Harassment in gaming

[MechaPilot]

Hmm, I might have paid to see that post.

It would have been very blue. Imagine if Richard Pryor had just come home from a tour of service in the navy (which, deserved or no, has a reputation for making people more potty-mouthed than they already are). However, a post might not have done the gut reaction justice. I mean, is there a smily that's actually so angry or ranty that it's spitting as it yells?

 

[Eltab]

I mean, is there a smily that's actually so angry or ranty that it's spitting as it yells?

Not on this board. You would have to merge these:

and a few more.

But if anybody out there is a budding artist ...

 

[Rottle]

I actually took that post in the same vain as swift's modest proposal.......

 

[Ovinomancer]

With respect, you probably don't.

For someone arguing that we shouldn't question the intent or words of someone complaining of harassment, this is rank hypocrisy.

And before you question my credentials as to not understanding the frustration, I've sat in hospital hoping for word that a gay friend of mine would pull through after having his throat cut by a bunch of redneck yahoos that thought the guy in drag walking home would make for fun sport. He didn't make it. That's ONE of my painful brushes with harassment and abuse. If you need a woman, because a gay man isn't good enough, how about my girlfriend that was raped by a fellow gamer? She was ostracized for being unfaithful to me despite me saying that the guy raped her. We both found a different group of friends. She couldn't even bring herself to report it because of the social pressure applied to her over the issue.

So, maybe, just maybe, climb down off of your high horse of determining who's able to say they understand or empathize with the outrage and frustration that comes from harassment. You just look like a supreme jerk and gatekeeper of the one true thought.

I mean, among gamers and geeks, don't we already nearly worship Batman?

"What Would Batman Do?" is a stupendously stupid argument.

 

[Springheel]

And that word is, "In our hobby, we have a problem with the majority group either directly harassing minority demographics in the hobby or standing on the sidelines and not doing anything to help resolve the issue."

No, that's not quite right.

In our hobby, we have a minority of people harassing other people, a minority of people condoning such behaviour, and a majority that either speak up against it, or are unaware of it.

She's pretty specific in the blog post. Those perpetrating these actions are doing so maliciously with the intent of forcing women and POC out of the hobby.

In her opinion. She fails to mention how she knows what their intent is.

Those standing on the sidelines and not doing anything, are every bit part of the problem, since they aren't actually doing anything to prevent those who are maliciously driving people out of the hobby. Thus, they get called out as cowards.

I actually don't think what the original article said is very relevant anymore, but for the sake of accuracy, she did not say "those standing on the sidelines" (implying men who were witnessing harassment and not doing anything about it). She said:

[White male terrorism] succeeds because the majority of men in the community are too cowardly to stand against the bullies and the terrorists.

The majority of gamers ... are instead complicit in lower levels of harassment.

“ behaviour” only persists because the majority of men are too cowardly to call the s what they are.

Her claim is that the "majority of men" in gaming are as bad as those doing the harassing, because they are clearly cowards or racists ("It is almost impossible to convince gamers that sexist and racist jokes are unacceptable"). She (and you, apparently) makes no allowance for those who have simply never witnessed any harassment in their gaming experiences.

If they were recognizing the problem, then the problem would largely be solved.

Please explain. The majority of people recognize crime as a problem, yet crime is not "largely solved".

 

[Umbran]

For someone arguing that we shouldn't question the intent or words of someone complaining of harassment, this is rank hypocrisy.

If they had said, "I've had that happen to me," I would not have questioned it.

But, that's not what happened. They instead asserted that they shared the emotional state of one who has been a victim, without claiming to have been harassed. So, I don't see how there's any hypocrisy there at all, much less it be rank.

Beyond that is something that comes out of both security training and grief counseling training - you shouldn't compare your own emotional experiences to a victim's *even if* you think you've been through an experience similar enough. For one thing, whether *you* feel it is similar enough is beside the point - if you are incorrect, you have effectively belittled the pain of another. Moreover, while there are some general classes of responses to harassment and other traumatic events, when dealing with an individual, the details of their feelings on the matter will be idiosyncratic, unique to them. Two people will react to similar events, and even the same event, in different ways. If you make a claim to having the same experience, you tend to actually believe their reaction will be the same as yours, and that's a mistake.

If you need a woman, because a gay man isn't good enough, how about my girlfriend that was raped by a fellow gamer?

My wife is a rape survivor as well. What you won't see is me then claiming to understand how *you* feel about it. That's the real point. It isn't about having credentials, as if having some specific set of life events allows you a seat at the discussion, or something. It is about not asserting you know how others feel.

So, maybe, just maybe, climb down off of your high horse

This is not a constructive way to address anyone.

"What Would Batman Do?" is a stupendously stupid argument.

In a literal sense, yes. But, the fact remains that our culture still generally believes in taking matters into your own hands on occasion - our love of Batman, superheroes, and rogue cops who go outside the law when they have to are indicative - so you can expect that some folks will feel it is okay to do so.

 

[Shasarak]

Hmm, I do not like people being harassed and on the other hand I do not like being called a White Male Terrorist so I guess that makes me apathetic.

 

[MechaPilot]

Hmm, I do not like people being harassed and on the other hand I do not like being called a White Male Terrorist so I guess that makes me apathetic.

Not really. Being apathetic means you simply don't care. You care, on both counts. You don't like harassment, and hopefully you would stand up against it if you saw it going on (you've always seemed like a decent person when we've talked here and on the WotC forums, so I suspect you might at least tell a harasser to stop acting like a jerk) You also don't care for the inflammatory language used in the article. I think a fair amount of people don't, but I also think many of realize that we wouldn't be having this discussion if the language in the provoking article wasn't so inflammatory. The inflammatory language has hurt the discussion, certainly, but it's really a personal judgement call as to whether it has done more harm with the hard feelings and periodic derailments than the amount of harm that's done by not addressing harassment.

 

[Shasarak]

Not really. Being apathetic means you simply don't care. You care, on both counts. You don't like harassment, and hopefully you would stand up against it if you saw it going on (you've always seemed like a decent person when we've talked here and on the WotC forums, so I suspect you might at least tell a harasser to stop acting like a jerk) You also don't care for the inflammatory language used in the article. I think a fair amount of people don't, but I also think many of realize that we wouldn't be having this discussion if the language in the provoking article wasn't so inflammatory. The inflammatory language has hurt the discussion, certainly, but it's really a personal judgement call as to whether it has done more harm with the hard feelings and periodic derailments than the amount of harm that's done by not addressing harassment.

I dont want to associate with the crazies on either side so that puts me firmly in the apathetic camp. Just let me play my game.

 

[MechaPilot]

I dont want to associate with the crazies on either side so that puts me firmly in the apathetic camp. Just let me play my game.

I'm a little confused. Are you including people who are being harassed in "the crazies?" What about the people who see someone being harassed and say something about it? And what about the people who think that harassment is a problem and advocate for doing something about it, but who don't use the kind of inflammatory language found in the article (for instance, me)? Are you lumping them (or even me) in with "the crazies" too? That doesn't jive with the impression that I have of you, especially not after you were kind enough on the WotC forums to PM me about comments I made that led you to believe I was having problems (and boy was I ever at the time).