Misogyny and other gender issues. - The Bear and Badger

Yossarian

RedDave2 wrote:

Yossarian wrote:

So your stand here is based on there being no difference between targeting and criticising?

Criticising someone over a criminal act without proof sounds incredibly dangerous to me. Take it outside of the sexual assault aspect, imagine you were accused of racist or homophobic actions. How do you stop that from spreading on twitter or similar. Can you even force a retraction. And what if you get accused of a genuine crime. Sure, it may be untrue and the police may never prosecute but damage can be done.

I understand that society and the law has badly, badly let down victims here. I'm not blind at all to that. It's not right what anyone who has suffered a sexual assault has to go through to legally prove their case. But this doesn't feel right to me either.

This is what we do, though, the only difference is that it’s moved online. We do warn each other of people who may cause harm, and we do so without the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction, it’s human nature. The only difference is that the communication channels have changed because of technology.

djchump

Vela wrote:

So should bullies, abusers etc. never be outed?

To a global audience? Put them in the stocks so a few million people can point and laugh? Sure, that wont have any consequences.

Well, sure it can have consequences. Everything can have consequences.

My problem is with your stance is that you seem to be suggesting that in cases where nothing strictly illegal has occurred, or cases where legal channels have failed or are unavailable, that the victims should quiet.

For all its faults, Twitter and social media is a modern form of communication that seems particularly important and widely-used in the Indie scene. Sure, it's more public than chat and bitching sessions down the pub, but in the case of these victims the intent is very deliberately to broadcast a headsup to prevent other vulnerable people from falling into the same pitfalls/traps that they had fallen into.

It's a horrible great moral calculus to have to weigh up "what's the likelihood that outing this bully will cause them to hurt themselves or others" vs "what's the likelihood that outing this bully will prevent further harm to others"... but I guess that's where we end up if people are repeat abusers.
It's a tragedy that this fella has killed himself, as is every suicide, but we don't have any idea how many people have suffered at the hands of the people being outed, and we probably don't know if any of the victims had been abused to the point of self-harm or suicide. We can also never know if this spate of outings will prevent further harm to vulnerable people in future either, so we will never be able to point at any kind of graph to unequivocally state "yes, this prevented more harm than it caused". Of course it would have been much better if he'd been able to get treatment - monsters aren't born, they're made, but being a victim does not give anyone license to victimise others.

Everything has consequences, but bullies and abusers are enabled by silencing the victims, and that's how the cycle continues.

Vela

Diluted Dante wrote:

So should bullies, abusers etc. never be outed?

To a global audience? Put them in the stocks so a few million people can point and laugh? Sure, that wont have any consequences.

So what audience should their actions be outed to?

This also applies to Yoss' and chumps' posts above, but have you noticed in the threads amongst the accused, victims and supporters - almost all were in the same industry or connected services?

Maybe a medium confined in that space rather than a global space is more appropriate and practical when you are naming names.

If its a case of general sympathy with another victim, sure - go global. If its in a smaller environment what does broadcasting it to everyone achieve other than making them absolutely singled out? The localised warning achieves the practical outcome of making sure colleagues know the risks and have support too.

Yossarian

Does any such medium exist?

djchump

There's a few private games industry forums. Companies are regularly named and shamed in places like that as "don't work in that place, it sucks because X". People less so, but gossip spreads.

But then, that's how things like this become "open secrets" whereby people who were already in the know end up not doing anything about it because "oh, yeah, that's just person X. They're like that".

Vela

Yossarian wrote:

Does any such medium exist?

Professional associations, unions, subject matter forums, communities of practice?

Yossarian

Forums, maybe as Chump says, do the others exist within gaming to any meaningful degree?

Yossarian

djchump wrote:

There's a few private games industry forums. Companies are regularly named and shamed in places like that as "don't work in that place, it sucks because X". People less so, but gossip spreads.

But then, that's how things like this become "open secrets" whereby people who were already in the know end up not doing anything about it because "oh, yeah, that's just person X. They're like that".

I guess the other issue with these types of forums is that you can’t gain access until you’re in the industry, leaving people at the start of their careers vulnerable.

Vela

linked in?

Yossarian

LinkedIn is as public as Twitter or Facebook.

poprock

LinkedIn isn’t a viable medium for anything except recruitment.

Tempy

I feel this part of a post from Scott Benson, one of Holowka’s close friends whilst they worked on Night in the Woods is relevant

Some people want to know exactly what we knew and when so they can figure out who around him is most complicit. Some people want us to give them hard evidence, as if such a thing was even possible, or as if it would appropriate to give them in the first place. Some people randomly doubt all of this because nobody had Alec arrested, which shows a weird understanding of the reality of human relationships and abuse that I can only assume comes from experience of the world via online chatter and a list of how things should work. The idea that there's a foolproof system in place that can stop this, can riddle it out, can tell us exactly who is and isn't guilty, a system which can set all this right. But it doesn't work like that in real life. Some of the demand for more info stems from the idea that if something is put out in public then any interested party is owed as much information as they want to work out their own stance and to judge ours. But at least for us the only reason we're working this out in public is because we have to. It was out there, and we've had to respond to it. Like we have to tell you now. And it's been like stabbing myself in the stomach every day to have to type words like this. To sum up- this isn't some "guilty til proven innocent" or "social media mob" thing for us. There's years of real life context to this, involving lots of people who aren't even online or public about this, and the fact that some folks just found out about it this week doesn't mean it began there. It's just when it became public.

This was before the suicide.

Laying all of this at Quinn’s feet regardless of whether she’s a liar is wrong. Laying it all at twitter’s feet seems wrong too, though I can understand the feeling that it exacerbated it. But there’s people and years of context being ignored. It’s clear that Holowka struggled with mental health issues for years, that he was a serial abuser, and that he was seeking help and support to change and reform til the end. His death is a tragedy, and he leaves a complicated series of events behind him. There’s clearly context far beyond what people want to peg as the primary driver for the past few days.

djchump

Vela wrote:

This also applies to Yoss' and chumps' posts above, but have you noticed in the threads amongst the accused, victims and supporters - almost all were in the same industry or connected services?

Well, of course - that's part of the equation that puts the abuser in a position of power and authority. Everyone is aware of that.

Vela wrote:

Maybe a medium confined in that space rather than a global space is more appropriate and practical when you are naming names.

Almost always this was already done. Quite often, it was already done in public on Twitter etc anyway, but never got much attention. For better and worse, this recent explosion of attention seems to me to be entirely due to the signal boost from Quinn and Alexander, which got the huge attention due to the priors with GG and then further snowballed because it emboldened further victims to tell their stories.

Vela wrote:

If its a case of general sympathy with another victim, sure - go global. If its in a smaller environment what does broadcasting it to everyone achieve other than making them absolutely singled out? The localised warning achieves the practical outcome of making sure colleagues know the risks and have support too.

While this happens all the time - no doubt we've all worked somewhere and when a new person joins they get a headsup about "watch out for X, they can be a handful" - I think what makes it rather different for the Indie scene is how small and relatively ad hoc the companies are, how baked into it the use of Twitter, Twitch and other social media channels and also that the people trying to join are often hobbyists. Those that have left a large devco generally know people in the industry and have more of a grounding in the local areas and pitfalls, but how do you get a message out to hobbyists and people just starting out about the perils of taking up offers from an established Indie person to come and work with them? Explicitly, that kind of message has to be global.

Armitage_Shankburn

You people need to come off twitter, it's made you nuts / not see the wood for trees. It's not the first time I've noticed that.

Armitage_Shankburn

JonB wrote:

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

But yeah, I wrote her off back in 2011. Antibody who hasn't, is a foolish man.

So you've dismissed this whole issue before even knowing what it's about based on a single name that's involved. OK.

No: I expressly did NOT do that.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

That said, I can believe that sexless dorks who think they have achieved powerb and influence might not behave so well around women. I just wish we wouldn't name Zoey fucking Quinn as a credible whistleblower.

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Facewon wrote:

. You've imagined that I have said something about other women coming out against abusive practice - I did not, I just bemoaned bringing up Zoe fucking Quinn. I expressly indicated I'd be minded to believe those claims, or claims in general, without more, because of the profile of men who end up "big in the industry.

Got anything else chief, or is your brain still in "criticising Zoe Quinn = ergo Plato "full on GG", which is a fucking insult

As for this:

JB wrote:

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Pay attention to nice people, to kind people, to talented people. She's none of those things.

Which one are you?

Another insult, nice. Well, it's nought to me, I'll stay off this thread from now on - seems that people get very upset by my contributions. (Even if they don't seem to take the trouble to read what I post properly).

JonB

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Me too movement for the games industry, FML. Zoe Quinn. Zoe fucking Quinn?

Vela

Tempy wrote:

Laying all of this at Quinn’s feet regardless of whether she’s a liar is wrong. Laying it all at twitter’s feet seems wrong too, though I can understand the feeling that it exacerbated it.

If this is veiled or not at me, Ive been pretty clear that Quinn's allegations deserve to be taken seriously. Several times.

On twitter, Ive said my part.
Its the digital equivalent of the stocks in front of an audience of millions. Someone like weinstein or kevin spacey might weather that, but someone who isnt a global name? The magnifying impact is surely more severe.

Tempy

I’m well aware of Quinn’s reputation in the past but she’s an easy name to bring up here because people know it. It doesn’t mean I flatly and slavishly agree with anything she says, but as Scott Benson said it’s not a singular instance being reported here.

It’s also not really possible to talk about the without talking about the fuel this adds to the GG side of shit. It’s the exact thing they want to hear. Quinn responsible for murder. No context matters because they’ve already decided their opinion on matters despite it being far greater an issue than her, or even Holowka. The Alexis Kennedy stuff is big news for the UK game scene because he was a big gatekeeper.

Armitage_Shankburn

JonB wrote:

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

Me too movement for the games industry, FML. Zoe Quinn. Zoe fucking Quinn?

All about tone and form with you isn't it - you don't do substance much.

Vela

GG would be shit regardless. That fire needs no fuel.

Tempy

Vela wrote:

Tempy wrote:

Laying all of this at Quinn’s feet regardless of whether she’s a liar is wrong. Laying it all at twitter’s feet seems wrong too, though I can understand the feeling that it exacerbated it.

If this is veiled or not at me, Ive been pretty clear that Quinn's allegations deserve to be taken seriously. Several times.

On twitter, Ive said my part.
Its the digital equivalent of the stocks in front of an audience of millions. Someone like weinstein or kevin spacey might weather that, but someone who isnt a global name? The magnifying impact is surely more severe.

There’s discourse going on beyond you. I’m not jabbing at anyone in particular, I’m just staring my viewpoint. I agree there is a magnifying effect, but Kennedy and Soule are carrying on just fine at this point. What Holowka did had a huge bundle of context you can’t just divorce from it.

Vela

Tempy wrote:

What Holowka did had a huge bundle of context you can’t just divorce from it.

Indeed. The mental health angle also suggests the public outing wasnt the most constructive approach to take, surely?

Yossarian

Depends on your goal, if it’s warning as many people who may be endangered by an individual as possible, then it was.

Vela

That was a resounding success then.

Tempy

I know Gonz doesn’t agree with my stance and thinks I have the twitter brainworms. I probably do to some extent, but I try and avoid a lot of this shit on twitter these days and mainly use it for articles and minis stuff (and memes, copious JoJo memes). First I heard of all this was via a community discord I’m on which has a few games journalists on, one of which is Phillipa Warr. You know i’m always happy to discuss this stuff on good faith, I am trying to parse an ugly situation with as much context as I can get without jumping to snap decisions because I personally believe it does effect the writing work I try to do. One of my planned articles was about Alexis Kennedy’s Horizon Signal quest line in Stellaris, and now I don’t know if I want to get involved in that? If that means I am part of the rot then so be it, but I’d rather you talked about it plainly than just vaguely suggesting I can’t see a bigger picture.

Tempy

Vela wrote:

Tempy wrote:

What Holowka did had a huge bundle of context you can’t just divorce from it.

Indeed. The mental health angle also suggests the public outing wasnt the most constructive approach to take, surely?

As you can see from Scott’s post the whisper networks also weren’t working. There’s no perfect solution here. I don’t know what you want from people. Like DJ says, everything has consequences. This is a horrible one, and you can what if forever about this stuff. People felt they made the right decision at the time. No-one knows exactly what Holowka was thinking, or what pushed him over. It’s all speculation falling in line with personal agenda. I don’t claim to have an answer.

JonB

Vela wrote:

Indeed. The mental health angle also suggests the public outing wasnt the most constructive approach to take, surely?

If you've been raped and struggling with the effects for years after, and feel that there's no legal recourse, and that the person who raped you is still working in the same areas, potentially assaulting others, is it surprising if you don't take the most constructive approach to dealing with it? Should you even give a shit?

Or would you aim the same criticism at the guy who committed suicide - well, that wasn't the most constructive approach, was it?

Another part of the statement that Tempy mentioned from Scott Benson is actually pretty good at giving some context to sufferers of abuse:
https://www.reddit.com/r/NightInTheWoods/comments/cxqjp8/end_of_summer_backer_update/

How did Alec do all of these things to multiple people over several years and it never went public?
Well, most things that happen in the world don't get written about on the internet. So there's that. But also the nature of abuse is often such that each person feels like they're the only ones receiving the abuse at any given time, and when the abuse stops happening to them they can easily believe it stopped altogether, because most people aren't sitting around comparing abuse notes. And often when multiple people ARE being abused in some fashion, there are extenuating circumstances keeping the abuser from being held accountable- finances, a job, a living situation, fear of retaliation or personal loss, etc. And abuse can often just catch people off guard or wear people down to the point where they don't fight back in the ways that a Logical Outside Party might see as common sense. This is why there are abuse counselors and people who specialize in this, because this shit is complicated in 1000 terrible ways and most abuse never gets made public in any setting. Often the abused will just feel ashamed. Or alone. Or helpless. Or straight up terrified and at risk. And a lot of times the abused will still really care about the abuser. Another thing that happens with a lot of abusers is they, consciously or not, farm out responsibility for their actions to someone else. So for example if an abuser threatens to kill themselves and places the responsibility for stopping that on someone else, a lot of people will do anything to help the abuser. It becomes your responsibility to fix the situation, your fault if it all goes wrong.
I have spent much of the past week fighting the urge that I am somehow, somehow, responsible for all of this.
Beyond that, often people will know about the abuse and cover for the abuser, for a variety of reasons both understandable and downright evil. Whole networks of abusers cover each other's asses. Sometimes people profit off of the abuse of others. There are any number of reasons why so much awful shit that people do to other people isn't visible until maybe someday it boils over and you suddenly find out that you and a dozen other people talk about the same person at therapy.

So, when someone says things like, why don't they go to the police, or why don't they take a more constructive approach, I think you need to put it in context. Why are the victims, the ones going through the trauma, expected to be the most rational actors throughout the situation? Sometimes people struggle with it for years and then eventually it just 'boils over'.

[Deleted User]

Kara_Jane_Addams wrote:

How exactly does one delete their account on here?

Something weird going on here.

Brooks

The worst impacts I've observed re: callouting and shit seem to fall squarely on the people who are also trying to make use of that to keep themselves visible and safe. Liz Ryerson on queer communities and whisper networks on the Twitter is worth reading.

poprock

Andy wrote:

Something weird going on here.

Something creepy and kooky? Altogether ooky?

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories