Why do so many people hate Zoe Quinn?

[MugiMikey]

I also disagree with stereotypical gender roles enforced by society and those are all fine examples you listed. However, I was just trying to say that I am against the idea of abolishing freedom of speech that both Anita and Zoe were trying to enforce. You're right in that it's all about the execution, and that's why I can't seem to view Anita in a positive light.

[GUILD]

Zoe Quinn?

[Mauro Fonseca]

not gonna bother commenting on anything else (for now at least), just setting something straight- the "angry ex-boyfriend" did not post nudes, and the nudes that WERE later posted by others are from a shoot Quinn did for a Suicide Girls-like website. Not quite the same as "revenge porn".

Edited November 12, 2015 by The KKM

[Nepenthe]

However, I was just trying to say that I am against the idea of abolishing freedom of speech that both Anita and Zoe were trying to enforce. You're right in that it's all about the execution, and that's why I can't seem to view Anita in a positive light.

Abolishing freedom of speech? Give me a fucking break. This is the kind of exaggerated, hyperbolic language that makes me pissed off at gaming culture.

The type of critique Anita levels at games is serious child's play, the baby critique classes in any art college worth its salt. Films, literature, music, even comic books gets along just fine being examined and critiqued from social and cultural perspectives such as gender, sex, race, politics, and whatever else. Anita telling people to make work that's more conscious of inadvertent displays of casual misogyny is not censorship; it's a recognition of the studied fact that patterns of behavior and content in media reflect and reinforce our cultural fabric and a desire- a valid one at that- to see women not treated like fucking shit in the industry anymore (if we have to have an argument on whether or not either of these things is true, then fuck me). An artist taking this advice is not censorship either. Artists have actual autonomy and can make their own decisions based upon their own tastes and the arguments at hand. If an artist makes a game with a socially conscious female character or makes a change mid-production to make their work more socially conscious, implying that they were somehow forced to beyond their will is insulting to them as a person. And hypocritical as well- it's fine to bitch about games "changing focus", or changing their gameplay or genre, or having a shitty ending and boycotting the company about that. No one bats an eyelid about censorship then, or about "respecting the artist's vision." But Anita saying something about bad female representation? Stop the presses.

Speaking of hypocrisy, the fact that Anita is even a fucking controversial figure at all is infuriating on that front. Gamers want games so badly to be recognized as an art form and to be argued as having the potential emotional depth and value of other mediums, but they don't want to deal with what it actually means for something to be considered art. Art is about having an actual fucking conversation about the world around us, of about having something worthwhile to say, which means that there has to be critique and an examination of what art means within our social fabric. Gamers want the perks and protection afforded to art without any of the actual intellectual responsibility that comes with that protection, and as an artist I'm sick and tired of the entitlement. If gamers aren't willing to have these conversations, then they don't get the right to argue that games are art. They're still just fucking toys, at which point I would actually argue Anita is wasting her time and she should go back to doing the same thing to films and shows like she did beforehand where people didn't complain that she was advocating taking anything away from them.

[CrownSlayers Shadow]

Do people not realize how hard it would be (actually impossible) for any one person to censor freedom of speech? Much less in American without a shred of tech the NSA has, and especially the UN which is a toothless organization that can barely do shit other than vent in regard to censorship. The only thing people like Quinn have done is (inadvertently or intentionally, doesn't really matter) stir controversy towards the portrayal of women in games and giving them attention - attention that certain gamers are too sensitive to hear and resort to acting like 5 year olds over.

It's the typical problem of the majority, throwing hissy fits and temper tantrums when they're told they can't have everything their way and should share and tolerate other different people. How many times have we seen this play out in history? (And I fucking dare you to challenge me on this, because that list is huge)

I'm a moderate critic of Anita, Quinn, and Feminisms when they don't seem to practice what the preach, but at the end of the day the childish reactions they've recieved highlights the very thing they identify as feminists for in the first place. And it's hilarious how much of an obvious self-fulfilling prophecy this ended up becoming when anyone remotely familiar with the internet, and humanity's inclination toward the most dickish actions for shits and giggles thanks to anonymity, could have seen this play out exactly how they'd claim it isn't while doing just what they don't want to be seen as.

Gotta love hypocrisy - the primary reason why I think humans are bastards more often than not.

Edited November 13, 2015 by ChaosSupremeSonic

[Regen]

We are kind of getting off topic talking about Anita don't you think,  . I'm tired of hearing about mindless conspiracy theories about her and I pretty much completely agree with Nepenthe on this and agree with ChaosSupremeSonic a fair bit too.

Let's get back to Zoe Quinn, I think there is some legitimate criticism with the UN report, although didn't Zoe not like the report herself? I'm going to be completely honest, I know next to nothing about that UN fiasco. If they want to censor the internet then I'm against that, not like they have the power if they did want to. That said there are far worse representatives in the UN than those two for internet censorship. Isn't China a member?

 

not gonna bother commenting on anything else (for now at least), just setting something straight- the "angry ex-boyfriend" did not post nudes, and the nudes that WERE later posted by others are from a shoot Quinn did for a Suicide Girls-like website. Not quite the same as "revenge porn".

Any evidence for this because I've literally never heard of this before. Not saying you are wrong, just want a source. Because of this is true it changes things considerably for me. It's still terrible, but it would be quite the abomination I thought it was.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Regen

[Mauro Fonseca]

Any evidence for this because I've literally never heard of this before. Not saying you are wrong, just want a source. Because of this is true it changes things considerably for me. It's still terrible, but it would be quite the abomination I thought it was.

Give me a while, this is not stuff I've kept journalistic tabs on, per se, just stuff I saw unfold over time, so right now my source is just "my memory". I'll try to find some other sources- I recall a woman who'd previously photographed with Quinn came forward talking about one of the shoots, and although I've never seen the photos, I'll guess they're probably watermarked.

As for the "ex-boyfriend didn't post them" part, well... you could read his post. It's still online, as far as I know hasn't been altered other than the intro page, and well, has no photos at all, IIRC (been around a year since I've read it though). I'd argue it's also a relevant part of the discussion that most people seem to not bother reading instead relying on he-said-she-said stuff, but being honest I don't care much here- my point is just that the revenge porn accusation is a misreading of a bunch of separate events on purpose to paint the ex-boyfriend on the worst light possible, and therefore is a factual error, not that anyone deserves it or not.

Edited November 13, 2015 by The KKM

[Regen]

you could read his post.

I've read some of this blog now and it's the work of a madman, it's so clear to me that he's a fucking angry ex and, hey, I know how it's like to feel that way  . Fortunately, I didn't post all our little dirty secrets on the internet.

I haven't seen any evidence that he didn't post the nudes, but I'll take your word for it. The reason we just assumed he put the nudes on the web is because of how salty and unpleasant his blog is, it's really not beyond the realms of possibility.

[Wentos]

Speaking of hypocrisy, the fact that Anita is even a fucking controversial figure at all is infuriating on that front. Gamers want games so badly to be recognized as an art form and to be argued as having the potential emotional depth and value of other mediums, but they don't want to deal with what it actually means for something to be considered art. Art is about having an actual fucking conversation about the world around us, of about having something worthwhile to say, which means that there has to be critique and an examination of what art means within our social fabric. Gamers want the perks and protection afforded to art without any of the actual intellectual responsibility that comes with that protection, and as an artist I'm sick and tired of the entitlement. If gamers aren't willing to have these conversations, then they don't get the right to argue that games are art. They're still just fucking toys, at which point I would actually argue Anita is wasting her time and she should go back to doing the same thing to films and shows like she did beforehand where people didn't complain that she was advocating taking anything away from them.

So how about the people who actually want to have a conversation? I don't know about you, but I've seen countless people who are frustrated with figures like Anita because she will not converse. Some people disagree with her entirely, sure, but others are willing to concede at points; I know because I'm one of them. The frustration then comes when she refuses to acknowledge any argument pushed in her direction, while continuing to only spotlight the irrational, harassing people. Those people are bad, yes. Those people are unreasonable, yes. But her actions carve a narrative that makes it appear as though harassment is all she's receiving, not legitimate counter-arguments. I'm not disagreeing that harassment needs to be pointed out, not at all. What I'm saying is that despite it, there needs to be conversation, like you said, otherwise there's no coming to an understanding and there's no growing as an industry.

Critics like Anita are not the problem. The problem is when dissenting discussion is not given a voice. People like me are not upset that she exists, that she critiques games, or even that she's such a popular figure. They're upset because no one is allowed a voice to debate her.

[Regen]

So how about the people who actually want to have a conversation?

I don't like the way Anita won't have a conversation. I don't like that she has disabled comments and I hate that she has disabled voting on videos because there's no reason to do that and I imagine her later videos would actually fare better on upvotes. They would still be poor, but they would be a lot better than before.

That said, she has addressed points in vague non-conversation ways before, such as Hitman and Mirror's Edge, and she does make vague attempts at listening to feedback which is shown by how she has deliberately taken her video series in a more positive 'here are some good examples of women in games' approach lately, although she still has the occasional confrontational classic formula.

It's not perfect, but I do think she's listening to feedback more than people think.

But then again, this topic is supposed to be about Zoe Quinn  

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

Last thing, she did say your allowed to upload and start a convseration. But i would disable comments to if all i hear was the many ways I was gonna be raped and my adress posted so people can show up and kill me. Yep I would disable them.

[Nepenthe]

No one has time to sift through the shit that is an Internet hate mob to find the nuggets of gold that might be attempts at conversation, and I say might because considering she doesn't know you she has no reason to think you might be one of the good ones versus another troll trying to bait her into the same crap the last 5000 trolls already have.

That's the thing- she has tried to address these counterpoints and engage with people, but that means opening herself up to the majority of pushback which is nothing but insults, rape threats, doxxing encounters and whatever else. And this shit takes a mental toll. I've felt some kind of way about some of the shit said about me and the way I do my job on here, to say nothing of one troll's rape threats. Monica Lewinsky is on record for saying the wave of negative attention she received for years pushed her to suicide. What people need to understand is that the Internet is an intertwined part of people's lives, and continuous negative association with it will affect your mental health. Just look at the Personal Discussion on here for a glimpse into that if you can't bother empathizing with famous female figures. That is more important than fucking video games.

That's why comments are disabled- for safety, not because she doesn't want to respond to arguments. That good comments get caught in the crossfire are easy collateral when you consider what's at stake for her. And asking her to open up the floodgates because you feel entitled to conversing with her directly is nothing more than apathy and trivializing behavior. "Not all of it is harassment!" But the majority of it is. Because gaming and Internet culture is shit.

So write a blog post and send her a link. Start an opposing video series. Talk with people on forums. These are also healthy outlets of dialogue. You are not being violated and stifled by censorship because she locked her doors to protect against intruders. You want her to open her comments section? Stop bitching at her and bitch at the gamers who brought guns to the classroom first.

[Wentos]

Please don't accuse me of lacking empathy. I've been harassed continuously for years on end over things I can't control, I know what it's like. Regardless of the fact, I am open and honest with the people who pay attention to me; I want to appear human. Perhaps Anita wants the same thing, but my problem is that she doesn't show her human side very often. She's very opaque in terms of public image, and perhaps that makes it harder to empathize with her, yes. I reserve complete sympathy because I know many controversial figures who receive just as much hate speech as genuine feedback, if not more; but they don't attempt to shut it down. That stuff sucks, sure, but plugging your ears doesn't stop it from existing. Like I said before, spotlighting is a good practice, even. But she clearly pays attention to the harassment if she's spotlighting it, no? So if she pays attention to that, and even gives it a spotlight, why does she never do similarly to people offering rebuttals to her content? At this point I could somewhat understand if she was blocking out everything, but this demonstrates she's clearly not. The selective spotlighting becomes even more frustrating then.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Wentos

[Nepenthe]

I will bet my entire gaming collection that you do not know what it's like for a location where you're going to be at to receive a bomb threat because of your upcoming presence at said location. Again, we need to stop trivializing what has happened to people seriously caught in Gamergate/4chan's crossfire.

There is no "but" about it either. She's the victim in this scenario. Saying it's hard to empathize with that because she distances herself from people as a defense mechanism is bad. Full stop.

And it's easier to spotlight bad behavior when 90% of it is indeed bad behavior versus an attempt to actually talk with her like civilized human beings. I would probably start doing that shit too- mocking and highlighting the people who are asswipes- both because it's satisfying to dog on jerks and because it might deter one or two people from doing the same.

So I stand by my call to action: you want her to open up? Help foster a playing field where she won't be targeted by laser-guided missiles the moment she steps onto it by taking your indignant attitude to the gaming community who fucking started it. The fact that there are a few audience members who are doing fuck all except "not condoning the behavior" is nothing more than this:

[Wentos]

Please don't misunderstand; I absolutely want to create a welcoming environment for critique and debate, including what she has to offer. I just think that by highlighting harassment and nothing else, it unfortunately sends the message that harassment is what gets people attention and what gets a rise out of the people those harassers don't like. I don't want her to be harassed, I don't want anyone to be. I want her to reach out and engage with the people who really want to discuss, because I feel like that's how we're going to get anywhere as an industry. I think the best way we can teach people not to harass is by example, and if she connects with the people who want to discuss, it'll show that she gives attention to reasonable people and not to bullies. That's why I was suggesting the compromise that she do some of both, but my ideal scenario is that she engages with reasonable people exclusively, as much as possible. I know harassment is hard, I have experience being the target of it. I don't support people who engage in it, but what exactly are we supposed to do about that besides not give it the attention it craves and instead lead by example?

But I guess I haven't been through exactly the same degree of harassment she has, so my opinion is completely irrelevant. I wasn't aware that defending myself against an accusation that I lack empathy was the same as trivializing harassment.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Wentos

[Nepenthe]

The way we're going to get anywhere as an industry is by setting ablaze the community to rid it of the people and behavior who say what has happened to people surrounding Gamergate is okay. You keep saying you don't want her to be harassed but you seem perfectly fine with assuming that there's nothing to be done and thus the onus is on her to get steamrolled by harassment anyway all just so you can send her a goddamned comment on one of her videos. This is fucked up thinking.

There has never been a single problem in the history of humanity solved by just ignoring it, so one thing everyone can do is participate in callout culture and actually put people to task for engaging in harassment instead of ignoring them. Engage them in debate, however stupid and meaningless you feel it is, and make an example out of them. Encourage others to do the same. Send reports of harassment and behavior to the appropriate authorities and channels on those websites, or to the police if you happen to come across something considered a threat to public safety. Push journalistic outlets and influential people into talking about and spotlighting these things for more general audiences and exposure. And hey, why not instead of trying to send some fucking rebuttal to an example in one of her videos that offended you, you send Anita a nice personal message or letter instead? A little "I wish you well" or "I'm sorry for what you're going through"? Seriously, did you ever think to actually support her versus just argue with her? 

This is how we make the gaming community better- by growing up, getting over ourselves, and self-policing it, because by ignoring the behavior you are inherently condoning the behavior. So don't sit here and act all coy and empathetic when you're insistent on not compromising and instead putting the onus on her allow you to come to her. You're not owed that fucking benefit of the doubt. You don't demand she unlock her doors and get pissed off when she doesn't because she feels unsafe. You make it safe for her to do so.

[Wentos]

I refuse to become a pathos-driven activist because a professional board moderator told me I have a fucked up opinion for not absolving someone of their shady behavior because they've been harassed.

The best thing I can and will do for myself is to stop giving attention to this whole controversy. It's clear to me that dissent is not considered okay in any sense, if I'm not giving all of my empathy to someone because of what they've been through; especially when their behavior is often misrepresentative.

If you think I'm heartless or fucked up (and you've made it clear already that you do), congratulations on your vindictive attitude, but I do not care. People like you and her do not make me want to address the issue, but ignore it and consider myself better for that.

[GUILD]

I refuse to become a pathos-driven activist because a professional board moderator told me I have a fucked up opinion for not absolving someone of their shady behavior because they've been harassed.

The best thing I can and will do for myself is to stop giving attention to this whole controversy. It's clear to me that dissent is not considered okay in any sense, if I'm not giving all of my empathy to someone because of what they've been through; especially when their behavior is often misrepresentative.

If you think I'm heartless or fucked up (and you've made it clear already that you do), congratulations on your vindictive attitude, but I do not care. People like you and her do not make me want to address the issue, but ignore it and consider myself better for that.

Wentos is the man

[Regen]

I'm going to write out a longer reply to Nepenthe in a min, but can we try to be respectful to each other? I know we are all passionate, but it's important to listen to each side of the argument. Attacking each other does nothing and reinforces people's idea that GamerGate and Sarkeesian shouldn't be discussed on message boards.

As Silver would say:

"It's no use". 

 

[Nepenthe]

You didn't need to repeat yourself since I got that you didn't care from the beginning. Again, you think it's more important to tell her why she's wrong on some of her points than to engage in the bigger systemic issues that prevent her from taking the step to opening up a direct dialogue with you in the first place. It's not behavior that's particularly surprising for gaming culture, but it's still shitty behavior that needs to be called out and shamed. So you getting even more indignant and throwing your hands up because I'm not letting you off the hook is hilarious, a perfect example of the fake-ass empathy that makes the gaming community at large pretty fucking terrible a lot of the time. You can walk away and think you're the better man all you want, but at the end of the day Anita is still going to have her comments box locked down to prevent harassment. And it's not going to open up until you and other gamers like you get over yourselves and actually give her a reason to do so.

[Rey Skywalker-Ren]

I'm going to write out a longer reply to Nepenthe in a min, but can we try to be respectful to each other? I know we are all passionate, but it's important to listen to each side of the argument. Attacking each other does nothing and reinforces people's idea that GamerGate and Sarkeesian shouldn't be discussed on message boards.

As Silver would say:

"It's no use". 

 

Its a never ending battle and why the community will always exlude certian groups of people 

Edited November 13, 2015 by Sonikku.

[Nepenthe]

As a note, I'll probably be stepping out of this topic myself for a little bit. On the particular tangent that came up, I'm not going to be willing to actually yield any ground anyway. I said what needed to be said and that's that, and Wentos has a point that me being a mod skews the balance some when it comes to actually conversing. So yeah; toodles.

[Regen]

That's why comments are disabled- for safety, not because she doesn't want to respond to arguments.

That's true, but I don't think it takes into account the overall picture that Sarkeesian doesn't usually respond clearly to criticism. I've already said above that Sarkeesian does vaguely respond to criticism, and she usually does so well (but vaguely). However, usually Sarkeesian only responds to criticisms that are very easy to shoot down. So for example, she brilliantly shot down the BS rumour that she wanted Mirror's Edge to have an alternate control scheme, but that was partly because it's easy for her to shoot down. When it comes to some of her points that even I think are stupid and agree with the criticism, she's never responded to it. For example, she horribly misrepresented Watch Dogs, making out the game used sex trafficking victims as background decoration. It was woefully unfair considering, despite being as boring as fuck usually, Watch Dogs had a really good scathing attack on sex trafficking. The nudity wasn't supposed to be erotic, it was supposed to be unsettling and horrible, and I think it managed it really well. The other example is her attacks on violent video games, where she wants to see games like Doom change because she personally doesn't like the violent aesthetic, that's stupid and I don't think I need to explain why. She was actually criticised rarely by mainstream media for the latter example, and she's never responded to either criticism. She's never responded to stealing let's play footage. She also never usually agrees to interviews with Youtubers, even calmer ones, and she's very difficult to get a hold of. So yes, disabling the comments isn't censorship, but it's part of a wider picture of her refusing to respond to valid criticism clearly.

you send Anita a nice personal message or letter instead? A little "I wish you well" or "I'm sorry for what you're going through"? Seriously, did you ever think to actually support her versus just argue with her? 

This is how we make the gaming community better- by growing up, getting over ourselves, and self-policing it, because by ignoring the behavior you are inherently condoning the behavior. So don't sit here and act all coy and empathetic when you're insistent on not compromising and instead putting the onus on her allow you to come to her. You're not owed that fucking benefit of the doubt. You don't demand she unlock her doors and get pissed off when she doesn't because she feels unsafe. You make it safe for her to do so.

I actually wrote Anita a very polite message on how I think she misrepresented Watch Dogs on her website. She hasn't responded. I know she's really busy, but this is part of why people think she doesn't respond to criticism. 

As for the community needing to grow up, absolutely! I hate how the gaming community has lost their fucking shit over this.

And just to reiterate, I actually like Sarkeesian. I'm a subscriber to her and watch all her videos when they come out, usually every blue moon until recently. That said, I can admit, like all other Youtube Channels, she has done some stuff I don't like.

As a note, I'll probably be stepping out of this topic myself for a little bit. 

 

Last thing, she did say your allowed to upload and start a convseration. But i would disable comments to if all i hear was the many ways I was gonna be raped and my adress posted so people can show up and kill me. Yep I would disable them.

I would too. I think I just want Sarkeesian to be this superhuman who can be an amazing example of someone who stands against all criticism. Maybe that's an unfair expectation.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Regen

[Yoko/葉子]

Personally, I have no idea who Anita is.

As for Zoe, I have not played her game and thus do not fully understand if it was worth so much controversy. Some of my friends support her, but I can't be sure who's side to be on, I still feel bad for the harassment she went through.

Edited November 13, 2015 by Lime/Parvati-Pai/Key

[Diogenes]

For example, she horribly misrepresented Watch Dogs, making out the game used sex trafficking victims as background decoration. It was woefully unfair considering, despite being as boring as fuck usually, Watch Dogs had a really good scathing attack on sex trafficking. The nudity wasn't supposed to be erotic, it was supposed to be unsettling and horrible, and I think it managed it really well.

From what I have seen of Watch Dogs that whole sequence (along with many other parts of the game) is pretty fucking skeevy, even if it wasn't for the sake of titillation. It takes a serious real-world issue, shoves it into GTA-lite, and lets you play hero for a bit, so you can feel good for shooting all those bad men.