Hey all, this may be a bit of an opening of a can of worms, but I'd like to put this out there, see if anyone else feels similarly, and to see how others may disagree.
Yes, it's about GamerGate... sorry.
A lot of the back and forth with the various discussions that are going on seem to be a lot of moderate, level-headed people spurred on by extremist peripheries. I think that the moderate, polite, and informed debates are good and should be discussed in order to advance the art form and the industry of gaming. I enjoy reading and listening to them. However, one argument truly irritates me, far more than any other in this debate:
"If you are silent, then you are allowing the problems to continue!"
In my opinion, this is not a fair statement unless your target has direct control over the internet, minds of those extremist peripheries, cultural biases that exist outside of our sphere of influence (movies, books, music, etc.), and the art form and industry of gaming as a whole. I know that this isn't an overly offensive statement to most people, especially considering that we've had some truly evil stuff coming out of the commentary over this past year or so (particularly the idiotic and hurtful harassment leveled at folks (usually women) who dare to speak their minds and "ruffle feathers"). But saying that uninvolved gamers, who have little control or voice in the art form and industry, are allowing for various misdeeds in our art form and industry is not fair.
People may suggest that this is similar to voting and citizen participation, but I have even less control over game industries and journalism than I do over tax rates and foreign policy, so comparing the two and assuming that our art form and industry is democratic doesn't seem to be correct. Others may say that the individual voices need to take the time to speak up anyway because they need to change the system. However, they don't understand that many of us work 6, 8, 10, even 12 hour days and use gaming as a recreation after engaging with the real world. The last thing that I'd want is to take the time after a hard day's work to voice my opinion only to be yelled at by extremists (which ironically, is what I'm subjecting myself too.). Finally, there's the call for moral supremacy, for what's right and what should be said. But there are a lot of various viewpoints out there and saying that one side or viewpoint is perfectly morally right is a wrong-headed way of making your argument, much less convincing others to join in the debate.
Like I said, I think that it's good that the community is discussing such things and that there may be some change, but there are folks who really want to sit on the sidelines here, to have gaming as simply... gaming.
I suppose that the question at the end of this book is: Is silence OK?
Thank you for reading! I'm sure there are more eloquent ways of making the point that I was making and a lot of great arguments against this viewpoint. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Yes, it's about GamerGate... sorry.
A lot of the back and forth with the various discussions that are going on seem to be a lot of moderate, level-headed people spurred on by extremist peripheries. I think that the moderate, polite, and informed debates are good and should be discussed in order to advance the art form and the industry of gaming. I enjoy reading and listening to them. However, one argument truly irritates me, far more than any other in this debate:
"If you are silent, then you are allowing the problems to continue!"
In my opinion, this is not a fair statement unless your target has direct control over the internet, minds of those extremist peripheries, cultural biases that exist outside of our sphere of influence (movies, books, music, etc.), and the art form and industry of gaming as a whole. I know that this isn't an overly offensive statement to most people, especially considering that we've had some truly evil stuff coming out of the commentary over this past year or so (particularly the idiotic and hurtful harassment leveled at folks (usually women) who dare to speak their minds and "ruffle feathers"). But saying that uninvolved gamers, who have little control or voice in the art form and industry, are allowing for various misdeeds in our art form and industry is not fair.
People may suggest that this is similar to voting and citizen participation, but I have even less control over game industries and journalism than I do over tax rates and foreign policy, so comparing the two and assuming that our art form and industry is democratic doesn't seem to be correct. Others may say that the individual voices need to take the time to speak up anyway because they need to change the system. However, they don't understand that many of us work 6, 8, 10, even 12 hour days and use gaming as a recreation after engaging with the real world. The last thing that I'd want is to take the time after a hard day's work to voice my opinion only to be yelled at by extremists (which ironically, is what I'm subjecting myself too.). Finally, there's the call for moral supremacy, for what's right and what should be said. But there are a lot of various viewpoints out there and saying that one side or viewpoint is perfectly morally right is a wrong-headed way of making your argument, much less convincing others to join in the debate.
Like I said, I think that it's good that the community is discussing such things and that there may be some change, but there are folks who really want to sit on the sidelines here, to have gaming as simply... gaming.
I suppose that the question at the end of this book is: Is silence OK?
Thank you for reading! I'm sure there are more eloquent ways of making the point that I was making and a lot of great arguments against this viewpoint. I'd love to hear your thoughts.