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

[BreakfastMan]

Anti #GamerGaters, you're next.

Just as with the above, I want you to give us a paragraph. Not the most detailed, just look at the one I did above. Describe yourself, give us a little bit about you and your likes, your hobbies, why you would or would not consider yourself a gamer. Just like with the #GamerGaters, I want to be able to see you as an individual and not an anonymous person behind a keyboard. Then, explain why you do not support #GamerGate - and please refrain from being hostile. I don't want to see facts and links and essays, just your personal opinion.

Not much to say. Male, mostly straight, white, early 20's. Live in an apartment, have my degree, go to work 5 days a week. Fan of horror, sci-fi, heavy metal, comics, film, and games. My tastes are many and varied. Don't really identify as a gamer anymore. I once did, but as I have been exposed to more and more of the communities bullshit, I have found the desire to associate myself with that community decrease.

My personal opinion of GamerGate? It is almost entirely a conservative backlash to an increasingly progressive press and indie development community that masquerades under the auspices of promoting "journalistic ethics". That sounds harsh, and it is harsh. My opinions of GamerGate are not nice. I don't think very highly of the backlash or those who support it. Just like they don't think very highly of me for having opinions that are almost identical to most of the "SJWs" they despise.

Then, I want you to admit and apologize for the things you know people who are anti-#gamergate have done that you find objectionable. You know they exist, just as much as the opposite exists. And just like how #GamerGate can't progress if it ignores the worst aspects of it, neither can your side of the argument.

Not sure why I have to apologize for things I have not done, but I will admit that anti-#gamergaters are not entirely clean. Attacking neutral targets like TB is very much the wrong thing to do. So is trying to get people fired from their jobs or sending threats. If anyone on the anti-side has done the doxxing or ddosing, that is certainly wrong, as is maybe sending the needle to that one guy (the jury is still out on the motives of who did that, though, from what I know).

 

[Irick]

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.

That's alright, I'm still just pointing out that neither side should be pointing to the problem people on either side for this whole guilt by association sort of argument.

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.

Because... it is a bias. If someone is using the argument that boils down the the existence of 'bad people' invalidating my points, it's a bias. It's prejudice, e.g. they don't evaluate my ideas on their own merit, but on a pre existing judgement.

It's generally bad when someone uses prejudice or bias to evaluate others. I disagree with it, it's bad. It's not that it's uncommon, but it's unreasonable. If people are arguing against an imaginary 'every gamergater', they're not really discussing. They're are arguing a point, maybe in an aristotelian way, but none the less it's just an espousement of how they view the 'opposition' rather than any attempt to understand the situation.

Imagine this exchange:
: I hate how all these GamerGaters are so sexist!
: I'm not sexist.
: Well, Wikipedia says you are.
: Okay, but I'm not. Sexism has nothing to do with my argument, I just don't like journalists selling me out for other's personal gains. I value transparency in journalism and free speech.
: Whatever, Wikipedia says GamerGate is mainly about sexism.

Or alternatively:
: I hate how all these Social Justice Warriors want to censor games and game commentary!
: I don't want to censor games. I just don't want people to harass people on the internet.
: Well, KnowYourMeme says you just want to push the agenda of Zoe Quin because of a massive media conspiracy!
: Okay, but I don't. Censorship has nothing to do with my argument. I just don't think we should stand by mass libel under the catch all of Free Speech. It hurts people and the fact that it is done online makes it no less hurtful.
<NewlyInformedCommenter: Whatever, Youtube says you just want to censor games.

Neither of these exchanges can be helped, period. They are going to happen. The only thing we can do is consciously acknowledge that there is no such thing as a correct or even mostly correct generalization when it comes to truth seeking. We aren't here to be token members of a front, we are here as individuals, to express ourselves and to understand.

*edit*

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.

Why?
Why does it say that? We didn't say that, and we certainly don't mean that, so it can't be a problem on our end of the communications divide. This assumption of approval, that is an _assumption_. It is a failing on the end of the interpreter, a moment where in their personal bias colors the story and fills in information that does not exist.

It is a fantasy. An imaginary affirmation.

Why exactly does it fall to us to argue against these sort of flights of fantasy? I'm here to present my points, not argue against the points people imagine are mine.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

And I disagree in turn. The solution to "loud voices controlling the conversation" is for people to think critically about the things they see, watch, read or hear, and to not project the values of one individual onto another because they happen to belong to the same political party, or religion, or gender, or ethnic group, etc, etc.

If I hear an "evil voice" speaking, I disregard what that voice has to say. I don't think "Wow, that guy sounds evil. Everyone even tangentially associated with them must also therefore be evil."

 

[R0guy]

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

Right, then yes absolutely. But that's not an apology for #GG and anti-#GG "jerks", that a condemnation of said "jerks".

 

[BreakfastMan]

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.

And I disagree in turn. The solution to "loud voices controlling the conversation" is for people to think critically about the things they see, watch, read or hear, and to not project the values of one individual onto another because they happen to belong to the same political party, or religion, or gender, or ethnic group, etc, etc.

If I hear an "evil voice" speaking, I disregard what that voice has to say. I don't think "Wow, that guy sounds evil. Everyone even tangentially associated with them must also therefore be evil."

But how do we know that others don't agree with them, when we almost never hear those voices? Saying "just be critical" is all well and good, but how does one actually go about that? How does one determine what sources are actually representative of the community as a whole and which are obnoxious assholes being loud?

 

[Irick]

But how do we know that others don't agree with them, when we almost never hear those voices? Saying "just be critical" is all well and good, but how does one actually go about that? How does one determine what sources are actually representative of the community as a whole and which are obnoxious assholes being loud?

Ethnographic study with a representative portion of the population, adjusted for regional biases.
Failing that[footnote]and even with that, you still can only claim a probability of correctness. In general you shouldn't treat individuals as groups and vice versa.[/footnote], you don't.
You address each member on their own right.

 

[DC_78]

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.

And I disagree in turn. The solution to "loud voices controlling the conversation" is for people to think critically about the things they see, watch, read or hear, and to not project the values of one individual onto another because they happen to belong to the same political party, or religion, or gender, or ethnic group, etc, etc.

If I hear an "evil voice" speaking, I disregard what that voice has to say. I don't think "Wow, that guy sounds evil. Everyone even tangentially associated with them must also therefore be evil."

But how do we know that others don't agree with them, when we almost never hear those voices? Saying "just be critical" is all well and good, but how does one actually go about that? How does one determine what sources are actually representative of the community as a whole and which are obnoxious assholes being loud?

You realizes this is the exact same argument conservatives use against Muslims right Breakfastman? The whole condemn them loudly thing gets old when the condemnation has to be done at the beginning of every conversation. Instead of folks just using common sense that the person that is talking to you might have a common moral center with you.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

But how do we know that others don't agree with them, when we almost never hear those voices? Saying "just be critical" is all well and good, but how does one actually go about that? How does one determine what sources are actually representative of the community as a whole and which are obnoxious assholes being loud?

Uh...have you tried asking them?

When I want to know what a particular individual thinks or feels, usually that's the most productive route to obtaining that information. Not as direct as just making a bunch of assumptions, granted, but it most probably gives you far more reliable data.

 

[Slayer4472]

Hello everyone! Pro-GGer here.

I don't have much to say about myself- I'm mostly just a normal guy. I'm Catholic, and I work as a distributor for Corky's BBQ. I'm also a liberal, and a gay man (not married get, because my state still bans same gender marriage, but we're getting there). The first game I ever played was Soulcalibur II on the PS2 , largely because my cousin recommended it. I've also owned a PS3, but I've largely migrated onto my PC and games like Civ V and Crusader Kings.

I think I'll echo many GGers when I say that I became part of this issue because of the "Gamers are Dead" articles. I happened to be running through the Zero Punctuation backlogs a few days after they dropped, and made my way into the thread through the side bar. I read a few of the articles as well as several of the reactions to it and became somewhat incensed. I then read through the several hundred pages that had been written (oh dear lord it took hours), made my profile, and started talking with everyone.

On GamerGate's faults, there are largely two problems: assholes and gun jumpers.

- When Milo asked the SFPD about Sarkeesian's death threats, the PR officer responded that he didn't have any records of a complaint. A number of people decided that this meant there had been no complaint and shot their mouths off. This should not have happened.

-When Quinn posted her article on Cracked (Goddammit I'm angry at Cracked) she threw in a number of tweets that were, if we're being honest, harassment. While I don't believe that I am responsible for their actions, I do believe that harassment is a Bad Thing and those tweets should not have been made.

I still think GamerGate is in the right, though. Websites shouldn't censor or condescend to their viewers.

 

[BreakfastMan]

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.

And I disagree in turn. The solution to "loud voices controlling the conversation" is for people to think critically about the things they see, watch, read or hear, and to not project the values of one individual onto another because they happen to belong to the same political party, or religion, or gender, or ethnic group, etc, etc.

If I hear an "evil voice" speaking, I disregard what that voice has to say. I don't think "Wow, that guy sounds evil. Everyone even tangentially associated with them must also therefore be evil."

But how do we know that others don't agree with them, when we almost never hear those voices? Saying "just be critical" is all well and good, but how does one actually go about that? How does one determine what sources are actually representative of the community as a whole and which are obnoxious assholes being loud?

You realizes this is the exact same argument conservatives use against Muslims right Breakfastman? The whole condemn them loudly thing gets old when the condemnation has to be done at the beginning of every conversation. Instead of folks just using common sense that the person that is talking to you might have a common moral center with you.

Difference being A: Muslims do condemn the extremists, and B: Muslims follow a holy book. Same cannot be said of other groups.

Additionally, most people don't share a common moral center. People are terrible. Special George Carlin video treat that illustrates my feelings quite nicely:

But how do we know that others don't agree with them, when we almost never hear those voices? Saying "just be critical" is all well and good, but how does one actually go about that? How does one determine what sources are actually representative of the community as a whole and which are obnoxious assholes being loud?

Uh...have you tried asking them?

When I want to know what a particular individual thinks or feels, usually that's the most productive route to obtaining that information. Not as direct as just making a bunch of assumptions, granted, but it most probably gives you far more reliable data.

We aren't talking about individuals. We are talking about groups, groups people willingly identify with, and how people outside the group perceive that group.

 

[ElMinotoro]

I'm 30, white Australian male, near the end of my studies for primary teaching. I enjoy singing and voice acting, I follow the NRL very closely and will tonight be watching the South Sydney Rabbitohs play for a position in the grand final. I suffer deeply from depression. I have been gaming ever since Alex Kidd in Miracle World.

I've said elsewhere my distaste for the gamergate movement. There was a point where I could have been convinced that it really was about games journalism but reading threads about SJW's turned me right off. At least two of the people responsible for me writing off GG as a bunch of angry children have posted in this thread presenting themselves as calm and collectected. It is so hard to take anything someone with a Vivian James avatar says seriously and that's the fault of people with Vivian James avatars screeching loudly into the wilderness about SJW's or whathave you.

If gamergate was serious, there would never be a mention of SJW as being for ethics in journalism doesn't preclude social justice.

I can't speak to what anyone has done, as I don't have a group, I've not done a thing. There has been a lot of bad behaviour over this.
Or I could take the classy route and say "no anti-gger needs to apologise for anything". But that's a level of cognitive dissonance that not even a Vivian James avatar could fix.

EDIT: Not everyone with a VJ avatar acts awfully, but god damnit it seems like it sometimes.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

We aren't talking about individuals. We are talking about groups, groups people willingly identify with, and how people outside the group perceive that group.

Prejudice is prejudgment, or forming an opinion before becoming aware of the relevant facts of a case. The word is often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, political opinion, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. In this case, it refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership.

You are always dealing with individuals. Ideologies are not people. They do not think or believe anything on their own.

 

[Irick]

Difference being A: Muslims do condemn the extremists, and B: Muslims follow a holy book. Same cannot be said of other groups.

This is a false dichotomy. There are plenty who condemn harassment regardless of the side of the debate. It just doesn't relate to the issues that I discuss. The _assumption_ that these people don't condemn harassment is disturbing. Why should they have to prove that they condemn harassment? Do you belive they are inherently bad people? If so, why?

We aren't talking about individuals. We are talking about groups, groups people willingly identify with, and how people outside the group perceive that group.

If you want to discuss the group, then point to an ethnographical study or stop trying to push your opinion as fact. It is in any case, absolutely beside the point. If the people you are conversing with identify with the group and show none of the traits that you are espousing to the group, then these must not be the _core values_ of the group.
*edit*

You are always dealing with individuals. Ideologies are not people. They do not think or believe anything on their own.

I have to disagree with this only on the technical terms. You really shouldn't ever be dealing with individuals, or groups when you are discussing an idea. You should be dealing with the idea.

It doesn't matter if I am a puppy-kickingly evil lucifer from the planet of the baby eaters, my idea that maybe we should stop calling pluto the planet of the baby eaters needs to be evaluated on its own merit. (also, i'm not sure if we should be calling dogs from pluto lucifers, this also seems counter productive... plus I only kicked that puppy because otherwise ireland would starve!)

 

[Cavouku]

Hello, my name is Lucas. I was four when I played the earliest game I remember: Mortal Kombat II for the SNES. I was okay at it, but my dad's friend could do this cheat where Liu Kang's torso turned into a dragon and bit the other guy's head off before the match even started. Did I mention I was four? Aside from this, I played Super Mario World, but my older sister was always better at it. I remember a few more games for the SNES, and the N64. I even remember that there were two video games my dad was better at than me: Sarge's Heroes on the N64, and Wolfenstein on the computer. I was a Nintendo "fanboy" (in that I exclusively used their consoles) until I got a PS3. I'm not really a devotee of any console or genre or company now, and just like to find fun games, especially fantasy, expression, and the likes. But I'm very non-competetive, so I don't like online competition games. I'd call myself a gamer, in that I'm something of a games enthusiast. I don't play as much as I used to, as I'm in university now, but I still keep up with the cultural news.

I don't really feel I support any particular side, but I certainly support journalistic integrity. I support diversity in games (more on this in a sec-). I'm not entirely emotionally detached from what Zoe Quinn allegedly did, because a story about infidelity touches my moral compass, but I acknowledge it's largely irrelevant to the real issues at this point. Would that be different if she was a guy? Probably, but I don't know in which ways, so that point is probably left by the road. But that no matter how murky something's beginnings, everything has the capacity to outgrow its origins and I definitely believe something good can come out of this whole debacle.

As far as diversity in games goes, on one hand, I'm all for it, and I believe most (sensible) people on both sides are as well. That said, I think this whole thing could be remedied by more diversity in the entirety of gaming development (NOTE: I INCLUDE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING HERE AS WELL. I BELIEVE THESE ARE THE FIELDS WITH THE MOST NEED FOR DIVERSITY).

That said, some issues seem either inflated, or the reporting on them is inflammatory. I personally feel that Assassin's Creed: Unity could've had some girls, or probably even different races in their multiplayer set up, but I also understand when my friend said "Why does it have to bother?". It's not necessarily whatever-ist to say, he just doesn't want someone to guilt him for enjoying something because it doesn't meet a certain political correctness quota, or that just being a straight white male is something inherently offensive. That's his viewpoint, and it's different from many diverse people who may feel that this is another sign of neglect and exclusion, but it's not without merit, or at least I don't think so.

While the dollars of these people do matter in the grand scheme of things, we can't just start drafting them to one side for being near the battlefield. And frankly, I don't think we're very well set up to start inviting them in. Not right now.

...I guess what I'm saying is: Journalistic integrity = Good (and we should be saying that for AAA all the way down to Indie). Diversity in games = good, but it will come from diversity throughout the entire business (devs actually seem fairly diverse, it's the marketing that seems to be towing the line). Calling out developers for being exclusive or thoughtless and then coming up with some poor excuse about it is probably the right thing to do, but be careful when doing so; there are many innocents on the battlefield, and they simply want to play fun games, and go about their day.

Apologies for the length.

EDIT: I forgot to mention: While I won't pretend to apologize on anyone's behalf to any extent, and I haven't personally gotten myself into the debacle to warrant an apology in this regards (despite my Canadian-ness), I will say that all those that have been the victims of any form of abuse have my condolences, and I hope that those performing the abuse come to alter their ways, face any appropriate repercussions, and all the flavorings.

 

[Something Amyss]

I don't particularly know how to distinguish myself as a real person. I'm an unabashed geek who does all sorts of geeky things, possibly to the point of stereotype. On top of spending most of the last 30 years playing video games, I was a band geek, learned to play guitar and piano (poorly), like sci-fi/fantasy, play roleplaying games (mostly some variant of Star Wars, but also D&D, WoD, and MnM), like anime, samurai flicks, and big swords. There are very few stereotype buttons I don't hit. I'm a minor history nerd, a writer of bad fiction, and I like pizza.

Why I consider myself a gamer....I don't know if I do or don't. I call myself a gamer, but that seems more a perfunctory response. More to the point, I've realised how little I actually care when someone claims I'm not. This dovetails with gamergate or whatever you want to call it. I've been told numerous times since GamerGate started that I, as a feminist and a "social justice warrior," should get out of someone else's hobby. I'm amused, don't get me wrong. I've been gaming since before most Escapists were born, but because I think women are people and there's room for everyone in gaming, I'm an outsider, an enemy, an invader, not a true gamer. And that's sort of fine by me. I'm not sure I want to be counted as "one of them," give the vitriol.

As far as GamerGate itself goes, I'm against the movement. I'm not against what it supposedly represents, I just don't see much of a push for journalistic integrity when people are using it to attack Anita Sarkeesian on false grounds or when it keeps coming back to Zoë Quinn (spelled correctly just for Ten Foot Bunny, happy now? ). What I see from GamerGate is more harassment and dickery from a community already known for it. As someone who is already branded as an "enemy" or "other," I'd feel like a black person siding with the KKK because of "Christian values" if I sided with GamerGate. But that doesn't mean I stand against journalistic integrity in gaming. To the contrary, I had an issue back with Kane and Lynch. I had an issue with the inane sponsorships. I had an issue with Jessica Chobot getting a role in a Bioware game. And that's kind of the problem. It seems like the only thing that can maintain an outrage against gaming journalism is a discovery that a woman took multiple dicks. The reaction has less the appearance of policing journalism and more the appearance of policing Quinn's vagina.

 

[Irick]

*snip*

While the dollars of these people do matter in the grand scheme of things, we can't just start drafting them to one side for being near the battlefield. And frankly, I don't think we're very well set up to start inviting them in. Not right now.

...I guess what I'm saying is: Journalistic integrity = Good (and we should be saying that for AAA all the way down to Indie). Diversity in games = good, but it will come from diversity throughout the entire business (devs actually seem fairly diverse, it's the marketing that seems to be towing the line). Calling out developers for being exclusive or thoughtless and then coming up with some poor excuse about it is probably the right thing to do, but be careful when doing so; there are many innocents on the battlefield, and they simply want to play fun games, and go about their day.

Apologies for the length.

Hey there Lucus!
I like this viewpoint. I agree with you actually. I think that the anti-pro thing is really clouding the issues. We can agree that diversity and transparency are important things to champion. We should be able to look past the squabbling and see that.

I really kinda miss the early days of gaming. I got to grow up in the tail end of the arcade culture. I miss that so much. I met my first crush in an arcade. :3

I really do think we need to address the issues with publishers now, especially with the huge amount of advertising budgets that they put out. We do need to fight for more representation in games, especially with cop out 'it's too hard' answers. I can understand having a vision conflict where the director wants the character to be male, but I don't see the 'it's too hard' argument holding much water. Especially when it is roundly refuted by just about every expert in the field.

 

[Ncrdrg]

Well, my name's Nic, I'm a programmer and an Oracle DBA who has been on leave for a few years due to medical issues.
I've always identified as a gamer, I'm generally a big fan of RPGs. I started with JRPGs and am more into WRPGs now. I also like adventure/action games and now identify mostly as a PC gamer although I do own a PS3/360. I love hockey, badminton, tennis, I watch anime, read manga and have worked during the past years in the manga scanlation scene for sites such as Easy Going Scans... and naturally, I'm a tech enthusiast.

GamerGate caught my attention when I saw sites being massively censored. I've never liked censorship in any forms so this got me curious and I started looking into things and eventually I read the blog post written by Eron. His story touched me, quite honestly. I was appalled by anything I could find on Zoe Quinn. It didn't make me go activist for GG but hey, at least discussion should be allowed. Then the Gamers are Dead articles happened. This is when I lost it.

I'd never joined twitter before. I'd never joined The Escapist either. The Escapist caught my attention because it was the only site that seemed to respond positively to criticism. I made accounts for both and started being a strong GG supporter. The more we discovered, the worse it looked. Everyone knew corruption was there but it wasn't until gaming journalists decided to take a crap on their readers that the spark needed to have its readers revolt against their practices happened. I support GamerGate because I want to see politic agendas out of journalism, stronger ethics and due to a natural opposition to modern feminism (I'm an egalitarian).

===

As for the 2nd part. Frankly, the harassment, mostly. I know everyone's angry but that's no excuse to go insult everyone with a different opinion on twitter. It hasn't been so bad for the most part but I did notice a mob effect that appalled me. I think the part that disgusted me the most was seeing Liana Kerzner being piled on for offering her take on things. She was called so many awful things I felt ashamed to be a GG supporter at the time. Thankfully, it blew over eventually. It's still happening sometimes but I've seen a lot of self-policing too to counter-balance this.

The doxxing, death threats and all that, I could never get behind that. What also bothered me a lot was that at some point, I felt the movement was becoming too radical and users started to turn against each other. I remember for example being called a sockpuppet because someone thought I was Liana because I tried to police the others who kept taking potshots at her. I felt quite annoyed that I had to make a video to prove I'm an actual person and then just be dismissed as a "shill". I'd like to see the movement more receptive to opposing viewpoints and not automatically assume they have nefarious agenda behind it.

One of the things in hindsight was a huge mistake and quite embarrassing was the Zoe Quinn charity thing and the Sarkeesian police thing. And I'm guilty for having participated in it too. Sometimes, we just to conclusions too easily and become too paranoid due to the fact that the gaming press industry are against us.

And that's about it, I guess.

 

[renegade7]

Video gaming since I got a Game Boy Color for my birthday. As for whether I identify with the "gamer" label...I'm not really sure, probably not. I do a lot of other things that I think are pretty significant to my identity besides video games: I'd really prefer people know me as a graduate student, a multi-instrumentalist (violin, cello, clarinet, flute, pipe organ, piano), a lab technician, a math and science enthusiast, an epee fencer, a computer nerd, and a fine art afficionado (HUGE fan of the orchestra) as well as someone who plays video games. I really enjoy video games, but if you were to (to paraphrase Stephen Colbert) "slap me awake in the middle of the night and ask me to define my identity in one word" it would probably not be "gamer".

My position on #gamergate is one of annoyed indifference. I've certainly got an opinion on it, but much like your hypothetical racist uncle at the Thanksgiving dinner table, my immediate is response is "god dammit not THIS again".

The quality and standards of video game journalism have always had some problems, and likely always will. For instance, priority press passes to journalists at trade shows and AAA developers showering big name reviewers with special edition packages, expensive gifts, VIP passes at events, etc. In a way, journalism is like that in a lot of ways in many industries. I've been to technical conferences and research expos where there was a lot of the same behavior: people want to promote their businesses, of course. And of course, if you want journalists to cover your event you're going to have to pay for them to travel, attend, etc. If you're sending an entire news team to cover something, then that's going to take a huge bite out of the amount of money the journalists are going to be able to make on the reporting. Plus, at the end of the day, journalism is all about talking to people and building relationships.

So all told, we're being a little unrealistic if we're saying that we expect journalists to be thoroughly disconnected from the industry they're reporting on. That's impossible. But it's also impossible to deny that ALL journalists in all fields walk a line as thin as a razor's edge between ethical and corrupt reporting. A few extra favors, a bit more pressure to publish, and the fact that your job not only doesn't pay that much but that at any given time there are people lining up to take it from you, and you can end up compromising yourself without even realizing it. That's why ethics are such a huge deal, and it's why we need to be talking about it.

Ultimately, #GG's complaint in and of itself is sound. However, I have to say that I am more against it than for. At the end of the day, it's still inseparable from the gender issue that kicked it off. There have been numerous high-profile incidents in the last few years that anyone passionate about the ethics of reporting could easily have based their movement on. Example, when Jeff Gertsmann lost his job at Gamespot for a negative review of Kane and Lynch, a game which, frankly, sucked, at the behest of EA. If there is a more clear-cut case of corruption in video gaming journalism out there, I'd love to see it.

Instead, #GG caught on after allegations that Zoe Quinn exchanged sex for a positive review of Depression Quest. Sex which occurred months after the only time the game was actually mentioned, which wasn't a review or even chiefly about Depression Quest, and that sex apparently therefore being for a review that never came to exist. And the only source for all of this was an 8000-word manifesto spammed up and down the Internet by a pissed off ex-boyfriend (which you should all read at least some of to get a bit of the context in which this whole shitstorm started. Read: borderline delusional ex), with everyone reputable saying that events did not take place at all like the GG narrative.

Depression Quest is not a high profile game, Zoe Quinn is not a high profile individual in the industry, nor was the journalist who mentioned her game, and a little bit of common sense should make very clear that anything she does with her vagina is utterly inconsequential where video gaming on the whole is concerned. Even though #GG claims to be about the quality of journalism, it's still littered with anti-feminist sentiment. So, the reason I am anti-GG is that, regardless of what the proponents of its stated objectives say, it has not done anything to distance itself from some extremely toxic and deeply misogynistic voices, which makes the whole "ethics" thing feel like a really lame excuse.

To you, it may feel like it's about journalism, but to me, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck.

Some criticism of my own side, I have to apologize for some of the toxic behavior that's come out of the anti-GG side as well. I disagree, in some ways rather strongly, from some proponents of the GG movement. However, mailing loaded syringes to people is criminal and absolutely unacceptable. The term "Social Justice Warrior" originated to describe some of the more aggressive (read: crazy) people on tumblr and occasionally in the LGBTQ acceptance movement (though they have much better PR organization so the crazy ones normally don't stay in the spotlight long), the people who say things like "Check your god damn cishet privilege, you don't know what it's like being a transethnic Japanese girl with social anxiety!" if you forget to use their preferred pronouns or this one lady who made a blog about "smart privilege" (it's inactive now, but if you Google search it you can find a cached clone of it if you're up for a laugh) advocating that everyone who is "smart" should be forced to become "transneuroregressive" by being force-fed marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol until they're no longer "smart privileged", and saying things like "grammar is oppression" and accusing you of "social rape and murder" if you correct her (or whatever the preferred pronoun was) flagrant spelling and grammar mistakes. There's crazy and violence on both sides of this particular fence, and until people can choose to be civil, it's not going to be anything but another flash in the pan internet meme and any hope for cleaning up game journalism a little will be fruitless.

 

[DANEgerous]

By the way if anyone finds my last post offensive, it is not intended to be. It is simple if I did it I will be apologetic, if "my group" did it I give 0.0 fucks because I can, do, and have cast them aside. Far as I see if you are a woman I do not even care, just help me kill this damned sniper, your gender is %100 irreverent.

EDIT: If I ever have or if I ever do offend you call my ass out I may say is disagree but far more likely I will say it was in jest, I am sorry and I honestly never intended this to be harmful. It was a joke lighthearted to me, but I am a callous bastard, nothing offends me.