A Challenge to Pro-#GamerGaters and Anti-#Gamergaters

[Sethran]

Irick, here's there reason why we need to address the fringe elements of both sides: Because they exist.

So long as these fringe elements remain unaddressed, each side will take it in turn to continue to use them in opposition. For instance, every discussion that occurs between Pro and Anti #GG people, eventually an Anti #GG person brings up the attacks and slander levied against Zoe Quinn. Whether or not that has anything to do with how #GG is currently being run, it's still a situation that never gets resolved when Pro #GG wants to bury it in the past instead of dealing with it.

R0guy, when you acknowledge that you are a part of a group, you acknowledge that you are a representative of that group. And as a representative of that group, if you act out, it is considered that the group you represent acts out. The reason one should apologize for the acts of others in their group, is that one does not wish for that one individual's actions to represent their own.

A lack of discussion, admittance, or apology on their behalf only serves to increase suspicion as to whether or not the group condones it. This is a challenge for a reason; I can't make you do it, you don't have to respond. It's entirely up to you.

Also, please don't quote logical fallacies that you looked up on www.LogicalFallacies.info - It just makes you seem rude.

jestercup, I appreciate your weighing in and keeping a level head about it, it's easy to get heated in discussions especially when opposing views are the subject.

tehweave, My film and video degree has an emphasis on directing but I really love creative writing, so I'm glad to hear about that. I also appreciate that your apology was to Zoe. I emailed her myself apologizing on behalf of those who would not, and I think it would be great if more people did that just to let her know we care.

 

[Irick]

Touchy subject, But I'd like to weigh in, if i may:

@Irick : I have to disagree. From my point of view we shouldn't ignore those voices within our own camp ( whichever camp that is) that are "problem posters", we should stand up and be counted as not agreeing, and state that their views are NOT representative. Couldn't silence be interpreted as tacit agreement?

It's a fair point that silence could be interpreted as tacit agreement, but that's the problem with interpretation. It's not representative of reality. In reality, I just consider these sort of individuals noise that cloud the legitimate issue. They are bigots. I disagree with them. It's a blanket position that doesn't need repeating to clarify IMHO. If we spend our time disagreeing with bigots at the expense of discussing the topics we will get no where.

Now, that isn't to say that I don't understand this mindset. It's easy to rope people into an association fallacy. You'll note I've not explicitly identified myself as 'pro-gamergate'. Gamergate is an event. It's a playful little pun that describes the current state of affairs within the gaming community. My arguments have nothing to do with sexism. In fact, I argue for a far more inclusive definition of gamer than the general media was presenting. Why should I have to address some idiot saying some sexist thing at this period of time? It's tagental. It doesn't affect me or my point of view.

Humans are inherently susceptible to rhetoric. This is a sad truth. That is why I argue instead that, for people who truly want to understand and truly want to discuss... we must look beyond such topical associations. If we are speaking from a formal argumentation position, the problem people on either side are red herrings. All they do is serve to distract the topic.

If your main problem with either side of gamergate is that there are bad eggs flaming the other side. I entirely agree with you. We can either continue to repeat how much we agree with each other, or we can assume that unless someone has demonstrated rabid bigotry, that they are not a rabid bigot. Personally, I find the later choice to be the most prudent, but I legitimately do acknowledge that people at large are going to pigeonhole you by default. I just don't think those kind of people are going to be the people that meaningfully contribute to the overall dialog.

I would take this as a call to try and cultivate this sort of civil discussion. Lets not try to make generalizations against the opposition. Lets isolate the points that they argue for or against and argue to or against them. Lets treat people as individuals and engage them as equals. Lets not get caught up in trying to prove that either side is inherently wrong or inherently bad. This is a defining event in games culture, lets genuinely attempt to understand it.

Please, share your concerns. Please, listen to others and please, keep it civil.

Here are my principal concerns:
I am concerned with the level of censorship demonstrated in gaming. Both at a large scale AAA level and, most disturbingly, at the indie game level. I believe Jim Sterling has addressed this point before, but the level of cultivation and censorship on indie games (especially steam forums and comment pages) is borderline criminal.

I am concerned that the undisclosed relationships between journalists influence their reviews and allow an extension of the censorship both at AAA and indie levels. While I understand it is literally impossible to be a games journalist of any renown and be entirely free of these kind of relationships I believe that professionalism requires that any significant relationships be noted so that the reader can take the information with a grain of salt.

I am concerned that the unchecked backlash against the gaming community that has been shown by games media will continue if left unaddressed. I applaud those games journalists who still recognise that they _are_ gamers. I fear that the narrowing of definition and demonization of gamers will exclude and disway the expanding culture. I welcome diversity, and for this reason I think that the definition of terms is important.

This is the same reason my definition of a game is so broad. I disagree with TotalBiscuit's stance that we need to narrowly define game in order to protect consumer investment because games change. I welcome games like GLITCHHIKERS, Dear Ester and Depression Quest because they use the medium to new effect and expand the expressiveness of it. I worry that defining anything in exclusionary terms will inherently limit it.

So I ask, given my concerns, why should I have to address some prick that tells me that I only think like this because i'm a cisgendered white male (I'm actually genderfluid/agendered, but you know, whatever). Why should I have to address some asshole that tells me that I'm right because all women are ? These detract from the discussion, these muddy my points and bring me into a discussion I never decided to be a part of.

If I am sharing my opinions, why do I have to address the opinions of people who have nothing to do with me or my views?

*Edit*

Irick, here's there reason why we need to address the fringe elements of both sides: Because they exist.

So long as these fringe elements remain unaddressed, each side will take it in turn to continue to use them in opposition. For instance, every discussion that occurs between Pro and Anti #GG people, eventually an Anti #GG person brings up the attacks and slander levied against Zoe Quinn. Whether or not that has anything to do with how #GG is currently being run, it's still a situation that never gets resolved when Pro #GG wants to bury it in the past instead of dealing with it.

Sorry I missed you, I was apparently typing up a dissertation at the time

I belive that my points levied toward Jesterscup address the concerns that you bring up. I'll surmise though. I don't see how it is prudent to address these people for any reason. They will not contribute meaningfully to the discussion, and as people who are interested in contributing meaningfully to the discussion we should take it on ourselves to rise above the rhetoric in order to do so. My points are individual, I find the identity as pro or anti-gamergate to be an interesting artifact of the us vs them mentality, but i see gamergate as an event. I don't see why I should address the deviant views on the event just because they are against another person's point of view. My points are my own and should be addressed separately from myself or anyone else. They are ideas. This is more or less the core of the red herring, be it my own morality or the morality of someone tangentially related to me. It has no bearing on the idea or point, and the idea or point needs to be addressed in an of itself.

 

[Zipa]

Pro Gamergate person here, so here we go.

I have been a gamer for longer than I can remember (my parents inform me that I was interested in computers and games from a very young age), my first real plunge into gaming was when my siblings and I got a Sega Megadrive (genesis) for christmas one year. From then on I was hooked. Later on I received a PS1 and it went from there, I would spend many an hour playing games like worms, abe's odyssey and the soul reaver series. Later on I moved onto PC gaming, I got my first PC in 1999 which came with two games that I still love to this day, Alpha Centauri and Star trek Starfleet Command. These days im still a avid PC gamer with the occasional console/handheld game thrown in for good measure.

As for Gamergate, well to being with I didn't really take a side and thought it would be one of those internet storm in a teacups that blows over and everyone forgets about once they have something else to complain about. I couldn't personally care less what people did in their private lives and still don't. What angered me enough was the day that many of the major gaming sites all ran stories decrying gamers as some kind of sub human scum bags that deserved to have their culture die off. The resulting collusion that was revealed to go on within a not insignificant amount of the gaming press is something I find unacceptable especially as these people seem to want to dehumanise and decry the very people that they and video games as a whole depend upon, the gamer.
There was also the issue of the mass censorship that went on across the internet from Reddit to 4Chan of all places.

There is more I could mention but these are the main reasons as to why I support Gamergate. I would also like to stress the point that I do not condone harassment of any kind and think it is abhorrent, and anyone using harassment on whichever side of the debate should have appropriate action taken against them.

 

[Sethran]

Zipa, I used to love playing on my Genesis, but I was the only one in the house that liked to play with it. I also agree with you that harassment of any kind is not something that should be allowed to stand unaddressed, which is why I wanted to make this thread in the first place.

Thanks for posting!

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

For me im neutral. Dont give a shit about gamergate as its a non issue for me. I buy the games im interested in and dont care if a "game journalist" disagrees with me. Ive been gaming since Atari, i have no interest in journalists and who fucks who or whatever. Im here for the entertainment of gaming. Dont care about 4Chan or Reddit. Dont care what the media says about gamers. End of the day, its my hobbey and i love it. If im wrong then tell me why i should care about gamergate? Everything ive read about it is a non issue.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

If I am sharing my opinions, why do I have to address the opinions of people who have nothing to do with me or my views?

Not remotely a "Gamer Gater", but I'd like to add my endorsement to this. No one is obligated to actively distance themselves or issue censure at random individuals acting out for the simple reason that they share some loose affiliation...be that affiliation membership in an expansive group, or association, or ideology, or religion, or gender, or race. If you're a man, you don't need to run around apologizing for "bad men", lest it be assumed you condone them. As a feminist, you don't need to run around apologizing for "bad feminists". As a gamer, you don't need to apologize for "bad gamers". No one should be assuming ANYTHING about you based on your "silence".

The act of assuming an individual has certain attitudes because someone else from their "group" demonstrated those attitudes is known as prejudice. Prejudicial thinking is lazy thinking, and tends to pave the highway to active bigotry.

 

[iTomes]

Im probably a bit late to the party, but whatever, I guess Ill weigh in =).

Anyway, Im Tom. Ive been a gamer since I got a Gameboy and Pokemon Red for my seventh birthday. By now I primarily play on my PC and mainly play turnbased strategy games, RPGs and multiplayer games with friends. I'm also from Germany and english is not my native language, so I do hope you can excuse any mistakes in spelling or grammar I may end up making during this. I would also point out that the "anti violence" debate in Germany was significantly worse than the one in the US, for example, and resulted in some very real "voluntary censorship" (ie, "we can not censor your art, but we can forbid you from selling this product even to adults to "protect our youth", so you better censor it yourself or you wont make any money here!") because an awful lot of politicians jumped on the free popularity train that the state sponsored media had conveniently laid out for them and laws in Germany regarding violence in the media were already somewhat strict as it was. As a result of this it *really* hits a nerve for me when the media and "critics" of it essentially work hand in hand or it at least seems like they do, so please do consider this a bias on my part =).

Now, in regards of the actual topic at hand: I am pro #gamergate, very much so. I originally did not care too much about it, I kind of chuckled and shrugged it off and didnt really care about the details of a persons private life, though I dont think theres something fundamentally wrong with the private life of what is essentially a public figure being talked about, its something that human beings have done for probably about as long as we have existed now, after all theres probably a reason that I am confronted with headlines regarding the "newest celeb news!" everytime I check my emails. I did see that there were some allegations of ethical violations conducted by some game journalists but figured that it would actually be investigated if it actually happened.

However, the response to this situation by the "professional journalists" was a goddamn joke. Insulting people on twitter. "Gamers are dead" articles. Blocking any kind of discussion about this on their forums (with it being banned on reddit at the time as well). That is simply completely ridiculous, immature and unprofessional as hell. And any industry that acts like that certainly deserves a lot of pissed off consumers. The argumentation got even more ludicrous later on. They started using the "poisoned well" argument, essentially claiming that the movement was associated with bad things now so that they didnt have to address it. Which is one of the most ridiculous arguments ever and one that most people that ever had a discussion about feminism or watched one have probably seen in action - after all, its a stigma that has been following around feminism for a while now as well. All of a sudden we were also responsible for "cleaning up" our own community, so basically to keep the internet troll free. Not only is that a rather silly argument to make on the internet (which is just full of trolls that we can't really control) but its also extremely hypocritical - after all, appearantly they dont have to call back the mad hounds on their side that are harassing, threatening and doxxing people for their arguments to have any relevance.

That alone makes it very clear to me that something in the gaming media has to change. Were a growing industry, were attracting a broader and broader spectrum of people and we deseve to have gaming journalism that is more than amateurish angry blogging. Gamergate, regardless of all the (inevitable) trolls is standing for that so I support it.

I would point out that I also have quite a problem with how the media has handled feminist cultural criticism so far and also how they have chosen to actually give out positive or negative reviews in an entirely subjective fashion which I also strongly disagree with. In my opinion the first duty of a journalist should be to try to report what is actually going on, so when one Anita Sarkeesian is receiving flak for what her critics consider a simply bad work then they should probably talk about what the controversy is about and actually look at the video(s) in question to check out whether theres truth to the criticism in question (for example, in case of some of Anitas videos there certainly is, at least if we still consider not providing proper citation when making claims something bad to do). Or rather, at least do that if your magazine is already reporting on the whole "feminism in gaming" debate, which pretty much all of the media outlets in question had been doing. Otherwise the media is essentially helping in pushing an agenda, which is simply not what proper journalism is about.

All of this together really seems like the gaming press is trying to shove a certain brand of feminism on gaming, which I personally strongly disagree with. And while I do believe that an honest discussion about this is certainly necessary, despite disagreeing with pretty much everything that this form of feminism seems to come with (it seems to come down to basically "calling out" examples of the evil sexism in gaming which I personally disagree with on the grounds that it seems to come dangerously close to shaming as opposed to pointing out examples of games that are different from that while also raising awareness for the ever growing amount of female and LGBT gamers that can also have games catered to them, which is the method that I strongly prefer and actually consider the only one that can be acceptable if we want to achieve true inclusiveness).

Now, in regards of the "recognizinga and apologizing" bit. I fully recognize the trolls and hateful people that are also taking part in the gamergate movement. Its a movement defined by self identification, so I cant really claim that these people are not part of gamergate - for all intents and purposes they are since all it really takes is saying that you are part of gamergate to become a part of it.

That said, I will not apologize for their behaviour. I have no control over that. What I will apologize for is lending my voice to a movement that also involves these hateful voices. Given the nature of the situation I dont consider it avoidable and do consider it a necessary evil given the circumstances. That does however not mean that I can not or should not feel sorry for the trouble or even anguish that some of this may have caused some people, so for that I sincerely apologize.

 

[BubbleBurst]

I don't see how it is prudent to address these people for any reason. They will not contribute meaningfully to the discussion, and as people who are interested in contributing meaningfully to the discussion we should take it on ourselves to rise above the rhetoric in order to do so. My points are individual, I find the identity as pro or anti-gamergate to be an interesting artifact of the us vs them mentality, but i see gamergate as an event. I don't see why I should address the deviant views on the event just because they are against another person's point of view. My points are my own and should be addressed separately from myself or anyone else. They are ideas. This is more or less the core of the red herring, be it my own morality or the morality of someone tangentially related to me. It has no bearing on the idea or point, and the idea or point needs to be addressed in an of itself.

Irick, I think any public movement is responsible for policing its own members, and also dealing with any fallout from the actions of extreme members. When someone like Burch, who opposes #GamerGate, says something indefensible, I need to not only recognize that, but also speak out about it. That's not only because I'm a decent person who doesn't want to be associated with something I don't condone, it's also because every time I bring up the issue, someone is going to bring that up.

That being said, I can't help but feel that "policing the movement" is particularly important for people who are pro-GG in this instance of time, because the public perception of GG seems to so strongly believe that it's a movement against women, with journalistic ethics tangential at best. That may not be the case, it may even be a result of a few loud, obnoxious and horrible people, but if I do a Google search without knowing anything, that's the impression I'm going to get. Wikipedia, every major news source I've seen (that has any coverage) outside of Breitbart, really just about everywhere except for this forum, some Youtube videos and EncyclopediaDramatica. If I supported GG I would want to change that perception, fast, and just repeatedly saying "but it's not about that" really doesn't seem to be enough.

Edit: After reading some of the posts from when I was writing this, I want to add that wanting to talk about ethics in video game journalism and then focusing on "social justice" criticism seems pretty unproductive to me. If you want to talk about journalistic ethics, you shouldn't focus on one issue. If you just want to talk about "SJWs," that's fine, say so, but I really don't think it's helping your case regarding what I wrote above.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Most certainly Pro Gamergate

I'm just over 30 and I having been gaming since I first got my NES at 6-7. I have accumulated almost every console since and most definitely don't "choose sides" in videogames or even who plays them. My life doesn't revolve around vidoegames, but at the same time every important memory I have also brings about another of what games I was playing, from the N64 groups we had at my birthday parties to playing Tekken on my PS1 out in the living room Easter morning in the presence of my now deceased family. Gaming is really important to me, as are all the people I shared this experience with.

I support Gamergate because I believe the situation with journalists and the "lines in the sand" dogma they've been teaching these past 6+ years hasn't made things better for anyone, but instead made life worse for all of us. They've accumulated so much power unchecked, they've become immune to any backlash or criticism, and as we all know in no point in human history has this ever been a good thing with good results. I don't know who this Zoe person is, and I honestly don't care; it was the response of the gaming websites that originally made me join gamer gate. They used a "war on gamers" as a response to criticism... that showed me these people cannot be allowed to continue as they are. I am also so VERY PROUD to see people of all creeds, colors, genders and sexualities all stand united in a single movement, especially since our naysayers claimed we were anything but united. What terrible irony that the thing that brought us together was our mutual hate of the people who claimed they were trying to bring us together.
tl;dr this:

I have heard about some members of #gamergate harassing people, and I most certainly don't condone that. While I am thankful it seems to also be frowned on in the twitter group, I will continue to report and condone any and all examples I come across. That is completely not ok and I won't stand for it.

 

[Irick]

Irick, I think any public movement is responsible for policing its own members, and also dealing with any fallout from the actions of extreme members. When someone like Burch, who opposes #GamerGate, says something indefensible, I need to not only recognize that, but also speak out about it. That's not only because I'm a decent person who doesn't want to be associated with something I don't condone, it's also because every time I bring up the issue, someone is going to bring that up.

Alright, lets address this then. Those people are officially no longer part of Gamergate.
But... it doesn't work that way does it? These people can continue to use #Gamergate as their rallying cry. Just as they could use #GamerEthers or #GamerFrenchFries. It's pointless to generalise. There is nothing to police with. There is nothing to be responsible for. It's a false flag, and I have no interest in debunking the faulty assumptions that come with hasty generalization. Which is why I repetitively state that we must move beyond it. No one is responsible for anyone other than themselves. If you act like a respectable human being, talk like a respectable human being and walk like a respectable human being I will treat you like a respectable human being. I don't care if joe the gearhead is an asshat, you seem like a nice person and you are giving me very valid complaints about how GM's corporate culture leads to faulty products that endanger consumers.

That being said, I can't help but feel that "policing the movement" is particularly important for people who are pro-GG in this instance of time, because the public perception of GG seems to so strongly believe that it's a movement against women, with journalistic ethics tangential at best. That may not be the case, it may even be a result of a few loud, obnoxious and horrible people, but if I do a Google search without knowing anything, that's the impression I'm going to get. Wikipedia, every major news source I've seen (that has any coverage) outside of Breitbart, really just about everywhere except for this forum, some Youtube videos and EncyclopediaDramatica. If I supported GG I would want to change that perception, fast, and just repeatedly saying "but it's not about that" really doesn't seem to be enough.

Voila.
Here I am. Standing before you, espousing my views. My views are that the institutions you have cited have decided to demonise my subculture. I am not surprised that they demonise our critique.

Edit: After reading some of the posts from when I was writing this, I want to add that wanting to talk about ethics in video game journalism and then focusing on "social justice" criticism seems pretty unproductive to me. If you want to talk about journalistic ethics, you shouldn't focus on one issue. If you just want to talk about "SJWs," that's fine, say so, but I really don't think it's helping your case regarding what I wrote above.

I haven't. I consider them as irrelevant to the discussion as I do the misogynists and bigots that egg them on. They are noise that detracts from the discussion rather than provide anything meaningful. I'm all for cultural critique. I invite more lenses to view games with, but I don't understand why this has anything to do with the ethics of journalism. It's a bit tangential to my point about the demonization of gamer, but that's just it. Tangental.

 

[MerlinCross]

Merlin, you know until a short while ago I didn't even know that websites did the attack on gamer articles - I really wasn't paying that much attention, just like you. I'm glad we both finally figured out what was going on, and I'm also happy to see you have the clarity of mind to see that just because you disagree with someone doesn't mean you should attack them.

I'm rather new to the debate(got really interested in it last week), so yeah I kinda missed out on the large chunks of hate and bile being thrown around(though that's still going on to a degree). Since I'm new I'd very much like to make the discussion kinda focused on the journalist problem rather than attacking SJW/Zoe/Anita. Rather hard since loud voices from both sides want to shout about her.

Side note, I'd very much like to bend time and space to swap two events. Could Doritogate or whatever it was called have happened AFTER this? Like all this happened last year and Doritogate was now? Maybe then most people would be on the same side. Dunno, just kinda wish more people spoke up then and dug deeper.

I'm just rambling now though so I'll stop. Nice place for discussion though, hope it stays that way.

 

[Jesterscup]

I consider them as irrelevant to the discussion as I do the misogynists and bigots that egg them on. They are noise that detracts from the discussion rather than provide anything meaningful. I'm all for cultural critique. I invite more lenses to view games with, but I don't understand why this has anything to do with the ethics of journalism. It's a bit tangential to my point about the demonization of gamer, but that's just it. Tangental.

And perhaps it is, but sadly this current situation does not seem to be:
Greater journalistic integrity Vs. nah it's fine as it is

Instead it seems to be:
Greater journalistic integrity Vs. my god look those hateful misogynistic people

It's my understanding that a debate is point counterpoint, if your counterpoint is "that hurts me, I try to be open minded, and I disagree with the behaviour of anyone who behaves like that" then you disarm the whole argument, and everyone moves on to agreeing that greater journalistic integrity is a good thing.

Now should you need to do that? should you have to defend yourself against slander and unfounded accusations because you are stating a case for something else? No of course you shouldn't. You are already holding yourself to a higher standard, and engaging in debate. I recognise that you shouldn't have to make a statement like that to further your cause. I myself would take strenous action to make such a statment, but it is indeed personal choice.

If someone posted a #gamergate manifesto, that stated its goals for journalistic integrity AND included an inclusiveness clause and a decry of harassment towards people. I'd happily sign it. Why wouldn't I? But without those clauses, I can't be pro-gamergate ( despite being pro integrity ) simply because I cannot condone the actions of those who few who do "have their hate on"

 

[BubbleBurst]

Edit: After reading some of the posts from when I was writing this, I want to add that wanting to talk about ethics in video game journalism and then focusing on "social justice" criticism seems pretty unproductive to me. If you want to talk about journalistic ethics, you shouldn't focus on one issue. If you just want to talk about "SJWs," that's fine, say so, but I really don't think it's helping your case regarding what I wrote above.

I haven't. I consider them as irrelevant to the discussion as I do the misogynists and bigots that egg them on. They are noise that detracts from the discussion rather than provide anything meaningful. I'm all for cultural critique. I invite more lenses to view games with, but I don't understand why this has anything to do with the ethics of journalism. It's a bit tangential to my point about the demonization of gamer, but that's just it. Tangental.

Sorry, I probably wasn't very clear there. That last bit wasn't directed at you, so much as a response to what I'm seeing and have seen in general.

Voila.
Here I am. Standing before you, espousing my views. My views are that the institutions you have cited have decided to demonise my subculture. I am not surprised that they demonise our critique.

That's fine, then. I, personally, don't really understand how some people can write off most of the visible internet as part of a bias or collusion against them. I just wanted to say, the next time someone asks why the discussion is still about GamerGate and gender, it's probably at least a little because that's all anyone sees when they try to look it up.

 

[PBMcNair]

Well, here goes nothing.

Pro-GamerGate. Gaming since the Sega Megadrive. Irish, some college, currently unemployed. As you may have guessed from the clipped nature of my description, not usually one for talking. Games have been a part of my life for as long as I remember, and everyone in my family played something. The first thing my father and I did after "the talk", was play co-op Army Men: Air Attack. I just cleaned out my sister's laptop, so she could run the Sims 4 on it. And my 50 year old mother's birthday present this year, was Legend of Grimrock, because running Stonekeep through DosBox was annoying her.

Now I didn't get involved in GamerGate until about 2 weeks ago. I had heard of the zoepost, and the megathread here, but I hadn't cared about that. It was when I heard about the censorship, the suspicion of collusion, the "Gamers are dead" articles and the hashtag itself that I got interested and started to look into things. I'm in this firmly for journalism ethics.

Now for the hardest section. I'd like to be able to apologise for any harassment that has occurred under the GamerGate tag, but I can't. I didn't do any of it, so an apology from me for this is nothing but an empty gesture. I can, however, apologise for being unable to prevent these things from occurring. I am not active on twitter(I believe it to be the worst tool for active communication ever), and therefore, I usually only see the aftermath of these events, as they are linked in a thread. I do not stand for harassment, and intend to do all I can(however little that may be) to oppose it more actively going forward.

 

[R0guy]

@R0guy : yes you are, but by the same point when you take a side and speak, aren't you also speaking for that side/group? Perhaps you yourself have nothing to apologise for, but hell I apologise for people all the time who aren't me, people who also represent things that I represent, I'm not apologising on behalf of that person, but because I believe that their view is not that of 'the cause' ( whatever that may be), and I'm apologising as a representative of that cause.

Interesting. Good reply, it's given me alot to think about.

Maybe the difference here is a subjective matter of principle or a semantic argument of what we would each mean by "representation"?

All I know is that, for example:

1) I would never ask someone I'm arguing with on these forums to apologize for doxxing/harrassing/whatever unless they were either, the exact person who did it or was directly encouraging/lauding such actions. Morally speaking, it would be needlessly offensive and dishonest to, IMO, insinuate guilt by association. Pragmatically speaking, and from my own experience, it would derail/end the conversation and/or just give the other guy an excuse to discredit me, at least most of the time.

2) Let's pretend I was actually the person with a reason to apologize, and we are part of the same side. What would you saying "I'm sorry, R0guy is a smelly honey badger for doxxing your grandma." accomplish? There's a difference between representing, which I consider to be dependant on labelling, and taking responsibility, which I would consider to be very very wrong for someone to expect that of you.

 

[murrow]

Thanks for reaching out. This is a good initiative.

I'm an academic; more precisely, a post-graduate student in history. My research interests are medieval Irish history and history in videogames. I've been gaming since I was 5, when I got a SNES from my folks after I broke my leg at school. I was an avid Nintendo fan until the Gamecube/PS2 generation, when I switched to PC and there remained until about 4 years ago. Now I split my gaming between my PC and my PS3. RPGs and turn-based strategy games are my favourite genres. I'm also a longtime player of tabletop RPGs and Magic: The Gathering, although I haven't played that much lately.

I voiced support for #Gamergate for mainly two reasons. The first has to do with my experience in the academic environment. Academia is a sectarian institution by its very nature, and tends to form cliques and produce personal feuds between factions. Humanities and social sciences departments are quite homogeneous when it comes to political orientation, and some fields have become hostile to dissent. As a medievalist I was spared the brunt, but I've seen my share of colleagues and faculty members bullied, threatened and blacklisted for going againt the hegemony. The problem, of course, are not the ideas in themselves, but the cliquish nature of intellectual gatherings. To illustrate my point, I'll give you a quote from Johan Huizinga, one of the pioneers of cultural history and the authour of Homo Ludens, the inaugural book on ludology:

The club is a very ancient institution, but it is a disaster when whole nations turn into clubs, for these, besides promoting the precious qualities of friendship and loyalty, are also hotbeds of sectarianism, intolerance, suspicion, superciliousness and quick to defend any illusion that flatters self love or group-consciousness. We have seen great nations losing every shred of honour, all sense of humour, the very idea of decency and fair play.

He was talking about Nazism, by the way. The book was written in the 1930s, at the height of Hitler's power. His thesis is that playful engagement is an antidote against totalitarianism, and that by suppressing the play element (transforming games, rituals, humour and pranks into propaganda or suppressing them altogether) we would bring about the worse in society.

The second reason is political. I consider freedom of thought and speech principles of the highest importance. The idea that ideas that 'hurt' need to be suppressed, although well-meaning, is ultimately incompatible with the existence of political dissent, without which the very rule of law is compromised. I could go on at lenght here, but I'll just post a video that I also posted in the first big GG thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cITDCwKzGBM

I'm Brazilian. My country suffered under the thumb of a dictatorship between 1964 and 1985. We saw political dissent being suppressed, books being outlawed and confiscated, people being tortured and killed for spousing controversial views. And it was all done under the guise of 'protecting people' and purging society of dangerous ideas. I am thus very sensitive to social engineers who think they can control media to 'heal' society, which is exactly what some game 'intellectuals' defend. As Kreia from KOTOR 2 once said, all healing is manipulation.

As for your second request,

I am *NEVER*, *EVER* going to apologize for something I'm not guilty of. Point me a harassing action I've done and I'll get a plane to apologize to you in person. Otherwise, don't blame me for the actions of others. This remind me one time in my 8th grade, when two students stole a test from the teacher, and some in the class wanted everybody to admit guilt to the school's principal. It was childish then and is still childish now. Plus, people obnoxious enough to engage in harassment don't give a damn about what the likes of us say or don't say.

 

[BreakfastMan]

If I am sharing my opinions, why do I have to address the opinions of people who have nothing to do with me or my views?

Not remotely a "Gamer Gater", but I'd like to add my endorsement to this. No one is obligated to actively distance themselves or issue censure at random individuals acting out for the simple reason that they share some loose affiliation...be that affiliation membership in an expansive group, or association, or ideology, or religion, or gender, or race. If you're a man, you don't need to run around apologizing for "bad men", lest it be assumed you condone them. As a feminist, you don't need to run around apologizing for "bad feminists". As a gamer, you don't need to apologize for "bad gamers". No one should be assuming ANYTHING about you based on your "silence".

The act of assuming an individual has certain attitudes because someone else from their "group" demonstrated those attitudes is known as prejudice. Prejudicial thinking is lazy thinking, and tends to pave the highway to active bigotry.

I disagree. The worst people can often have the loudest voice, and represent a community. If the rest of the community stays silent, that just tells everyone else that they don't think it is that bad that these horrible people are speaking for them. Evil voices need to be drowned out. People often talk about "loud minorities controlling the conversation". Know how to fight against that? Be louder than them. It shouldn't be hard to speak to what you truly believe, if you do believe that and so many (supposedly) agree with you.

 

[chadachada123]

I'm just your typical white, (mostly) straight, male gamer. Besides video games, I have just taken up archery, which, by the way, is FUCKING AMAZING and I suggest everyone else try it. And if you do, try short/long or recurve bows, not the modern compounds. Much more realistic "feel" to it. I am enrolled at U of Michigan, and am pretty freaking smart...except that various life and mental problems have kept me out of school for some five semesters.

Now then, I support #GamerGate primarily because of the collusion between journalists *and* the almost certainly, if true, illegal activity within IndieCade and other indie game competitions/events. That is, that the founder and/or judges personally know or are friends with the winners of last year's competition. I'm also staying in this strongly because of the ludicrous claims that gender is still even a part of the issue, when it was barely considered one to begin with. I repeat: Very, very, very few people on pro-GG still give a single fuck about gender or Literally Who 1 or 2.

Most importantly, for IndieCade, The judges may not even be required to play the games they're assigned
There was proof in the form of a video and written statement by the developer that claimed he fell victim to it...but now they're gone. Here's a thread about it, and there's another thread on Reddit suggesting that they were removed for legal reasons: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860017-IGF-and-Indiecade-Possible-Racketeering

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now then, the apology. I obviously apologize for any false-flagging and harassment done by my side (the latter of which we are policing to the best of our ability; if we see it, we police it). I can't really think of much else, actually. I assume the other side will say the same.

 

[Jesterscup]

@R0guy : yes you are, but by the same point when you take a side and speak, aren't you also speaking for that side/group? Perhaps you yourself have nothing to apologise for, but hell I apologise for people all the time who aren't me, people who also represent things that I represent, I'm not apologising on behalf of that person, but because I believe that their view is not that of 'the cause' ( whatever that may be), and I'm apologising as a representative of that cause.

Interesting. Good reply, it's given me alot to think about.

Maybe the difference here is a subjective matter of principle or a semantic argument of what we would each mean by "representation"?

All I know is that, for example:

1) I would never ask someone I'm arguing with on these forums to apologize for doxxing/harrassing/whatever unless they were either, the exact person who did it or was directly encouraging/lauding such actions. Morally speaking, it would be needlessly offensive and dishonest to, IMO, insinuate guilt by association. Pragmatically speaking, and from my own experience, it would derail/end the conversation and/or just give the other guy an excuse to discredit me, at least most of the time.

2) Let's pretend I was actually the person with a reason to apologize, and we are part of the same side. What would you saying "I'm sorry, R0guy is a smelly honey badger for doxxing your grandma." accomplish? There's a difference between representing, which I consider to be dependant on labelling, and taking responsibility, which I would consider to be very very wrong for someone to expect that of you.

how about this:
3. I'm gamergate, you're anti, and I state " I deplore the actions of those who have harassed ,threatened, doxxed and been abusive. They do not represent me,optional? nor do they represent the views of beliefs of the majority of those to support #gamergate"
edit supplemental
" and I cannot condone their actions"
Obviously this can go both ways, you can decry the bad actions on both sides if you want etc etc