Gamergate: What Do We Actually Disagree On?

[Olas]

So this whole Gamergate thing seems to have many people in our community harshly divided, yet I don't really see much actual disagreement when it comes to the issues at the core of the controversy. For the most part both sides tend to attack only the extremists or strawmen of the other side while promoting a position that's pretty hard to disagree with. I've seen comparisons drawn between Zoe Quinn and Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who's assassination set off the first World War, and I think it's an interesting comparison because, like with World War I, I have trouble pinning down what disagreement we're actually settling here. I genuinely think that if we excluded the worst people and actions from both sides, we'd find we're all in pretty strong agreement. To test this let me make a few statements that I believe 90+% of the people on both sides would agree on.



-Corruption in games journalism, and journalism in general, is unethical.

-Harassing people is always wrong, regardless of anything they might have done to anger you.

-Sexism/misogyny is bad.

-People of all genders, races, religions, etc are equally capable of being corrupt and should not be treated any differently because of their aforementioned characteristics, whether in a positive or negative way.

-Painting groups with a broad brush, including all gamers, is bad and stupid.

-Evidence of corruption in journalism should not be overlooked or ignored where it is found.

-People should not be accused of corruption without strong evidence first.

-Promoting diversity in game development, game's journalism, and gaming in general, is good.

-Someone's personal life is not newsworthy, nor is it our business to judge people on.

-Conflicts of interest in journalism should be avoided, transparency and honesty should be promoted.

-You can agree with a viewpoint or ideal without condoning everything done in it's name.



I'm sure there's more I could think of, but I think this covers most of the bases I think.

Anyway, I'm not trying to dismiss the whole debate necessarily, I just want to narrow it down to where most people actually disagree so that we can have a nuanced and rational discussion, rather than a hyperbolic word war over nothing or very little. Anyway, thoughts?

Update:

-Crashing a websites entire forum (just a few hours after I posted this no less) just to protest some people you don't agree with is a dickish thing to do.

 

[Vault101]

that "Gamergate" isn't a front used by a lot of people for their harrasmant BS...thats one contention

 

[Thaluikhain]

I've seen comparisons drawn between Zoe Quinn and Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who's assassination set off the first World War, and I think it's an interesting comparison because, like with World War I, I have trouble pinning down what disagreement we're actually settling here.

That itself is an issue.

Yes, there are all sorts of legitimate complaints about the industry that have been going on for quite some time...which people suddenly got really passionate about all of a sudden, and condemned a woman who was, totally coincidentally, the target of misogynistic attacks.

 

[dragoongfa]

Pro GamerGate here

There is a lot of mudslinging against GamerGate because it's roots sprung from the ZQ controversy. I admit that I wasn't at the least bit interested in what ZQ and co was doing in their beds and I do believe that her Ex is an idiot for numerous reasons.

People forget GamerGate took off with the 12 articles that announced the End of Gamers and the vitriolic rhetoric sent against gamers by the press. That's when I jumped aboard and I became entrenched when certain individuals started calling names on Twitter (Bob and Faraci). If the gaming media had remained silent and just decried the harassment things wouldn't have dragged on like this.

Personally I agree with the list you have posted in its entirety and all of the people in the GamerGate thread agree completely. Yes I admit that I and a lot of GamerGate's supporters have been quick to the trigger in a lot of instances, in particular the thing with AS's report on the police, I and plenty of others jumped the gun on that.

Other than that GamerGate has long pushed itself away from both ZQ and AS, focusing in the unearthing of corruption in the industry and the boycott of the journalists that attacked their audience.

What has been unearthed and is solidly backed by evidence so far are:

1) Numerous economic links through Patreon between developers and gaming journalists.
2) Economic ties between Polytron and Indiefund, and how people who have vested economic interest in Indiefund are judges in IGF and Indiecade and how games that indiefund invested in managed to win or rank very high in these open competitions.
3) The mailing list that connects gaming journalists with each other and how certain individuals (Mr Kuchera of Polygon) attempted to coerce rival sites in silencing GamerGate discussion.
4) The reports against an online community frequented by depressed individuals and how they 'harassed' ZQ were proven false. These reports resulted in the harassment of that community.
5) How The fine young capitalists and their campaign to help women enter the industry where attacked by ZQ and ended boycotted by the gaming media.

The problem is not what we can agree on, the problem is that the gaming sites that are boycotted have not even addressed the above issues, denying even to consider them.

Only the Escapist managed to put itself on high ground. It is the only site that has enacted clear and honest Ethical guidelines after this shitstorm started and these guidelines don't apply to just the escapist but the entirety of Defy media. Greg Tito and Alexander Macris apologized to that community of depressed individuals in their editorials while The Fine Young Capitalists finally got some cover for their project.

Even if GamerGate suddenly ceased to exist, the boycott of the sites in question will continue while the sites that have come clean have already seen an increase in traffic. Alexander Macris publicly pointed out that the Escapist saw an increase of 10% in traffic the last 30 days.

In the End GamerGate is a consumer revolt. People will keep pointing at its roots but its tangible effects are consumer related. The sites that have attacked their audience and refused to enact Ethical guidelines saw their visitors plummet and the sites that listened to GamerGate's grievances saw an increase in traffic.

Bad Businesses are punished and Good Businesses flourish, that's what I see and I don't care about GamerGate's history because of this tangible end result.

 

[Muspelheim]

The GamerGate movement is a damn well needed phenomenom. But there is some unpleasantness undercurrents attached that worries me. The corruption is definately there, and it must be admitted that the GG movement has unearthed much more than one would've thought. But there is a worrying reactionary undertone to part of GG's efforts, and the threats and harassment has not been perpetrated by one side alone. All that said, the GG movement has done things to distance itself from those actions and concentrated on the core of the mission; exposing what is quite frankly a scandalous amount of appaling journalistic behaviour.

Now. What worries me is that it's no longer anywhere near related to social justice and the likes. And yet I imagine that will be the thing most hurt by this. I'm afraid that anything trying to push any envelopes on that front is going to be met with immense hostility, since it will be considered directly linked to the journalistic corruption and the malpractices that have been done in its favour.

In brief, something akin to Gone Home released after this pavlova is going to get flogged for the 4chan disaster and DDoS campaign.

(Note that it'd be in a general sense, not as a result of specific GamerGate action against it)

And there will always be those people. The people who go on about cultural marxism and the likes. But! If there is something to be learned from all this, then it is that it will not work in your favour lumping large groups together and refusing the benefit of a doubt. GamerGate are much more than some of its less likable members.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Based on the arguments I've been having, a big point of contention is "Feminists and SJWs want to take over gaming and neuter all of our games which are not sexist in any way."
Add that to "Games review scores should be objective and things the reviewers think are sexist/racist/whateverist shouldn't count for the numbers"
Then there's the standard "Zoe/Anita are frauds/scammers/haters/thieves/etc"

Mind you, I could just have bad luck with the draw. I've won something recently and my luck's been in the toilet since.

 

[KP Shadow]

Pro GamerGate here

There is a lot of mudslinging against GamerGate because it's roots sprung from the ZQ controversy. I admit that I wasn't at the least bit interested in what ZQ and co was doing in their beds and I do believe that her Ex is an idiot for numerous reasons.

People forget GamerGate took off with the 12 articles that announced the End of Gamers and the vitriolic rhetoric sent against gamers by the press. That's when I jumped aboard and I became entrenched when certain individuals started calling names on Twitter (Bob and Faraci). If the gaming media had remained silent and just decried the harassment things wouldn't have dragged on like this.

Personally I agree with the list you have posted in its entirety and all of the people in the GamerGate thread agree completely. Yes I admit that I and a lot of GamerGate's supporters have been quick to the trigger in a lot of instances, in particular the thing with AS's report on the police, I and plenty of others jumped the gun on that.

Other than that GamerGate has long pushed itself away from both ZQ and AS, focusing in the unearthing of corruption in the industry and the boycott of the journalists that attacked their audience.

What has been unearthed and is solidly backed by evidence so far are:

1) Numerous economic links through Patreon between developers and gaming journalists.
2) Economic ties between Polytron and Indiefund, and how people who have vested economic interest in Indiefund are judges in IGF and Indiecade and how games that indiefund invested in managed to win or rank very high in these open competitions.
3) The mailing list that connects gaming journalists with each other and how certain individuals (Mr Kuchera of Polygon) attempted to coerce rival sites in silencing GamerGate discussion.
4) The reports against an online community frequented by depressed individuals and how they 'harassed' ZQ were proven false. These reports resulted in the harassment of that community.
5) How The fine young capitalists and their campaign to help women enter the industry where attacked by ZQ and ended boycotted by the gaming media.

The problem is not what we can agree on, the problem is that the gaming sites that are boycotted have not even addressed the above issues, denying even to consider them.

Only the Escapist managed to put itself on high ground. It is the only site that has enacted clear and honest Ethical guidelines after this shitstorm started and these guidelines don't apply to just the escapist but the entirety of Defy media. Greg Tito and Alexander Macris apologized to that community of depressed individuals in their editorials while The Fine Young Capitalists finally got some cover for their project.

Even if GamerGate suddenly ceased to exist, the boycott of the sites in question will continue while the sites that have come clean have already seen an increase in traffic. Alexander Macris publicly pointed out that the Escapist saw an increase of 10% in traffic the last 30 days.

In the End GamerGate is a consumer revolt. People will keep pointing at its roots but its tangible effects are consumer related. The sites that have attacked their audience and refused to enact Ethical guidelines saw their visitors plummet and the sites that listened to GamerGate's grievances saw an increase in traffic.

Bad Businesses are punished and Good Businesses flourish, that's what I see and I don't care about GamerGate's history because of this tangible end result.

Pretty much.

Though I'd say that Joystiq has been on the high ground [http://www.joystiq.com/ethics], since not only does it forbid their writers to accept gifts (All gifts of games, hardware, merch over $20, etc. become company property that will be used to reader giveaways) or recieve room and board for events (Any events that Joystiq staff attend must be either paid out of their own pocket or paid for by the company). Plus, their advertising is all handled by an external organization (They use AOL's ad service), so companies can't directly buy advertisement for their games.

Staff members may not accept travel, accommodations or gifts of any nature from a company or representative that has direct interest in our editorial content without public disclosure. Joystiq does not accept airfare or hotel accommodations for its staff from companies or representatives hosting an event that requires transportation and accommodation. Any deviations from this policy will be expressly made public on a case-by-case basis.

BTW, I'd also point out that Zoe Quinn has made multiple transphobic and homophobic public remarks. She outed an underage trans woman, insulted her for "secretly having a dick", and posted her personal information online, apparently advocated violence against a trans woman at a party, and she called one of her critics a ****** on twitter.

In my honest opinion, she has no right to call herself a feminist (Neither does Anita Sarkeesian, but that's another issue entirely).

 

[Nirallus]

Based on the arguments I've been having, a big point of contention is "Feminists and SJWs want to take over gaming and neuter all of our games which are not sexist in any way."
Add that to "Games review scores should be objective and things the reviewers think are sexist/racist/whateverist shouldn't count for the numbers"
Then there's the standard "Zoe/Anita are frauds/scammers/haters/thieves/etc"

Mind you, I could just have bad luck with the draw. I've won something recently and my luck's been in the toilet since.

"Feminists and SJW's want to take over gaming and neuter all of our games": True [http://silverstringmedia.com/blog/]
"Our games which are not sexist in any way": True [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w&list=FLai_3N9Qf7bQcp9GsxttutA&index=7]
"Games review scores should be objective": Self-evidently true. Jesus fucking Christ.
"AS is a fraud": True [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7nO9F7okbo]
"ZQ is a fraud": True [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/depression-quest?user_review_id=4423603]

 

[Olas]

that "Gamergate" isn't a front used by a lot of people for their harrasmant BS...thats one contention

Are you saying that Gamergate supporters aren't against harassment? Or that individuals who use the movement as an excuse to harass are representative of it's goals as a whole?

If all you're saying is that people are harassing others under the gamergate banner, well that's demonstrably true, but it didn't start with gamergate, it won't end with gamergate, nor is it helping Gamergate's stated goals, in fact it's the damaging to the movement.

I've seen comparisons drawn between Zoe Quinn and Archduke Franz Ferdinand, who's assassination set off the first World War, and I think it's an interesting comparison because, like with World War I, I have trouble pinning down what disagreement we're actually settling here.

That itself is an issue.

Yes, there are all sorts of legitimate complaints about the industry that have been going on for quite some time...which people suddenly got really passionate about all of a sudden, and condemned a woman who was, totally coincidentally, the target of misogynistic attacks.

People are right to be suspicious about a movement that was birthed from such a messy issue, suspicion is healthy, but I don't think it's grounds for opposition outright. I'm more interested in the up-front stated goals of the movement, because that's something tangible that can be discussed. Arguing over our own suspicions of one another is never going to get us anywhere.

 

[entelechy]

Based on the arguments I've been having, a big point of contention is "Feminists and SJWs want to take over gaming and neuter all of our games which are not sexist in any way."
Add that to "Games review scores should be objective and things the reviewers think are sexist/racist/whateverist shouldn't count for the numbers"
Then there's the standard "Zoe/Anita are frauds/scammers/haters/thieves/etc"

Mind you, I could just have bad luck with the draw. I've won something recently and my luck's been in the toilet since.

You are in error, altnameJag. Gamergate is just about ethical journalism and any anti-feminists you may encounter from time-to-time are purely figments of your imagination. They don't exist. Don't look at the misogynist behind the curtain.

 

[Nieroshai]

Here's a list based on what I've seen people disagree on.

-What is and isn't sexist
-What is and isn't feminism
-whether or not it's okay to ask that question
-Whether or not it's okay to identify as a gamer
-whether or not it's okay to feel insulted about the treatment of gamers as a whole by none other than games journalism
-whether or not games journalism is even a thing
-what constitutes being a SJW
-whether THEY even exist
-whether or not it's possible to disagree with Anita Sarkeesian without being sexist
-whether or not it's okay to believe what Zoe did is morally reprehensible (the doxxing and other shenanigans, not the alleged sexual stuff)
-whether or not those 2 are even part of "gamergate," at least in its current incarnation
-who is, and is not, a paranoid conspiracy theorist (and therefore a Republican) because of their opinions about games journalism companies


There's probably more, but that's all I can think of at the moment.

 

[Olas]

Here's a list based on what I've seen people disagree on.

-What is and isn't sexist
-What is and isn't feminism
-whether or not it's okay to ask that question

I think those questions predate Gamergate by a number of decades and I think they're a bit abstract to be considered the core of the issue. What specifically is being charged with sexism?

-Whether or not it's okay to identify as a gamer

The opposition to those articles seems pretty universal on my end. I would imagine most people on the anti-gg side would like to be identified as gamers, or at least be able to identify themselves as such.

-whether or not it's okay to feel insulted about the treatment of gamers as a whole by none other than games journalism

I'm pretty sure everyone would agree it is, including the games journalists who wrote those articles since insulting was their intention.

-whether or not games journalism is even a thing

Seems more like a standalone question for us to ponder than an actual point of contention. I would like to believe there are still some honest and professional people out there reporting on games though.

-what constitutes being a SJW
-whether THEY even exist

This is the type of semantic BS that I really hate, these labels aren't doing anybody any good. Are the supporters of Gamergate not also in support of social justice?

-whether or not it's possible to disagree with Anita Sarkeesian without being sexist

Why is Anita Sarkeesian even being brought up? She's neither a game developer nor a game journalist. I think it's best to ignore anyone who brings her up in this issue. Not that she isn't worth talking about, but she's totally unrelated to gamergate by all paths of logic.

-whether or not it's okay to believe what Zoe did is morally reprehensible (the doxxing and other shenanigans, not the alleged sexual stuff)

I don't think her morality is what anti-gamergate people are defending. You can believe what she did was amoral and still think it's wrong for people on the internet to harass her over it.

-whether or not those 2 are even part of "gamergate," at least in its current incarnation

I'd say you're right about this one, at least for Zoe, I've already said what I think about Sarkeesian. Gamergate seems really in doubt about how much to talk about Zoe if at all. I think it's valid to criticize what she did, but I think it also needs to be put in perspective as something very minor compared to the problems with the triple A gaming industry and corruption in general, and that's the thing that bothers many anti-gg people, the fact that a female developer seems to have gotten an enourmously disproportionate amount of criticism compared to the rest of the industry. Whether or not this is a valid complaint, or whether there was a reason to pick on her and Grayson especially is an actual topic worthy of discussion, but it's also something Gamergate has mostly left behind now.

-who is, and is not, a paranoid conspiracy theorist (and therefore a Republican) because of their opinions about games journalism companies

Eh, as long as Gamergate can back it's claims with legitimate findings and evidence it shouldn't matter whether people throw out the word "conspiracy theorist" or not. All that you have to do is present them with the evidence and ask them to dispute it, if they can't then they have no leg to stand on. The term "conspiracy theorist" falls into the same category as "SJW" and "misogynerd" as far as I'm concerned. It's just a vague label that distorts any sort of reasonable discussion.

 

[jademunky]

I think the biggest thing we disagree on is how important we judge the issues either side is coming from.

I personally consider being more inclusive and accepting of the perspectives women and minorities to be far more important an issue than the integrity and biases of the video game journalism community. I say that as an avid and lifelong gamer and I admit that the business of providing news and reviews for games is generally a glorified PR firm and has been for.........pretty-much ever.

 

[PhD.Hooves]

The GamerGate movement is a damn well needed phenomenom. But there is some unpleasantness undercurrents attached that worries me. The corruption is definately there, and it must be admitted that the GG movement has unearthed much more than one would've thought. But there is a worrying reactionary undertone to part of GG's efforts, and the threats and harassment has not been perpetrated by one side alone. All that said, the GG movement has done things to distance itself from those actions and concentrated on the core of the mission; exposing what is quite frankly a scandalous amount of appaling journalistic behaviour.

Now. What worries me is that it's no longer anywhere near related to social justice and the likes. And yet I imagine that will be the thing most hurt by this. I'm afraid that anything trying to push any envelopes on that front is going to be met with immense hostility, since it will be considered directly linked to the journalistic corruption and the malpractices that have been done in its favour.

In brief, something akin to Gone Home released after this pavlova is going to get flogged for the 4chan disaster and DDoS campaign.

(Note that it'd be in a general sense, not as a result of specific GamerGate action against it)

And there will always be those people. The people who go on about cultural marxism and the likes. But! If there is something to be learned from all this, then it is that it will not work in your favour lumping large groups together and refusing the benefit of a doubt. GamerGate are much more than some of its less likable members.

See, I disagree. One of my favorite indie games is To The Moon, which is essentially an interactive movie, which is one of the main criticisms Gone Home gets thrown against it. It deals with Autism in a way I found very real way and while I don't know how well it represented Autism it made me do research and become better informed on some of the less well known aspects of Autism. Gamers don't want games like Gone Home and To The Moon not to be ever made, but they don't want to be told that not liking these games makes them insensitive or trans-phobic. So going forward, I think it's the social commentary that comes AFTER a game is made that will be scrutinized, not the games themselves.

 

[The_Darkness]

Considering this:

-People should not be accused of corruption without strong evidence first.

I'm going to have to call "Evidence, please" on the accusations in this post, KP Shadow:

BTW, I'd also point out that Zoe Quinn has made multiple transphobic and homophobic public remarks. She outed an underage trans woman, insulted her for "secretly having a dick", and posted her personal information online, apparently advocated violence against a trans woman at a party, and she called one of her critics a ****** on twitter.

In my honest opinion, she has no right to call herself a feminist (Neither does Anita Sarkeesian, but that's another issue entirely).

***

-People of all genders, races, religions, etc are equally capable of being corrupt and should not be treated any differently because of their aforementioned characteristics, whether in a positive or negative way.

This... is a difficult one.

I am a straight white agnostic male. I don't think I've ever had to deal with racism directed at me. My sexuality has never been an issue in my life. And I've hardly ever faced sexism. Religion does come up from time to time, but fairly rarely. That's privilege - because of who I am, these issues are unlikely to negatively influence my life that much. I recognise that.

And here's the rub: If I treat other people the same way that I treat myself, I risk treating someone who has had race be a serious issue in their life as though it wasn't an issue. I risk treating someone who has had sex/gender issues in their life as though it wasn't an issue. I risk treating someone who has had religion issues in their life as though it wasn't an issue in their life.

So, yes, I treat people differently if they are different to myself. Because I don't wish to hurt or offend, and I don't know their life. I don't know what they've had to put up with. I'm more ...respectful... around them because I'm not sure what might be hurtful to say.

***

Finally - there is at least one reasonable point of contention for me. In the gamer manifesto that GamerGate has been passing around, there's a statement: "Games, no matter what they're about, should be about the enjoyment of the player."

I couldn't disagree more.

Titanic is a great movie. It's not about the enjoyment of the watcher. The Lovely Bones is a heartwrenchingly good book. It's not about the enjoyment of the reader. I can't namecheck them, but I've seen some painfully thought-provoking paintings in my life as well. Those weren't about the enjoyment of the viewer.

Games... Are badly named. Because they're not just 'games' any more. As a medium, we're slowly starting to explore stuff beyond just enjoyment. And I appreciate that. Gone Home and To The Moon both worked for me. I'm planning to check out Dear Esther. Heck, Depression Quest worked for me (yes, I know, dangerous opinion to hold). Not everyone needs to like this stuff. If you don't like it, fine - don't buy it. Ignore it. Just don't... discourage it. Please.

 

[RexMundane]

At the core of it, both sides, including the press, want quality content, a receptive audience, and a respectful dialogue between both. Neither group can pretend it knows entirely what the other is thinking, and an open exchange of ideas and expectations would be both healthy and welcome, particularly in the process of achieving a kind of ideal state for the enthusiast press.

The primary disagreement, as I see it, relies on people of all sides thinking they can bully the others into being the way they want, and that the one who shouts the loudest and meanest will get their way. The sooner this whole thing dies, the sooner we can actually get to advancing the medium.

 

[Pseudoman]

Finally - there is at least one reasonable point of contention for me. In the gamer manifesto that GamerGate has been passing around, there's a statement: "Games, no matter what they're about, should be about the enjoyment of the player."

I couldn't disagree more.

Titanic is a great movie. It's not about the enjoyment of the watcher. The Lovely Bones is a heartwrenchingly good book. It's not about the enjoyment of the reader. I can't namecheck them, but I've seen some painfully thought-provoking paintings in my life as well. Those weren't about the enjoyment of the viewer.

Games... Are badly named. Because they're not just 'games' any more. As a medium, we're slowly starting to explore stuff beyond just enjoyment. And I appreciate that. Gone Home and To The Moon both worked for me. I'm planning to check out Dear Esther. Heck, Depression Quest worked for me (yes, I know, dangerous opinion to hold). Not everyone needs to like this stuff. If you don't like it, fine - don't buy it. Ignore it. Just don't... discourage it. Please.

I think the word "enjoyment" needs to be replaced with "entertaining" for you're right that just using the word enjoyment just means that within gameplay that only happy emotions could be invoked. while entertained can imply that both positive and negative emotions can be invoked in gameplay.

 

[Lunar Archivist]

I personally consider being more inclusive and accepting of the perspectives women and minorities to be far more important an issue than the integrity and biases of the video game journalism community.

I don't mean this in a bad way, but you've fallen victim to the anti-GamerGate false narrative.

The pro-GamerGate side has no problems accepting the perspectives of women and minorities...except that the journalists involved are trying to force diversity by calling out, publicly guilting, or publicly shaming developers who don't do what they say and any of the readers who disagree with them. Eventually, the women and minorities from the pro-GamerGate side called the journalists out on their crap and used the #NotYourShield hashtag to tell them to stop presuming to speak for them. The response from the anti-GamerGate side? First, they tried denying the very existence of the women and minorities speaking out against them by claiming they were all sockpuppets. Then, when quite a few #NotYourShield tweeters actually posted images proving they actually were women and minorities, the excuse became that they were "weaponized minorities" who had internalized self-loathing and were being mindless obedient slaves to the evil white straight male gamers...which is horrendously racist and sexist.

At the core of it, both sides, including the press, want quality content, a receptive audience, and a respectful dialogue between both. Neither group can pretend it knows entirely what the other is thinking, and an open exchange of ideas and expectations would be both healthy and welcome, particularly in the process of achieving a kind of ideal state for the enthusiast press.

Oh for god's sake. The press doesn't want quality content, they just want to keep on doing what they're doing now with zero accountibility. Jason Schreier went on record saying that objectivity doesn't matter and Ben Kuchera had no problem admitting that they just made stuff up sometimes in order to get more clicks.

As for a receptive audience, it's more like they want brainwashed followers who'll agree with them without question lest they be labelled horrible people and ostracized. And Leigh Alexander, in her expletive and vitriol-filled "Gamers are dead" article, said in no uncertain terms that "There's no debate to be had with these obtuse shit-slingers.", so we can chuck your claims of a "respectful dialogue" right out the window.

The primary disagreement, as I see it, relies on people of all sides thinking they can bully the others into being the way they want, and that the one who shouts the loudest and meanest will get their way.

I would get some new glasses if I were you, because your sight appears a bit off. The only thing the pro-GamerGate wanted was objectivity, transparency, and clear journalistic ethics. The response was a dozen "Gamers are dead." articles where the gaming press collectively denigrated and dehumanized their target audience and went on a month long smear campaign in an increasingly desperate attempt to discredit them.

At this point, I'm really not sure if you're just woefully misinformed or intentionally dishonest, because there's so much wrong with everything you say that I sometimes barely know where to begin dissecting it all.

 

[RexMundane]

At the core of it, both sides, including the press, want quality content, a receptive audience, and a respectful dialogue between both. Neither group can pretend it knows entirely what the other is thinking, and an open exchange of ideas and expectations would be both healthy and welcome, particularly in the process of achieving a kind of ideal state for the enthusiast press.

Oh for god's sake. The press doesn't want quality content, they just want to keep on doing what they're doing now with zero accountibility. Jason Schreier went on record saying that objectivity doesn't matter and Ben Kuchera had no problem admitting that they just made stuff up sometimes in order to get more clicks.

As for a receptive audience, it's more like they want brainwashed followers who'll agree with them without question lest they be labelled horrible people and ostracized. And Leigh Alexander, in her expletive and vitriol-filled "Gamers are dead" article, said in no uncertain terms that "There's no debate to be had with these obtuse shit-slingers.", so we can chuck your claims of a "respectful dialogue" right out the window.

The primary disagreement, as I see it, relies on people of all sides thinking they can bully the others into being the way they want, and that the one who shouts the loudest and meanest will get their way.

I would get some new glasses if I were you, because your sight appears a bit off. The only thing the pro-GamerGate wanted was objectivity, transparency, and clear journalistic ethics. The response was a dozen "Gamers are dead." articles where the gaming press collectively denigrated and dehumanized their target audience and went on a month long smear campaign in an increasingly desperate attempt to discredit them.

At this point, I'm really not sure if you're just woefully misinformed or intentionally dishonest, because there's so much wrong with everything you say that I sometimes barely know where to begin dissecting it all.

I'd happily open a dialogue about what "objectivity" means in terms of games criticism, and how I would hope we're both agreed that there isn't, say, some empirical way of measuring exactly how many "out of tens" a game contains, as well as the likelihood that gaming bloggers are the kind of powerful, machiavellian comic book supervillains you describe them as. However, as your closer aptly demonstrates, you're clearly more interested in maligning me publicly than trying to hold a discourse. Good evening.