Doxing victim Zoe Quinn launches online “anti-harassment task force”

Service once tipped police a week ahead. Cops' memo: "Knock with your hand, not your boot."

Read the whole story

 

[Jousle]

Coriolanus[/url]":3kf35bl3]

Jousle[/url]":3kf35bl3]

Operative Me[/url]":3kf35bl3]
"Biology" was also used as a reason to discriminate against people who were not white for a very long time. Just as a general rule, when your argument start mirroring the people who said that the black man was genetically inferior to the white man, so it was okay to treat them differently, you're probably not going to have a real solid grasp of how to participate in an intelligent conversation.

That seems to be your core argument, but you are assuming a fallacy and a false dichotomy . Acknowledging that there are inherent differences between groups that explain the unequal outcomes and roles for each group does not mean that you can prejudge individuals based on that .

I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase "inherent differences."

The fact that women have ovaries and uteruses and men have testicles and penises are inherent differences (for simplification's sake, I am not including transgendered people). Inherent differences are differences that will always be present.

Strength and ability to perform in combat duties (and other physical attributes you alluded to earlier) are not inherent differences between men and women. Maybe statistically, men are more likely to be stronger, but when you come down to individuals, a 250 pound female body builder will always be stronger than a 150 pound male ballet dancer.

" Maybe statistically"

Not maybe, certainly.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Marcos2247[/url]":2la17q2g]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":2la17q2g]

Marcos2247[/url]":2la17q2g]Telling millions of underpriviledged white people their underpriviledge doesn't matter isn't going to help one bit.

You don't seem to understand what privilege even means here.

For example, I would call a child born into a white trailer trash family underprivileged.

And yet they still enjoy a privilege that a black family raising a child in the exact same circumstances doesn't. The privilege of being white, which gives you a certain benefit of the doubt in our society.
It doesn't mean you get everything handed to you on a silver platter. It doesn't mean you get a free ride through life from start to finish. It means that compared to other people in your situation, you do not face as many challenges by default. Being poor and a woman is worse than being poor and a man. Being poor and black is worse than being poor and white (See LBJ's speech in which he pointed out that black poverty is not the same as white poverty because black people are still regularly discriminated against in ways both subtle and overt).
If you are white and male in America, you are playing the game of life on the easiest setting there is in the game, regardless of how difficult the game itself is. That's not saying the challenges you face while playing do not matter. Nobody said it's easy to be poor just because you're white. It's simply pointing out that you are not going to experience the same set of challenges that another person of different inherent characteristics would face in your stead. They will face all the challenges of being poor that you do, but they will have the additional disadvantages of being a racial minority or a woman, etc.

THAT is what privilege means here.

 

[kdemello1980]

Marcos2247[/url]":1hx9l5v2]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1hx9l5v2]

Marcos2247[/url]":1hx9l5v2]Telling millions of underpriviledged white people their underpriviledge doesn't matter isn't going to help one bit.

You don't seem to understand what privilege even means here.

For example, I would call a child born into a white trailer trash family underprivileged.

Red herring. If you cut off it's mullet and put it in a suit, it will probably still get a job before a minority, and be paid more for it than a similarly-qualified woman...

 

[Gary Patterson]

thegrommit[/url]":262432sx]

Plissken[/url]":262432sx]

tjones2[/url]":262432sx]Gamergate brings out the best in the ars community , it seems. Three self described MRAs, a self described psychopath, and a bunch of gaters. Trog city.

Yeah, I figured the calls went out on the GG channels to swarm this thread (as well as every other article discussion CrashOverride) and attack something that has nothing to do with ethics in journalism while claiming to be for ethics in journalism. I intentionally avoided it until now because I can only tolerate so much BS...

Yep, the initial reaction from GG was pretty much as expected:

https://storify.com/adulus/gamergate-co ... -zoe-quinn

Bicentennial Douche[/url]":262432sx]Oh look, another woman being viciously attacked by shitstains of humanity. Now where have I seen this before...

http://pastebin.com/3jAQARCy

Odd how the GamerGate supporters aren't up in arms against that sort of behaviour or being as aggressive against those sites (which are either confirming what we all thought, or ruining the good name of GamerGate, depending on your viewpoint). Still, I'm sure someone will be along soon to detail how the GamerGate community is ostracising these toxic people.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

kdemello1980[/url]":ak7ny8pp]Red herring. If you cut off it's mullet and put it in a suit, it will probably still get a job before a minority, and be paid more for it than a similarly-qualified woman...

Thank you, that was much more succinct.

 

[Jousle]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":2azl3c7a] Being poor and a woman is worse than being poor and a man..

In fact, there are far more homeless men than homeless women . Inequality

 

[flish]

At the end of the thread I have 3 things to say:
1. good for her organizing defense
2. the comments provided an enlightening read
3. no child of mine will be laughed at due to reading (in)comprehension issues

 

[Marcos2247]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":2hbu2ir5]

For example, I would call a child born into a white trailer trash family underprivileged.

And yet they still enjoy a privilege that a black family raising a child in the exact same circumstances doesn't.

Probably. I never claimed the opposite.
A black woman born in America enjoys a privilege a black woman born in Eritrea doesn't. So?

Just because a black lesbian has more obstacles to overcome than a white hetero doesn't mean he can't fight for his interests e.g. in regards to child custody. That's the line of reasoning that says we shouldn't build spaceships as long as children are starving in Africa.

It's not a zero-sum game. We can fix multiple things at the same time.

 

[vlam]

DrPizza[/url]":1px28gr2]But christ, how the hell do you even propose to argue against such incisive commentary as "Princesses Peach and Daisy in many of the Mario games are nothing more than damsels in distress"?

Probably by asking for references that aren't a generation old. History is great and all, but what happened in Super Mario World is hardly relevant to any current discussion about gender inequality/gender representation. So, the argument against it is that the commentary is entirely pointless. It does not serve as an example in any helpful way.

 

[Outrider/Ronin]

RFT[/url]":35sxc95k]

Outrider/Ronin[/url]":35sxc95k]

Marcos2247[/url]":35sxc95k]

thegrommit[/url]":35sxc95k]

Outrider/Ronin[/url]":35sxc95k]

Marcos2247[/url]":35sxc95k]
The definition of "videogame" is nebulous to begin with.

Calling both "Dragon Age" and "Candy Crush" videogames is accurate in the same way that "Game of Thrones" and "NBC News" are both television.

As you adeptly showed in your analogy, the definition of videogame isn't nebulous at all. You're trying to bring in quality (subjectively and/or objectively defined) in a way that is entirely irrelevant.

Indeed. Should we disqualify people who liked Deus Ex Invisible War from calling themselves "gamers"?

I'd like to

Way to latch on to the Candy Crush and not the NBC News.

Okay. I rephrase: "Comparing Daikatana to Tetris is like comparing Days Of Our Lives to NBC News."

Happy?!?!?

A far more clear analogy (I latched onto "Candy Crush" as well, the usual example of a garbage game).

In that case I don't think you mean the definition of "videogame" is nebulous, but that it's too general to be truly informative, in the same way that "TV show" doesn't really convey much information.

Note for all you young whippersnappers: if Candy Crush or Minesweeper is not a real game, none of the Atari 2600 and neither a lot of the NES/Master System games qualified as games.

Dr. Mario is no game. That, sir, is a matter of life or death.

 

[Coriolanus]

vlam[/url]":3tei36r8]

DrPizza[/url]":3tei36r8]But christ, how the hell do you even propose to argue against such incisive commentary as "Princesses Peach and Daisy in many of the Mario games are nothing more than damsels in distress"?

Probably by asking for references that aren't a generation old. History is great and all, but what happened in Super Mario World is hardly relevant to any current discussion about gender inequality/gender representation. So, the argument against it is that the commentary is entirely pointless. It does not serve as an example in any helpful way.

Super Mario 3D Land from 2011 - Mario goes and rescues Princess Peach, who was kidnapped by Bowser.

 

[vlam]

Coriolanus[/url]":199470re]

vlam[/url]":199470re]

DrPizza[/url]":199470re]But christ, how the hell do you even propose to argue against such incisive commentary as "Princesses Peach and Daisy in many of the Mario games are nothing more than damsels in distress"?

Probably by asking for references that aren't a generation old. History is great and all, but what happened in Super Mario World is hardly relevant to any current discussion about gender inequality/gender representation. So, the argument against it is that the commentary is entirely pointless. It does not serve as an example in any helpful way.

Super Mario 3D Land from 2011 - Mario goes and rescues Princess Peach, who was kidnapped by Bowser.

And? Super Princess Peach 2005 - Peach rescues Mario.

Not that this matters. The universe was created in the late 80s. If you created an IP like that, would you just up and shuffle everything around because a few values changed? I certainly wouldn't. You can always invent new IP to satisfy a new set of values.

 

[grommit!]

Marcos2247[/url]":30ypgmi5]

thegrommit[/url]":30ypgmi5]

Marcos2247[/url]":30ypgmi5]Way to latch on to the Candy Crush and not the NBC News.

Okay. I rephrase: "Comparing Daikatana to Tetris is like comparing Days Of Our Lives to NBC News."

Happy?!?!?

Nope. Fundamentally, what defines a game (whether board or video) is that it consists of systems and rules for the player to interact with. Both Tetris and Daikatana meet this definition.

Yes. That is the point!
The definition of "game" is so broad that both Tetris and Daikatana meet the criteria, although there is absolutely nothing they can be compared on.

Basketball is also a game, yet LeBron James would not identify with the term 'gamer'. His profession is also not compared to that of Phil Helmuth, the professional poker player.

The TV comparison doesn't work as you're confusing the medium (television) with the type of show (scripted melodrama vs news).

I'm not confusing anyhting. Again, I was making the point that Tetris and Daikatana are both lumped into the same category of "videogame" because they both live in the same medium.
NBC News and Days Of Our Lives live in the same medium, but nobody considers them even remotely the same thing.

It's interesting that you chose to cut out the line about complexity being irrelevant to whether something is a game or not. Because a portion of people who play games like to dismiss "less complex" games as somehow not "real" gamers.

I'm not one of them.

 

[grommit!]

vlam[/url]":2c9tktmv]

Coriolanus[/url]":2c9tktmv]

vlam[/url]":2c9tktmv]

DrPizza[/url]":2c9tktmv]But christ, how the hell do you even propose to argue against such incisive commentary as "Princesses Peach and Daisy in many of the Mario games are nothing more than damsels in distress"?

Probably by asking for references that aren't a generation old. History is great and all, but what happened in Super Mario World is hardly relevant to any current discussion about gender inequality/gender representation. So, the argument against it is that the commentary is entirely pointless. It does not serve as an example in any helpful way.

Super Mario 3D Land from 2011 - Mario goes and rescues Princess Peach, who was kidnapped by Bowser.

And? Super Princess Peach 2005 - Peach rescues Mario.

Not that this matters. The universe was created in the late 80s. If you created an IP like that, would you just up and shuffle everything around because a few values changed? I certainly wouldn't. You can always invent new IP to satisfy a new set of values.

Missing the point. Sarkeesian is illustrating how prevalent certain tropes are throughout gaming's history - and prompting people to rethink their use of those tropes in future. She's not (to my knowledge) said that existing IP's should be modified.

 

[vlam]

thegrommit[/url]":3vxzuqoh]

vlam[/url]":3vxzuqoh]

Coriolanus[/url]":3vxzuqoh]

vlam[/url]":3vxzuqoh]

DrPizza[/url]":3vxzuqoh]But christ, how the hell do you even propose to argue against such incisive commentary as "Princesses Peach and Daisy in many of the Mario games are nothing more than damsels in distress"?

Probably by asking for references that aren't a generation old. History is great and all, but what happened in Super Mario World is hardly relevant to any current discussion about gender inequality/gender representation. So, the argument against it is that the commentary is entirely pointless. It does not serve as an example in any helpful way.

Super Mario 3D Land from 2011 - Mario goes and rescues Princess Peach, who was kidnapped by Bowser.

And? Super Princess Peach 2005 - Peach rescues Mario.

Not that this matters. The universe was created in the late 80s. If you created an IP like that, would you just up and shuffle everything around because a few values changed? I certainly wouldn't. You can always invent new IP to satisfy a new set of values.

Missing the point. Sarkeesian is illustrating how prevalent certain tropes are throughout gaming's history - and prompting people to rethink their use of those tropes in future. She's not (to my knowledge) said that existing IP's should be modified.

Eh, fair point. It was prevalent in the past.

 

[Marcos2247]

thegrommit[/url]":emv3fgvi]It's interesting that you chose to cut out the line about complexity being irrelevant to whether something is a game or not.

Yeah, and it's interesting that you cut out everything I say. Twice.

Because a portion of people who play games like to dismiss "less complex" games as somehow not "real" gamers.

I'm not one of them.

I'm not one of them either. No matter how much you insinuate.
I originally chose Candy Crush because I played the sh*t out of match-three-games.

You latched onto something I said because you could twist it into a straw man that allowed you to make a point that's been bugging you.
Awesome.

 

[grommit!]

Marcos2247[/url]":2xns2hqg]Yeah, and it's interesting that you cut out everything I say. Twice.

Yes, because ars has a limit on how many nested quotes can be embedded. Failure to cleanly edit them out can break the page layout.

I'm not one of them either. No matter how much you insinuate.
I originally chose Candy Crush because I played the sh*t out of match-three-games.

You latched onto something I said because you could twist it into a straw man that allowed you to make a point that's been bugging you.
Awesome.

That wasn't clear from your comments in-thread, but fair enough.

 

[Marcos2247]

thegrommit[/url]":xpra9uae]That wasn't clear from your comments in-thread, but fair enough.

Which comments in this thread (or elsewhere) have led you to believe I would consider puzzle games (or "less complex" games) not real games?

 

[Shavano]

fuzzyfuzzyfungus[/url]":1010cs89]This seems like a worthy effort, though it's a trifle diconcerting that 'knock with your hand, not with your boot' is a special reminder that needs to be sent out, particularly since the tip used was 'looks like he has a pipebomb or something' rather than one of the juicier active shooter/hostages ones.

I think a few draconian punishments of swatters is necessary to send a message that this is not a thing you can do.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Marcos2247[/url]":fw0pmfaw]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":fw0pmfaw]

For example, I would call a child born into a white trailer trash family underprivileged.

And yet they still enjoy a privilege that a black family raising a child in the exact same circumstances doesn't.

Probably. I never claimed the opposite.
A black woman born in America enjoys a privilege a black woman born in Eritrea doesn't. So?

This is where you're demonstrating that you still don't understand the concept of 'privilege.'

Just because a black lesbian has more obstacles to overcome than a white hetero doesn't mean he can't fight for his interests e.g. in regards to child custody.

Nobody anywhere in here is arguing otherwise.

 

[tjones2]

More from 8chan

 

[Alfonse]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1300u216]

Marcos2247[/url]":1300u216]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1300u216]

For example, I would call a child born into a white trailer trash family underprivileged.

And yet they still enjoy a privilege that a black family raising a child in the exact same circumstances doesn't.

Probably. I never claimed the opposite.
A black woman born in America enjoys a privilege a black woman born in Eritrea doesn't. So?

This is where you're demonstrating that you still don't understand the concept of 'privilege.'

Just because a black lesbian has more obstacles to overcome than a white hetero doesn't mean he can't fight for his interests e.g. in regards to child custody.

Nobody anywhere in here is arguing otherwise.

If that's true, why are so many people against advocacy towards men's rights issues, seemingly on general principle? The very first post that brought MRAs into the conversation basically equated men's rights advocates with GamerGate dickheads. Vis-a-vis:

mattand[/url]":1300u216]
There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So I would say that some people certainly are very clearly saying that white heterosexual males can't fight for their own interests.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

Alfonse[/url]":q56n0m95]If that's true, why are so many people against advocacy towards men's rights issues, seemingly on general principle? The very first post that brought MRAs into the conversation basically equated men's rights advocates with GamerGate dickheads. Vis-a-vis:

mattand[/url]":q56n0m95]
There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So I would say that some people certainly are very clearly saying that white heterosexual males can't fight for their own interests.

Because the VAST majority of Men's Rights Advocates whining on the interwebs are really just anti-feminists, fighting to protect their own entrenched privilege because they react to the equalization of it as though their "rights" were under threat. You know, the line that goes "women already have equal rights, now they want MORE rights than we've got! That's what the Feminazis are really after!" And frankly that has carried significantly into the #Gamergate rhetoric.
It's like a bunch of whities crying about how blacks have more rights than them now, and they need to stand up for white people's rights.

 

[Alfonse]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":1nqxmq0y]

Alfonse[/url]":1nqxmq0y]If that's true, why are so many people against advocacy towards men's rights issues, seemingly on general principle? The very first post that brought MRAs into the conversation basically equated men's rights advocates with GamerGate dickheads. Vis-a-vis:

mattand[/url]":1nqxmq0y]
There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So I would say that some people certainly are very clearly saying that white heterosexual males can't fight for their own interests.

Because the VAST majority of Men's Rights Advocates whining on the interwebs are really just anti-feminists, fighting to protect their own entrenched privilege because they react to the equalization of it as though their "rights" were under threat. You know, the line that goes "women already have equal rights, now they want MORE rights than we've got! That's what the Feminazis are really after!" And frankly that has carried significantly into the #Gamergate rhetoric.
It's like a bunch of whities crying about how blacks have more rights than them now, and they need to stand up for white people's rights.

OK, I'll accept that; you probably know more about it than I do.

But given that, how can you effectively advocate for men's rights, if everyone's going to assume every such organization is composed of sexist douchebags? Doesn't that assumption effectively derail any substantive men's rights discussions?

We're not talking about the term "gamergate" here, which was invented for these assholes. If the very term one would use for advocating is so poisoned, doesn't that mean that you can't effectively even discuss the concept without being assumed to be a sexist twat?

 

[RFT]

Alfonse[/url]":3bgrz0t1]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":3bgrz0t1]

Alfonse[/url]":3bgrz0t1]If that's true, why are so many people against advocacy towards men's rights issues, seemingly on general principle? The very first post that brought MRAs into the conversation basically equated men's rights advocates with GamerGate dickheads. Vis-a-vis:

mattand[/url]":3bgrz0t1]
There's nothing good associated with Gamergate and the MRA movement. You can't demonize a movement that already is fairly awful to start with.

So I would say that some people certainly are very clearly saying that white heterosexual males can't fight for their own interests.

Because the VAST majority of Men's Rights Advocates whining on the interwebs are really just anti-feminists, fighting to protect their own entrenched privilege because they react to the equalization of it as though their "rights" were under threat. You know, the line that goes "women already have equal rights, now they want MORE rights than we've got! That's what the Feminazis are really after!" And frankly that has carried significantly into the #Gamergate rhetoric.
It's like a bunch of whities crying about how blacks have more rights than them now, and they need to stand up for white people's rights.

OK, I'll accept that; you probably know more about it than I do.

But given that, how can you effectively advocate for men's rights, if everyone's going to assume every such organization is composed of sexist douchebags? Doesn't that assumption effectively derail any substantive men's rights discussions?

We're not talking about the term "gamergate" here, which was invented for these assholes. If the very term one would use for advocating is so poisoned, doesn't that mean that you can't effectively even discuss the concept without being assumed to be a sexist twat?

Pro-tip for not appearing to be an asshole: don't act and talk like one. Extreme pro-tip: avoid associating with known asshole groups while promulgating your non-assholeness.

Gamergaters and MRAs are setting back both Gamers and Men years, if not decades.

 

[eas]

0bliv!on[/url]":5tfwaxui]

cateye[/url]":5tfwaxui]

Seany[/url]":5tfwaxui]Why do people keep publicizing this persons crap? Ars should take a cue from Linus and promote stuff based on merit. which Quinn clearly has none of.

So you believe helping to thwart doxing/swatting victims has no merit? Or do you discount it because it's Quinn? Oops.

Probably because Reddit's KotakuinAction has had something similar for a while now trawling through Twitter to head off trolls and noone's reported on that. But that's partially due to Zoe & Co having a better PR department too.

Doing a better job of communicating her position would seem to be a type of merit, unless one is opposed to her position, or just her person, I suppose.

 

[tjones2]

RFT[/url]":3cu2vyzh]
Gamergaters and MRAs are setting back both Gamers and Men years, if not decades.

You have that right. As far as I can tell, all #GamerGate has accomplished is rolling back all the hard work of the Jack Thompson days. Due to GG, censorship of games is something back in the mainstream. Thanks, assholes.

And in regards to the MRAs, a lot of the reason that many of the extreme excesses of some elements of feminism persist is because anti-femminists are a million times worse.

 

[Gary Patterson]

tjones2[/url]":qw2hpnv5]More from 8chan

Spoiler

I'm waiting for the pro-GamerGate groups to hit those sites hard now and for their people to speak up loudly that the sort of actions promoted are absolutely unacceptable.

Any time now...

...

(crickets)

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

axia777[/url]":1t1bkzdx]First Amendment Lawyer Alleges That Zoe Quinn and Margaret Pless Tried To Have Him Killed (Update)

http://www.reaxxion.com/3344/first-amen ... him-killed

Even if we took it at face value, that article is the definition of "reaching." And I'm not prepared to take it at face value.

 

[Gary Patterson]

axia777[/url]":bcn6s69e]First Amendment Lawyer Alleges That Zoe Quinn and Margaret Pless Tried To Have Him Killed (Update)

http://www.reaxxion.com/3344/first-amen ... him-killed

Is that a satirical site, like The Onion?

 

[falsoman]

Gary Patterson[/url]":1g0vqjkj]

axia777[/url]":1g0vqjkj]First Amendment Lawyer Alleges That Zoe Quinn and Margaret Pless Tried To Have Him Killed (Update)

http://www.reaxxion.com/3344/first-amen ... him-killed

Is that a satirical site, like The Onion?

Unfortunately it is not. I got to know that site because a brilliant post in Popehat, and It is as depressing as it sounds... especially if you get to know the guy who runs the website and his books (plural) selling on amazon.

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

I just looked it up, apparently it's the site of that Return of Kings guy.

 

[dimhue]

axia777[/url]":1xxjrdps]First Amendment Lawyer Alleges That Zoe Quinn and Margaret Pless Tried To Have Him Killed (Update)

http://www.reaxxion.com/3344/first-amen ... him-killed

Yep, that story and everything Cernovich is spouting is completely dishonest. Here's the actual post about reporting Cernovich to the LAPD. Note that this link wasn't provided by your article or by Cernovich himself, because reading it in context disarms the accusations he's making. In short: Ples sent a complain to LAPD about Cernovich harassing Quinn. That's all the complaint was. There was no attempt at swatting, she didn't encourage anyone else to swat him, and any interpretations to the contrary are simply dishonest.

 

[dimhue]

Wheels Of Confusion[/url]":6kpva4os]I just looked it up, apparently it's the site of that Return of Kings guy.

but it's just about ethics in videogame journalism!

 

[dimhue]

And honestly it just really pisses me off that these harassers are cynically claiming to be harassed themselves. These types of people are fucking scumbags, and because these shitheads are the chosen heroes of Gamergate I can never respect anyone who identifies with GG as a decent human being.

 

[potato44819]

darkshade[/url]":1ci80ih2]And honestly it just really pisses me off that these harassers are cynically claiming to be harassed themselves. These types of people are fucking scumbags, and because these shitheads are the chosen heroes of Gamergate I can never respect anyone who identifies with GG as a decent human being.

So, it's ok to question one group on their veracity, but not ok to question another?

 

[dimhue]

What? No. Quinn has been a victim of harassment since the beginning of this entire debacle. Her harassers have seen that gets her some sympathy (shocking! decent people feel empathy), so they pretend to be victims of harassment as well. Except their claims generally don't pan out. And they keep on harassing.

It's a cynical, evil ploy. People like Mike Cernovish and Roosh V are vile beings.

 

[Alfonse]

RFT[/url]":hxiednrg]

Alfonse[/url]":hxiednrg]
OK, I'll accept that; you probably know more about it than I do.

But given that, how can you effectively advocate for men's rights, if everyone's going to assume every such organization is composed of sexist douchebags? Doesn't that assumption effectively derail any substantive men's rights discussions?

We're not talking about the term "gamergate" here, which was invented for these assholes. If the very term one would use for advocating is so poisoned, doesn't that mean that you can't effectively even discuss the concept without being assumed to be a sexist twat?

Pro-tip for not appearing to be an asshole: don't act and talk like one. Extreme pro-tip: avoid associating with known asshole groups while promulgating your non-assholeness.

Gamergaters and MRAs are setting back both Gamers and Men years, if not decades.

So let me make sure I understand this correctly. Men have the right to have advocacy groups to promote and protect their rights. But they can't be called "men's rights advocates", because in the minds of some, that term has been poisoned by various douchebags who use (or hell, even founded) such groups for the primary or even sole purpose of barfing out anti-feminist bullshit.

So what the hell do you call it? What do you do when you're not even allowed to call an organization what it is, for fear of being assumed to be something you aren't?

 

[Wheels Of Confusion]

There's already a movement that promotes equal consideration for men in courts and law, such as child custody cases etc.
It's called "Feminism."