Allistair Pinsof · @megaspacepanda
4th Nov 2014 from TwitLonger
Notes on the @arthur_affect and @davidpakmanshow interview
I took notes on the interview with very rough time stamps below.
In general, I think Arthur Chu did a good job conveying the seriousness of the harm done by GamerGate and did a good job explaining his pro-doxxing tweet that has led to much discussion.
However, as good intentioned and smart as Chu is, he is the prime example of why neutral people like David who give a voice to GG are actually more capable of bringing the harassment against Zoe and others to an end, ironically
Chu has a basic "shut up and go away" approach to GG, saying the ends don't justify the means (good point) but makes the MAJOR mistake of saying that GG's fight for ethics is invalid. He ignores the major talking points and uses strawman arguments.
While David agrees with Chu on most points, he has a much healthier approach that involves giving a voice to the specific ethical claims of GamerGate and evaluating them. GamerGate is founded on being shut out from communities and discussion on sites. If the things they wish to be discussed are debunked, they will inevitably go away.
Chu's more aggressive approach only stirs the pot and makes GG want to fight harder and dirtier. David's approach lets actual discussion be had that can lead to peaceful negotiation (end harassment, evaluate GG's ethical complaints).
---------------------------------------
5:00 - doesn't mention real scandals that gg are talking about, like Patricia Hernandez, Polygon Gone Home, EA account hacks, gamejournos list, this crap http://imgur.com/jtjinV2 etc.
6:00 - Shadows of mordor concerns YouTube users, not journalists. YouTube users represent themselves only and are always questioned because of this. Even when there are corporate overlords, Polaris and YogsCast get lots of crap. Sloppy research from Chu, here.
10:00 - Zoe Quinn was on msnbc, bbc, many print articles and very frequently engages with trolls directly (nearly every hour) -- so how can talking to a neutral third party cause harm?
13:00 - yes it would be a hardball interview containing questions people had during and after zoe post that haven't been asked by a single journalist yet. She could decline to it and did. It's like ripping off a band-aid. Face these issues that were previously cover-uped by sites (whether there is truth to them or not) and banned from discussion and things will begin to deescalate.
16:30 - harassers against harassed. Blatant disregard that harassment is on both sides. Don't even start on "oh, but who is harassed more?" Petty argument.
19:00 - "you're the one being attacked while stepping on the feelings of people in a sensitive place" said to David. That's a upside-down way of looking at the hostile response to David's reporting. Reporters will often touch on hurtful topics for subjects in distress, but that is not reason to attack the reporter for it, unless they are intentionally causing harm (which I guess Chu does actually think and voice elsewhere).
20:00 - David: "you are saying there shouldn't be a presentation of sides on this?" Nailed it. Whenever I reach out to people publicly tweeting about me, offer calm rebuttal and say I'm open to discussion, they literally tell me to fuck off and die. This is why no progress can be made with anti-GG. They feel their problems merit and outwardly nasty, combative attitude.
22:00 - actual interview with chu begins. He seems nervous when he realizes he isn't leading this interview anymore
24:00 - discusses his doxx on rat forums quote. Explains horrendous use of rat and makes a good solid stance for his action targeted woman
28 - unrelated to gg? Zoe and others were doxxed and you are wishing the same on others. By the way, vigilante justice is fucking nonsense. Furthermore, as a writer on major sites like Salon and Daily Beast, it is extremely unethical to condemn doxxing of some while celebrating doxxing of others. Contact the FBI and don't go public with attacks.
34 - "if I hurt people I'm fine with that because these people signed up to hurt people." Wow "everything they've done has been harmful." This is brainwashing to the max. Justifying combative attitude by shutting out arguments against his.
36 - Chu says personal attacks are more hurtful than cultural option pieces and scandal cover ups. He's right. I think about how shitty all of this GG stuff has been and how I hope it ends soon.
37 - "I admit I made a lot of mistakes"; makes a really good stance and explains his actions. I like Chu but I feel bad that he doesn't realize how his words and actions are actually hurting his friends in the broader view. Discussing things with GG is not the same as helping harassers. It's how we deescalate and end the harassment. Chu is part of the problem and as many others have said, he should not be engaged with. I feel his interview, as good intentioned as it may have been, may have hurt his friends more by continuing the position of "We won't talk to you about this crap. Fuck off".
I hope another anti-GG person steps forward, thoughtfully discusses ethical allegations, and starts deescalating this mess instead of trying to be on the "winning side".