Editor's Note: Why I Still Call Myself a Gamer

[Carrington666]

Great article! It's nice to see that, despite the shit flung everywhere, something positive can come out of this.

And yet there is a lively discussion thread on how "feminists" need to "step off" the hobby of gaming.

Freedom of speech is something the US government is Constitutionly bound to afford the media and individuals. It is not a thing that media or individuals are bound to afford each other.

There is no reason that the Escapist need to provide safe harbor for the misogynistic, homophobic or transphobic mumurings (undercover of ethics scandals, whataboutism regarding regarding percieved "racism" against whites or men being sexually assaulted sometimes) disussions that spill out of 4chan or neogaf or /r/gaming. The fact that Escapist comments policy allows such comments as long as they are couched in "civilised" language is a disgrace.

Moderate. Please. Towards positivity and inclusivity.

I don't need to see another thread on how Anita Saarkessian is "ruining the games industry". She's not. She doesn't have the power to even if she wanted to. Which she doesn't. Unless you think pointing out potentially problematic gaming cliches and asking for slightly more inclusivity is "ruining the games industry". And if you think that, you are an asshole and should be shown the door.

I disagree that a thread like that has no place on the Escapist. I think we can both agree that the topic and content of the opening post was idiotic and if the poster had only gotten support for his views then I'd agree that the thread should be locked.

But that is not what happened. At least on the first couple of pages (I think the last time I read in that thread it had 3 pages) a lot of people, I think most of the poster even, called him out for it and not only told him that it was stupid, but why it was stupid. And that is why I believe threads like that should be allowed here. If someone has a strong opinion on something and isn't allowed to post it here, they will find a place to post it, which most likely will be an echo chamber for their views. When it's posted here, the resulting discussion, at least if it remains factual and doesn't attack the poster personally, may even result in a reflection about their views.

And more importantly, this discussion will be better for people that stumble upon it that either have no or are not sure about their position to the topic, because it is much more likely to adopt someones opinion if you see only agreement to it and no criticism.

So I'd say give them a chance to agrue their case and then prove them wrong. So that those that have no distinct opinion in that topic won't be taken in by baseless rhetoric.

 

[Glen Compton]

EDIT: Double post

 

[El Comandante]

I salute you with my mouse Mr. Tito!

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I'm going to begin my comment with an apology: I'm sorry if my post appears negative amidst all this much-needed positivity. If it seems like I'm trying to rain on the parade, I assure you I am not. The Escapist has, thus far and overall, comported themselves reasonably well these last few weeks. Simply taking the middle road (instead of blindly and rapidly leaping to the defense of one side, as most media have done) has endeared you guys to me and (very apparently) thousands of others. I greatly appreciate the legitimate reporting and renewed/continued integrity of this community.

Now for the dreaded "that said"...

I can't help but recognize these pleas for the community to "rise up against harassment" as relying upon the exact same logic as the "men can stop rape" initiative on US college campuses.

Deep breath. Don't fly off the handle because someone said "rape". Let me explain precisely what I mean.

Anti-rape messaging, much like anti-harassment messaging, is pretty much ubiquitous throughout the developed western world. I'm not sure it's possible to reach the age where you can post comments online or play multi-player video games or attend college without having experienced a virtual ton of anti-bullying, anti-rape, and generally anti-shithead messaging. No one does these terrible/obnoxious/criminal things for lack of understanding their immorality. Rather, horrible people do these horrible things *because* they (the people and the things) are horrible. No amount of additional or supplemental messaging is going to convince such people not to harass. They wouldn't exist to admonish if they were vulnerable to admonishment.

In the case of comment/twitter trolls, they abuse, harass, and threaten people because that's how they get their kicks. They thrive on the misery and attention generated by their behavior, and the only way to turn off the harassment is to starve them of their enjoyment by refusing to acknowledge their existence. Proclaiming their behavior as horrible is nothing more than twisted vindication of their actions. Thousands of simultaneous, united condemnations? Now you're reinforcing the trolls' delusions of grandeur and import by showing them how many people were affected by the harassment.

People don't advocate ignoring the abuse because they're cowardly or lazy or defeated. They advocate ignoring the abuse because it is very realistically the only thing with even a prayer of succeeding. If the harassment verges on illegality, the offenders should be pursued by law enforcement. If the wider internet is too hostile, there are safe, moderated places to socialize. I can understand the desire to make all of the internet so friendly, but it's just not gonna happen. Some spaces, like twitter, are best kept 100% open and free. If they were ever compromised by moderation, replacement services would immediately take hold. In any of these free spaces, as in life, there's really no good way to ensure everyone gets along or behaves appropriately. This can be a good or bad thing, depending on your point of view. I firmly believe it sucks that people treat other people so terribly, but I'm also not overly fond of "cleansing" humanity (or our conception of humanity) of all offense and imperfection.

Literally the best we can do: treat each other well, starve the trolls of the attention they require, report the legitimate psychos to the police, and try not to generalize massive segments of the population on the basis of a few loud idiots given voice by technology - which, it turns out, comes with a few actual challenges in addition to the never-ending laundry list of crazy perks.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

There appears to be one thing missing from the ethics policy.

Content that was paid for (include the listicles you mentions...huh huh listicles) should be clearly marked as sponsored/advertorial content AND the company/individual who paid for it should clearly be indicated.

 

[DM Gray]

I posted in that thread to agree with a feminist #gamergate poster that feminists absoluitely have a place in gaming and a right to be heard, and state my own opposition to feminism with an explanation.
My point was a right to be heard should never become a right not to be criticised, which is what it currently is.

The only reply I got was condescending douchebag that I am sure feels entirely okay treating his opposition poorly because feminism is so super awesome and never does any wrong, right?
The fact the "good" feminists I hear so much about never call out that behaviour (indeed outright deny that misandry exists or is ever a factor) reflects why I am an antifeminist. I support equality, I support women's rights, I *actively* encourage every woman in m life to game ON THEIR OWN TERMS.
I hate misandry, and it is *entirely* excused by most feminists I come across.

The scandals within gaming have shown JUST how little feminists conform to their stated aims, goals and ethics, and how they behave *worse* than the gamers they are calling out for misogyny.

 

[medv4380]

I'm not sure what prompted an actual ethics policy change/update. I was angry at the site earlier this year and last year for articles that could be construed as a conflict of interest. The particular kind of story has been noticeably absent for the last few months. If this is because someone at the site has gained insight into what could be a conflict of interest, and has resulted in part of this change then I am thankful.

disclose to your immediate supervisors any business, commercial, financial or personal interests where such interests might reasonably be construed as being in actual, apparent or potential conflict with our duties.

I'm happy if this helps more the escapist to a more respectable journalism standard.

 

[DeathQuaker]

Thanks so much for this, Mr. Tito. We need to decry harassment every moment, every day, but it does and should not have to come at the cost of the gamer identity. To me true gamers are the ones who are so passionate about games, they want EVERYONE to play. EVERYONE, in a safe environment free of harassment.

I am a feminist and a gamer. I get upset when people try to link feminism to misandry, mostly because it causes some real feminists--egalitarian-minded people who strive to ensure that women and notions of femininity as valued in society as men and notions of masculinity--to disconnect themselves from the "feminist" label. Misandry and feminism are very different things, and I don't believe true feminists are misandrists (even if there have been misandrists who have tried to appropriate that label). I am not going to let the misandrists "earn" the label of feminism, I am going to fight to use the label for myself and others who just want everyone to be treated right.

I feel like some of the folks saying "let's shed the 'gamer' identity" are kind of like the feminists who are afraid of calling themselves feminists. I understand why they do it: they're afraid of being associated with a hateful fringe. Unfortunately, that sadly only in turn ALLOWS the hateful fringe to "own" the identity---instead, the inclusive folks, the welcoming folks, we need to be the ones saying, no, this identity is US, not the haters. This is who WE are.

As a gamer, I sure as HELL am not going to let misogynist exclusionists or anyone who defends harassment or abuse get the title "gamer" while I'm left out in the cold, and I'm surely not going to let my own peeps hand my identity to them. I am a gamer. We are gamers. We want everyone to play, and play fair.

I am also glad for the clearly defined ethics policy. That is ALWAYS a good thing to have (speaking as a former journalist), and the policy looks well and clearly written.

 

[Darth_Payn]

Hear, hear Greg! It's about time somebody stood up to the insanity and hate and said a huge emphatic NO to it. Thank you for standing up for our hobby!

 

[b3nn3tt]

This article was incredible. I haven't actively followed a lot of what's been going on, but I've been aware of the basics through various threads on here. This article has given a very good overview of what's been going on, while maintaining a very worthy message; that abuse is from either side is not good.

I'd have hoped that this was much clearer to everyone, but people do seem to get very passionate about their arguments, and I'm guessing that that leads them to lash out at people on the other side. As I said, I'm not aware of the entirety of what's going on, but from what I've gathered it wouldn't have been such a hugely divisive issue if people on both sides had been willing to debate it without resorting to personal attacks and harassment.

My views on this are the same as my views any time something like this happens that ends up splitting the community; at the end of the day, we're all gamers (I'm not going to stop using that term, when it so accurately describes us as a community), if nothing else we should be united by our love of games, no matter what those games are.

 

[Lightspeaker]

Well done and thank you. Magnificent article.

Both yourself and Mr Macris with his editorial have convinced me that, despite evidence so far all pointing to the contrary, not ALL of the gaming press is a bunch of screaming lunatics.

 

[Batou667]

I'm grateful Greg decided to publish this and make the first move towards clearing the air and possibly even allowing the post-Gamergate peace process to begin in earnest. Similarly, I was impressed that he allowed a mostly free dialogue to occur in that thread when so many other online gaming outlets were taking either authoritarian, silencing stances on the matter or else making patronising "nothing to see here" statements. It's little touches like that which have contributed to The Escapist being the only gaming community I've belonged to for the last three years.

Greg alluded to it, but I think it bears repeating that not everybody calling for more transparency and journalistic integrity is a cyber-bully or a troll. There are two sides to any issue and only through a dialogue can we hope to make any kind of progress. Also, if this hard-line stance on abuse is to work, it absolutely must be applied even-handedly: if you'd decry your opponent using a certain tactic or type of language, you can't in good conscience employ them yourself, even if you consider yourself on the "correct" side. Heck, especially if you consider yourself correct. I'm saddened to see posters in this very thread conflate this call for a better level of dialogue, with the promotion of an enforced, morally-absolute consensus where only one side is permitted to express an opinion.

The one thing gaming never was, isn't, and shouldn't become, is a monoculture. Perhaps we'll never all get along, but we could all stand to try harder.

 

[inkheart_artist]

This was... quite a month. As I watched things unfold it reminded me why I generally don't talk about video games in public. The vitriol can be just too much to bear sometimes. I hope your article is a sign for a brighter future for the medium, or at least a definitive end to the toxicity we've been experiencing. Good work, Tito. This was the first bit of reading I've had in a while that made me feel actually good about my hobby instead of reinforcing that it belongs in the basement with the train set.

 

[Canyoureadmydeadpan]

You guys have done a great job after all this. You admitted fault for not fact checking a story, ran fact checked stories, and even though your talent has a very biased opinion you guys have made it clear that the talent does not reflect the views of the escapist.

So long as you keep up the current changes you've been implementing that I think that will keep everyone happy.

 

[Ralancian]

Both editorial and publisher articles are brilliant. I'm a gamer have been most of my life I can't remember the first game I played but my first real system was a Game Gear. I also dabbled with Acorns and Commodore's my uncle owned a spectrum.

Gamer to me means more than computer games it includes an entire subcultures I'm involved in. Tabletop RPGS, Board Games, Wargaming, Collectable Card Games and Freforming/Theatre Style LARPS.

Alot those communities are massively inclusive and thriving communities that promote their diversity. Certainly the last on list does my a long way.

I do not what to see something I've always considered myself as 'die'. I want my community to speak against unacceptable behaviour from anyone but not resort to personal attacks. I like many in this social demographic was bullied heavily in school and abhor it in my adult life.

We're now reaching the point where geek culture is socially acceptable in the mainstream we should be embracing ourselves and showing what we have to offer.

My wife to be finds me attractive for who I am and being a gamer. I don't want the ugly side to change that perception. I also turn 30 next month and don't think something I consider myself as almost that entire time to be dead...I still want to be a gamer when I turn 60. On equal measure with starting a family soon I want my children to be accepted by their peers and not go through what I did. The only way forward is tolerance of everyone.

I've rambled a bit but this entire gamergate thing got wildly out of control and didn't show anyone in hood light.




P.S DA2 is still a good game playing it again myself now...

 

[Davroth]

I can't say I'm happy with the situation as a whole.

I've been more of an observer of games culture then an active participant for the better part of my life, and I remember rather vividly a time that wasn't filled with vitriol. And I don't wish to put too fine a point on it, since I actually consider it a discussion worth having, but ever since the feminist frequency kickstarter, the gaming culture debates have been in sort of a downward spiral, from what I see. Just the sheer amount of people on both sides of that discussion exchanging abuse, it's just getting sort of unbearable. It makes me question why I even bother with it anymore. Whenever I try to approach either side, and ask questions, it's always seen as some sort of attack. I find that rather ludicrous, because asking questions is the only way to understand other people's positions sometimes. I happen to not be a sex-negative, second wave feminist, which nowadays appears to be the only acceptable form of feminism, at least in context of the whole gaming discussion, so I get vitriol from both sides, whenever I try to throw my hat into that particular ring. Really though, being in the middle of it all, I find it puzzling that Gamergate gets singled out as a movement with terrible extremists, while the same is absolutely true for feminism, or pretty much any movement of a certain size.

We are supposedly allowed to disregard Gamergate due to their bad eggs, but we are not supposed to disregard feminism because they contain some bad eggs. You can't pick and choose right that. And while I think it's great that you, Greg Tito, can now say that you don't agree with any kind of abuse towards or by gamers, where were you the last past months? Why does this deserve attention when the extreme elements of another big movement that has been taking the games industry by storm the past few months didn't? I'm not a fan of treating people differently like that.

And oh, I already know, people will say that feminists get called 'feminazis' and worse all the time, believe me, I heard it all before. The difference is this: Major gaming news sites don't agree with the narrative that all feminists are extremists, but they readily accept the narrative that gamers, most of them, are mysogynist pigs. One is allowed to be defined by a handful of extremists, the other is feminism. And actually, feminists should be the ones most appalled by that practice. Because much unlike people using '****' or 'whore' as a general insult, it's impressing a truly sexist mindset, subconscious it may be. I don't support the narrative that women need any help to hold their own. But sadly, that seems to be the predominant mindset. I find it saddening. The internet is one of the few places where gender doesn't have to be a big deal because it doesn't actually make a difference. There is very little men can do on the internet that women can't, physically. Why do we have to let small, vocal minorities have it be ruined for all of us?

 

[Batou667]

Really? Have you not seen the amount of trouble people that were not straight white males have gone through in gaming culture since the 80s? I mean, it was hard enough to show up at an arcade while female without getting patronized or ogled. Most online games chats are still littered with racial, homophobic and sexist slurs. It was not long ago audible groans could be heard when a female voice joined FPS game chats and WoW raids, I have seen players getting kicked for being a girl IRL.

In the spirit of being honest but at the risk of inviting accusations of privilege; no, I haven't really seen this evidence of historical cis-het-cauc-male domination in gaming. It would be easy to forget just how recently, relatively speaking, gaming became a mainstream and socially acceptable hobby - it was traditionally the reserve not of chest-thumping alpha males, but the kids who were themselves sidelined and marginalised. A simplistic oppressor-and-victim narrative just doesn't fit here. To briefly address some of the other points:

Sexuality: I don't believe gaming has ever been institutionally homophobic. I don't believe that language always reflects underlying attitudes either: "Gay" and "fag" have long been used in contexts that are nothing to do with sexuality.

Racism: If we bear in mind the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory I don't think gamers can be said to be any more racist than the general population. There's nothing inherently exclusionary about games or gaming - certainly it's not a "whites only" hobby, or how else would you explain the fact that high-level Street Fighter and Starcraft players are often Asian? The current best Zangief player in the world is African-American.

Gender: This is where I'll concede things could be better. Yes, I expect being a girl in an arcade in the 80s or 90s was a weird and slightly unsettling experience. Ditto with more contemporary "gamer spaces" like conventions. Part of the problem is, true enough, guys who simply should know better than to act inappropriately. Another side of the issue is, as Moviebob pointed out in a video a while back, that geek-space has historically been the refuge of the introverted, the socially inept, the guys who are emotionally frail or even have legitimate learning or communication difficulties. When gaming rapidly goes from being a nerd hobby to an industry rivaling Hollywood with mass-market appeal, you're going to get a few guys who squirm under the spotlight. As male-female ratios even out, I expect gaming will eventually be something that can be truly gender-neutral. In the interim, please bear with us.

And, hey, trolls will always exist. Let's not feed them.

Things are definitively much better now and the culture has clearly evolved the last 7-8 years or so, but this is because it is striving hard to break free of a monoculture that has had it in a tight grip. I actually thought we had gotten much further and was pretty pleased with how gaming had matured until the recent incidents proved otherwise.

The "gamergate" thing shows how much many forces still resist breaking this monoculture and letting other influences in. Indeed, through its editorials the Escapist has clearly put itself on the conservative side of trying to preserve "gamers" and gaming culture as they are, which is still pretty monocultural in many ways. Personally I had hoped that the concept of gamer and gaming in general would continue to open up and broaden its reach, and I am still not sure it won't, regardless of who tries to stop it.

I don't believe gaming was ever a homogenous culture: if it looked like it, it was simply because it was a niche hobby that was mostly shunned by the mainstream. If most Western gamers were straight white males, that wasn't a conscious decision, at least not on their part. The only meaningful commonality they shared was that they loved computer and videogames.

What "forces" are you alluding to? There are no shadowy cabals pulling the strings. If gamers are rising up and making their voices heard on an issue, then we have to concede that's a reflection of public opinion; it would be intellectually dishonest to conveniently brush that criticism aside in a G.W. Bush-style "They hate our freedom" platitude. As far as I can see, the Gamergate noise for the most part hasn't been just embittered misogynists, trolls, and other opportunistic agitators: a lot of the claims made have been pretty cogent, reasonable and well-documented. What's so objectionable about calling for greater transparency and accountability within the gaming industry? Surely that's exactly the kind of thing that a growing, evolving and serious medium needs?

 

[Batou667]

Forces as in societal forces, it does not have to be directed to be a force. A large part of what I will still classify as a monoculture (since it is clearly still dominated by the cultural moores of the "founding" culture of mostly white males) has taken up in arms to preserve "gaming" from changing. That is the very definition of a conservative force if you ask me.

Firstly, gaming isn't "white" and hasn't been since before the Atari-era crash. From the mid-80s onwards gaming has been the domain of Western and Japanese development.

Secondly, what are these "cultural mores"? In what way are they tailored to white males? Why are they failing to repel nonwhites and women from gaming?

Thirdly, conservatism isn't bad, per se, either in gaming or if we're talking about political conservatism. "Conservative" isn't synonymous with "regressive", it just means favouring methods that are proven. If people are happy with the current state of gaming, why shouldn't they take a conservative stance?

I find it suspicious that this call for transparency in gaming (from a large group of completely non-transparant "gamers") came at this time and directed towards the people they were. I do not trust the motives of the people claiming to want this, nor do I think the results so far achived are in any way laudable. What has happened is that "gamers" have turned on some on the most interesting voices in the industry, refused to take any kind of self correction even when openly confronted with the worst people in the gaming community spreading their vitriol over multiple sites. Even people I respected have taken a "boys will be boys" attitude, and The Escapist has editorialized on the virtue of the "gamer" as an exclusive group that should be separate from the mere mortals that just play MMOs and casual games. It has exposed a very rotten core in the "gamer" community, and I for one has mostly been dismayed that a community I respected responded like that.

The Gamergate backlash probably, I think, represents the outpouring of months and years of frustration that has been thus far mostly repressed by gamers. Zoe Quinn is not the problem, but she has the misfortune of being the straw that broke the camel's back. I think many gamers are understandably irked that their hobby has become so politicised, scrutinised and dissected; and that they're being equated with the worst of the trolls simply through being straight white gamers and not vocally progressive.

In the end we might have to agree to disagree, as I for one think that using fag and gay as slurs is not acceptable. You are basically using a word that can be used descriptive and then making it implicitly a bad thing. You can't use "hetero" or straight the same way at all. Words have power.

Words have power, sure, but words are only as powerful as their meaning, and meaning changes over time. Very few people would get upset about phrases like "paddy-wagon" or "Jerry-rigged" despite the origins being based in stereotypes of Irish and Germans, and likewise very few people would object to the word "dumb" on the grounds that it's ableist.

I certainly don't think it's classy to throw "gay" and "fag" around as expletives, but we have to acknowledge the correct context.