There are new developments in the story of Ellie leaving ‘Overwatch’ Contenders team Second Wind.
If true it’s going to be hilarious that these big sites have been stirring the “gamers are sexist” bullshit and she’s not even real
It is true, this site is late updating but Blizzard is already investigating. Theres a twitch clip of "Ellie" confessing.
Yup, lol, so just to recap, this girl came out of nowhere and joined the competitive scene (a complete unknown nobody) which obviously raises some red flags because she joined a popular team. Then people called them out on her legitimacy, doubting she was real/legit. The media then goes and calls everyone doubting her sexist. Then it is revealed she didn't actually play and is a fake.... LMAO this is too good, SJW identity politics loses again, just great. Honestly the team doing this is scummy, they are claiming "social experiment" but obviously just wanted a girl face on the team to boost viewers, truly pathetic, they should be banned.
Never cease to amaze me how SJWs keep surpassing themselves at being outraged over fake stuff, hell some even get busted faking their own "racist" and "sexist" topics, when its not black activists writing n-words/racial insults themselves and blame "muh white supremacist!!!!" for it... Remember all the so called hijabs wearing victims being attacked/insulted because of their religion .....just to be busted lying about the whole thing just to get attention and make others groups look bad. I mean, just look at Zodiac comment below, "The comments that were made about and directed at her, with or without her being real. " , hey buddy the critics comments were about how she was obviously fake and you dont suddently come out of nowhere without having any sort of gaming pedigree then directly join competitive scenes/team, do you even know the meaning of marauders, you really think good player suddenly fall of the sky and directly land on tournament chairs without being known for ....THEIR ALREADY ESTABLISHED SKILLS? Zodiac, you are obviously clueless on how competitive tournaments work.
Even if it was just a social experiment to see how racist/sexist the community can be, it's inherently flawed, when they instead of addressing the people asking if she was real, they poke the bare to invoke defensive reactions to people when you call them things they likely aren't. I guess how I feel about this depends on what kind of experiment they were trying to conduct. Was it to test the game journalist? Was it to test people's reactions to a female player? To test the general toxicity of the community? To test how a female player added to their team would bring them attention? So on and so forth. Either way, unless one of them can somehow write an interesting conclusive thesis paper on what happened, I don't see why the experiment would be any way valid or even necessary. Sounds more like some people making up something, then using limited results to form a conclusion. Sloppy research, for no reason other than to make spurious claims on social media using anecdotal results.
That would be the point of the social experiment, though. The comments that were made about and directed at her, with or without her being real. If I made racist remarks about someone I wasn't sure was real and then it turned out they weren't, I'm still a racist. The real negative here is to think about how this will impact women's decision to enter gaming in larger numbers. Things like this act as a turnoff. The gaming community has decades of self reflection to catch up on.
That's not what racist and sexist mean. Using insensitive words often means you are just going for the word that will get the biggest rise out of the person. If I'm fighting with my girlfriend, and I call her a c**t, it's not because I think women are inferior, it's because I know that word will make her mad. Saying a word that's racially insensitive doesn't mean that you think that race is inferior (though it certainly doesn't preclude this possibility either). Racist and sexist completely fail as adjectives, the reason is because it's left up to the subjective whim of the listener/reader, and context is almost entirely omitted. I'm not saying toxic behavior is good, but conflating toxic behavior with genuine racism and sexism, diminishes the severity of these things.
Judging from how you talk about women, it seems you think they have no agency. THAT is sexism.. Men face tons of abuse online and in the competitive scene but no one is crying for them. It happens to a girl and everyone cries. This portrays these women as weak and in need of rescueing. THAT is sexist. Making a comment isn’t sexist unless the intent is sexism or believe behind the comment is held. If I say I’m going to kill someone online that doesn’t make me a psychopathic murderer. It’s shit talking. If this was a man the situation would have been the same just the insults would be different. Stop treating women like they’re delicate little flowers that need protecting. They’re a person. Treat them like one.
@hungry. Lmao, please. The barriers to women entering the gaming world are firmly established. Simply pointing them out and acknowledging the work done to keep women out of gaming is bare minimum we should be doing. Nice attempt to flip the argument, though. Props. “Men also...” that’s called Whataboutism. It’s not that topic at hand here.
It's a pretty sloppy experiment, especially since it disregarded the valid questions of those asking if she was real, and grouped them all into the category of sexist and hateful. The real negative here is that it will be used as an anecdote to show why all cases of harassment probably aren't real. It sets back real people who may have real problems that should be addressed. Most of the current SJW movement has done that, but now there could be a clearly defined case to point to. SJW have no problem using anecdotal proof to prove their claims, so why shouldn't those the SJW's are attacking? If real women want to join these competative teams, or go into gaming, then I say bring them on. The more the merrier. Almost every gamer I know welcomes more people. They don't welcome those who will use the community, or flaunt their gender or personal preferences for preferential treatment. Most aren't against women getting into gaming, they're annoyed that they're getting attention as being something special that needs to be raised up on a pedestal. There is a vocal vitriolic portion of the community which will do whatever they can to get attention by trolling or harassing others, but it isn't everyone, and those are the people that make us all look bad, and lead to this notion that we as a community are somehow against women, or others, being part of gaming. I don't need to reflect on decades of the gaming community. While i may be critical or accepting of different things within it, the only thing I have to reflect on is my own beliefs and my own actions. I'm not going to be held responsible for the larger whole, and no one in the community should feel that responsibility. If what you think the community needs to reflect on wasn't the point of view of an individual person, there is nothing to contemplate for one's personal benefit. "The barriers to women entering the gaming world are firmly established" No. The only barrier is that they need to be able to buy the games(or have access to them) and have a platform to play them on. They may not be accepted into all communities within gaming, but in no way are there barriers for women entering the gaming world. There are stereotypes which exist, which may cause a woman to not wish to join, or be silent about it, but experiments like this only perpetuate that stereotype, by inflating the actual results that caused the sexist part of the controversy. The way things are going, it's the crowd trying to perpetuate this notion that women aren't welcome that are setting up barriers. There is nothing special about a woman who gets into gaming, or is good at gaming. They're just a gamer. But raising them up on pedestals makes them special, and the more special they are made, the more people start asking why they should care if women enter, and if it goes far enough, people start becoming defensive because they're getting tired of being attacked for things they didn't do, or being marginalized as also being important to the community. You think people were sexist when Leigh Alexander said that gamers don't have to be the target audience? No. They were upset that the community which has most supported gaming for decades was marginalized into being meaningless. If people want more women in gaming, then stop conflating them getting into gaming as something special. When it's not an issue of discussion, then they can simply come and go as they please. Men who get into gaming are cast as nerds or socially inept through stereotypes. Women who get in are somehow special and should be praised for their bravery to defy the odds. Gaming has never been exclusive.
@Rainslacker " You think people were sexist when Leigh Alexander said that gamers don't have to be the target audience?" Did you actually read what she wrote? She was saying that the industry and us as respectable gamers should rise above the stereotypical, obnoxious, loud-mouthed troll image of a 'gamer' that had taken hold and make back the community for everybody. Which seems pretty close to what you've just said.
Yes. I read what she wrote, and in some of it, I actually agreed with what she said. Same with some of her prior articles which weren't so inciteful. And while the initial sentiment was misconstrued, her follow up comments and overall ire about the entire community that happened the day after she posted the article were nothing but hateful, marginalizing, and extremely hostile towards the community as a whole, and she did nothing at all to try and qualify that she was talking about the vitriolic parts of the community, but instead, lumped us all into a single group What I didn't agree with though was her saying that the gamers didn't have to be the target audience. It vastly generalized the gaming community into what amounts to a single minded hive. She may have qualified it with a bit of, "well, there are some that are good", but her tone obviously implied she meant the greater community was the problem. If the problem was just a vocal minority, then the article wouldn't have even been necessary. Beyond the article, Alexander had been known to write many inciteful articles about the toxicity of the community, long before Sarkeesian came along. She was part of the group of gaming journalists who actively tried to promote this disconnect of the gamer from the publishers and media, so the gaming press would benefit. This opened up the doors for Sarkeesian and her kind to come in and start this downward spiral of events which lead to a social experiment like this even being considered. My biggest problem with her initial article, is she wrote it like she was trying to appeal to the greater community, but the implication of the article was that we, as a community, didn't have to be regarded as important. Otherwise, why would she generalize gamers as the problem, and suggest that publishers don't have to pay attention. Us gamers don't have to take back the community. The community is already ours. Alexanders appeal was for those that weren't really part of the community to take the community for themselves. And thats what started happening with Sarkeesian, and this SJW movement that happened since gamergate. What the current crop of SJW's do is try to say that its not our community, and that those who don't agree shouldn't be part of it. That is what Alexander implied with her article. That if you weren't a good boy, and play by some arbitrary rules that someone else establishes, that you should just get out. Futher, it promoted that publishers didn't have to support the consumers, and anyone who didn't agree with said arbitrary requirements wasn't worthy of having their concerns listened to. That isn't a community in my book. that is more akin to dictatorship, where dissenting opinions are rejected and people are outcast. We as a community have our bad seeds, but we all have a right to our opinion, and its not right that people marginalize valid concerns and lump people into hate groups because they happen to have a different opinion, or aren't the best at expressing that opinion. The obviously sexist and racists should be called out, but just ignoring them is usually more effective, as they prefer attention, over any actual change or maintaining the status quo.
@Hungryalpaca Pretending men face some sort of gender-oriented abuse while gaming is sexism. You’re going out of your way to create conflict where none exists based solely on some innate drive to defend yourself despite never being attacked. What you’re actually defending is your ideology, which is a good sign that it’s unhealthily deep-seated and in need of re-evaluation.
Honestly, this hurts future female pro-gamers who will be immediately associated with this type of thing by `enough' of the gaming community. IMHO, the person behind this account should be permanently banned. It wasn't a social experiment, it was trolling. ***big sites have been stirring the “gamers are sexist” bullshit and she’s not even real*** That doesn't correlate. Sexist acts can be done based on faulty info. Just because it's not a woman doesn't mean some of the actions weren't sexist or toxic.
How? All a female has to do is a simple voice chat with whatever person is interviewing. No problems what so ever.
"5 reasons why the reaction to "Ellie" are important. Number 3 will shock you." "The reactions to Ellie are problematic, here's why." "We know Ellis os fake, but that doesn't matter, the toxicity does."
If it's true, I think it just goes to prove even more how these gaming journalists are really inept at their jobs, and don't care to validate a single story or source.
They've already started with the whole "at least we had a conversation." BS.
A one sided one apparently. Translation: "Hey, we proved by some arbitrary conclusion derived by a terribly constructed social experiment, that the community is filled with sexists who will go to great length to keep women out of gaming....and since they exist, obviously the entire community is bad.....but we're great, because we're enlightened enough to perform this ill-conceived experiment, so we're aware of what's wrong, and are working to change it by shaming everyone else for things they didn't do. Can we get SJW brownie points?" Someone should inform them that a conversation is a two way street. Maybe refer them to the topics of dicussion about vitriol, harassment, and sexism/racism that existed in the community before the Leigh Alexander article, Sarkeesian, and the GamerGate controversy changed it into meaningless one sided drivel. That was actually a conversation, and it was having positive effects. Then some people felt it wasn't happening fast enough, and we are here today being preached to, not having a free exchange of ideas.
Gamers ARE sexist. It just so happens that, on this particular case, gamers were right to question the legitimacy of this person, regardless of gender. If you suddenly pop up in a notable position in the competitive scene without any prior reputation to precede you, people WILL ask questions, and justifiably so. If this was supposed to be a social experiment (a claim I don't believe at all), then it was a pretty stupid and pointless experiment.
And Second Wind with help of Blizzard confirmed that the account was indeed fake. Proving the suspicions of everyone who actually follow the Overwatch competitive scene. Because, an account with a rank so high (Top 4 DPS) and with so little game time (low level) does not appear out of nowhere. The fact that it was a female player was just a cherry on the top of a already shady situation. And while I will not deny that there must have been some sexist comments and that there have been disgusting actions like Haunt arguing in favor of doxxing the account. I refuse to accept that simply doubting that such a suspicious account is real, is a sexist attitude in itself like the media and some "white knights" claim to be the case.
The doxxing in the screenshot posted flat out admitted it wasn't for malicious purposes, it was because they were trying to prove the person was real and not pretending to be someone else.
Yes, but it's still a very disgusting thing to argue in favor of. Even if the intention was not malicious.
"UPDATE: Second Wind has confirmed in a Twitlonger post that Ellie was in fact an imposter." - NEWSWEEK Oh, my, my. The perfect situation to get male gamers demonized again was . . . a setup?! NAH! Couldn't happen. Our benevolent progressive overlords would never stoop so low.
Wasnt the backlash because she came out of nowhere with no proof/pedigree of being good? So what was the point of the social experiment? To see if people get pissed if you recruit someone no one's ever heard of as opposed to an acclaimed competitor? Cause thats literally all you've proven
The social experiment was to show that girls can get in the pro scene the same as men. But it's a bunch of fluff, it doesn't seem like the one pulling this thought it through fully. People were pissed because they made it very obvious they weren't real by their refusal to show themselves or speak. Too many red flags
The thing is, there ARE good female overwatch players. You want to try it, you use a real person.
It's pointless to use an actual girl since it wouldn't be a social experiment then. Plus the effort and time required to find one, have her agree to it, and essentially void her value as pro all for a social experiment just wouldn't be fair to her.
Maybe to see if people get pissed of being generalized as sexist if they have valid concerns? This social experiment was set up wrong if they wanted to prove that men and women are treated differently. There is no control to show how the results would have happened if it were a male player. They should have done that first, or at the same time. Maybe gotten with another group of like minded individuals who could have done this over the long term, so the effects of one, could have not been so relevant to this case. Social experiment is a weak term to use, and the people who set it up obviously have no idea how to conduct a social experiment. Most social experiments are set up in a similar fashion, and tend to be set up in a way where a pre-conceived notion can be set in stone before it ever launches. If they really wanted to test the sexist nature of the community, then they shouldn't have reacted by inferring people were sexist. That just makes those you're testing double down and become defensive. People say all sorts of stupid things when they've become defensive, and it's one reason why many in the community are so hostile towards this whole SJW stuff now...because we're accused of things we don't believe, so our own opinions on things are diminished or ignored. @Rachel Im not sure if this experiment was set up in a way to prove that. There isn't anything that I know of that specifically says a woman can't join a pro team. I know there are some all female competitions that don't allow men. There may not be as many female players to choose from, and natural bias may prevent some teams from recruiting women. But the harassment of female players doesn't actually prevent them from joining, it just makes them less likely to want to. From my experience though, female gamers who are that good at games, have already been around the block a time or two, so I can't imagine the harassment that may come from a pro level would phase them as much.
Not sure if people are familiar with a Youtuber YongYea,I actually made a reply on one of his videos saying: " As a journalist you should be skeptical about the news,although it's not just the news but many other factors come into play " Then Blizzard (or rather a collaboration with an E-sport team)does this 1 day later. Edit:Of course when you would ask the question:Isn't this just a confirmation bias chain of events? Good question indeed lol Someone should actually list the sites that all just c/p the news XD. (not me,I'm not visiting those sites)