls.
Hmm...let's keep looking, how about this one? A journalist wants to know about GGers and harassment/doxing. Well this could be promising....oh wait...he only wants GGers that explicitly support it, so he's just looking for stuff to re-enforce the narrative that people in GG support it. Well that's a problem...
Om, nomnomnom...
That is patently false. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US...
You idiot. She was making a wider point about games that were overtly misogynistic, and said "what if someone made a game where you have to kill all men", as in how terrible would that be and what outrage it would cause among anti-feminists, and how hypocritical it is when they are fine with games that are about raping or killing women.
Stop being so PC and reacting to every carefully edited down quote as if it is a personal threat. Do your research before getting offended.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
You idiot. She was making a wider point about games that were overtly misogynistic, and said "what if someone made a game where you have to kill all men"
Doesn't that cover most shoot-'em-up games? If that was her point, she could probably have picked a better example.
My spoon is too big.
Oh, Anita Sarkeesian, is a victim alright--a professional one.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
That's why it gets no coverage. No-one is falling for it
I disagree. It's because the aGG movement (such that it is) is scared in rational discourse, knows they can't back up their stupidity with facts, relies on a false narrative and uses all of that to generate funds from misled people.
Feels like a big con trick to me, and their refusal to engage in calm polite conversation speaks volumes.
"Lewis' Law" is what is called a Kafkatrap. If you claim that negative responses to your idea validate it, then you have rendered it non-falsifiable; you have essentially quit the field of argument telling yourself you have won - when nothing could be further from the truth.
There's also Milo Yiannopolous, who calls gamers "overgrown manchildren" and "terminally beta".
Yet he's been quite the thorn in the 'social justice' crowd. If anyone's terminally "beta", it's the social justice warriors that rely on pandering to diversity as well as media gatekeeping to exist. Without both of those, the social justice crowd would be sitting next to Jack Thompson.
It was still two words, as the GP pointed out, in an article providing favorable coverage to 49 other games. But at least you admit it wasn't a review.
Still doesn't excuse Chelsea van Valkerberg's harassment of her ex (and in turn, anyone that dared question her) through the unquestioning media and the courts. Oh, and she still lost her court case despite the money.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.