GamerGate's Image Problem

[Robert B. Marks]

See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.

We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.

I'm sorry, but I've seen this sort of attitude a lot, and it bothers the hell out of me.

Yes, #GamerGate was tainted from the beginning. But effective activism isn't about how much noise you make, and you don't need to surrender to the misogynists just because they're sometimes going to show up.

Here are some things you can do that don't need #GamerGate at all:

1. Create a website tracking cases of real corruption in the games media - when you find out about a game company giving a bunch of reviewers free tablets, for example, you post it on the site. To keep the cranks out, you moderate all posts.

2. Join something like the #GamerEthics hashtag, and be vocal in condemning those who try to co-opt it.

3. Create petitions for specific websites to implement proper disclosure policies for their editors and writers. Do it one petition per website, and make the disclosure policies clear in the body of the petition.

These are three forms of activism that can make the changes you want, in a way that isn't tainted, and none of them require #GamerGate. All of them will have a public legitimacy that #GamerGate lacks. And believe me - if the owner of a games media website receives a petition from a few thousand of its readers demanding new disclosure policies for editors and writers, they WILL listen.

 

[Thorn14]

See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.

We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.

I'm sorry, but I've seen this sort of attitude a lot, and it bothers the hell out of me.

Yes, #GamerGate was tainted from the beginning. But effective activism isn't about how much noise you make, and you don't need to surrender to the misogynists just because they're sometimes going to show up.

Here are some things you can do that don't need #GamerGate at all:

1. Create a website tracking cases of real corruption in the games media - when you find out about a game company giving a bunch of reviewers free tablets, for example, you post it on the site. To keep the cranks out, you moderate all posts.

2. Join something like the #GamerEthics hashtag, and be vocal in condemning those who try to co-opt it.

3. Create petitions for specific websites to implement proper disclosure policies for their editors and writers. Do it one petition per website, and make the disclosure policies clear in the body of the petition.

These are three forms of activism that can make the changes you want, in a way that isn't tainted, and none of them require #GamerGate. All of them will have a public legitimacy that #GamerGate lacks. And believe me - if the owner of a games media website receives a petition from a few thousand of its readers demanding new disclosure policies for editors and writers, they WILL listen.

1. Exists. I can't recall the exact HTML but I know its one of the links on the gamergate site.

2. #GamerEthics was literally made by Neogaf to try to suck the life out of #GamerGate. It failed horribly. And besides, even if we did, the same harassers could show up and get all the media attention and we'll have all this fun again.

3. I could get behind that. A lot of people are actually emailing publishers and advertisers and websites. Its a big part of #GamerGate actually.

Trust me, #GG is not just a bunch of people attacking each other on Twitter. I could argue that abandoning #GG is letting the abusers win actually, since it means we're not better than them and they did indeed represent us, which I will fight tooth and nail to deny.

Just because there is a problem doesn't mean we can just go "Welp, we tried, but we got jerks, lets go."

The people of Ferguson still protested peacefully despite the calls from Conservatives or whoever going "Yeah but they got looters, do they really want them to represent them?"

 

[runic knight]

*regretful peek into the megathread* ...#Comicgate now? Did I miss some news about how comic book authors sometimes have one another's emails or how indie comic artists have to sleep with powerful bloggers or... the Spiderwoman cover? Seriously? This is the... you're fighting for the right to force Marvel to use crappy art just because you prefer it's ludicrous over-sexualization, if only because it pisses off the EssJay-Dubbs?

captcha: "Live Life." Good call, Captcha.

There's been periodic calls for a comic gate thing on comics forums by the odd loose GG cannon who's also into comics. I seldom see even a couple of posts in support. I believe comics culture has less of a knee jerk reaction to feminist and other critiques as they consider comics legitimate art, and criticism is the price of admission for leaving the kids table.

Comic demographics also trend 20 years older than gamer, so there's that too. There's less people whipped into a panic because they're confronting their first realization that other people see the world differently.

You know I read that, and then use google for 2 seconds to check things and I see stuff like this

http://www.theesa.com/facts/

saying that the average age of gamers is 31. Average age of most frequent game purchaser (read:core demographic) is 35.

You are saying the average comic book reader is in their 50's?

But please, do continue to dismiss gamergate as opposing feminist and not just, you know, what they actually have been claiming from the start in being opposition to a lack of ethical and professional behavior in gaming journalism itself by use of ideological bias and dishonest McCarthyism-like tactics to dismiss, discredit, deflect, defame and outright demonize in order to avoid addressing the very real concerns of their audience. Though I suppose fairness would dictate you could add "by use of feminist ideology in particular".

 

[aliengmr]

See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.

We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.

What is "winning" to GG? Is it a mass boycott or something else?

See GG has spent a lot of time creating for itself an "opposition", in the form of "anti-GG". This doesn't exist in any real form. There are those who "oppose" the themes and agenda and will debate that, but that isn't real opposition. GG wants to debate its image without realizing there's a reason many haven't jumped on the bandwagon, and its what I, and many others, tried, and failed, to get across.

Jim Sterling made a really great point when this really started to pick up. He saw a GG blacklist and tweeted, that before he said one word his "side" was chosen for him. That happened a lot, to a lot of people. It only got worse and worse.

This is the problem with the GG hashtag, its burned too many bridges to be effective. GG is just a loud angry mob at this point. It can boycott and rant about the vast SJW conspiracy but what else?

You do bring up an excellent point, there are people you can't convince to jump on board, even though so many have similar goals. That's an image problem.

 

[Thorn14]

See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.

We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.

What is "winning" to GG? Is it a mass boycott or something else?

See GG has spent a lot of time creating for itself an "opposition", in the form of "anti-GG". This doesn't exist in any real form. There are those who "oppose" the themes and agenda and will debate that, but that isn't real opposition. GG wants to debate its image without realizing there's a reason many haven't jumped on the bandwagon, and its what I, and many others, tried, and failed, to get across.

Jim Sterling made a really great point when this really started to pick up. He saw a GG blacklist and tweeted, that before he said one word his "side" was chosen for him. That happened a lot, to a lot of people. It only got worse and worse.

This is the problem with the GG hashtag, its burned too many bridges to be effective. GG is just a loud angry mob at this point. It can boycott and rant about the vast SJW conspiracy but what else?

You do bring up an excellent point, there are people you can't convince to jump on board, even though so many have similar goals. That's an image problem.

Depends on who you ask. I'd like huge sweeping changes to journalism ethics and everyone to realize you don't fuck with the consumer. I'd like journalists to not get so buddy buddy with each other in secret and ESPECIALLY publishers/PR folk.

Others want a "burn it to the fucking ground" philosophy which, at times would be nice to see Kotaku in flames, I don't see feasible.

It would be a lie to say there is not an angry mob element to it, but I believe the movement itself and its message holds merit, so I support it. Would I run it differently? Hell yes, but you fight with the army you got.

I'm not going to just go "Welp, oh well!" and just let everything go back to the shitty status quo we have. For once I feel like we have some sort of power and voice to get some change done, and I'm not going to just drop it because it has aspects I hate.

And no, I do believe there is an anti side out there. How about the people who called the job of the #NotYourShield guy who got fired? How about the guy who's job was threatened and saved by a good boss because he DARED to make a pro #GG video?

Lets not pretend that this is some sort of "Angry mob with moderate voice vs well intentioned good guys" thing going on. There is nastiness everywhere, but I don't see people going "Well we do have people giving death threats to #GG guys, lets just let them win."

As for the whole "Too many burnt bridges" thing? There are those who would argue thats a good thing. They want this to be a leaderless mass of consumer anger where no leader can influence it for their own gain.

 

[Madmonk12345]

*regretful peek into the megathread* ...#Comicgate now? Did I miss some news about how comic book authors sometimes have one another's emails or how indie comic artists have to sleep with powerful bloggers or... the Spiderwoman cover? Seriously? This is the... you're fighting for the right to force Marvel to use crappy art just because you prefer it's ludicrous over-sexualization, if only because it pisses off the EssJay-Dubbs?

captcha: "Live Life." Good call, Captcha.

There's been periodic calls for a comic gate thing on comics forums by the odd loose GG cannon who's also into comics. I seldom see even a couple of posts in support. I believe comics culture has less of a knee jerk reaction to feminist and other critiques as they consider comics legitimate art, and criticism is the price of admission for leaving the kids table.

Comic demographics also trend 20 years older than gamer, so there's that too. There's less people whipped into a panic because they're confronting their first realization that other people see the world differently.

You know I read that, and then use google for 2 seconds to check things and I see stuff like this

http://www.theesa.com/facts/

saying that the average age of gamers is 31. Average age of most frequent game purchaser (read:core demographic) is 35.

You are saying the average comic book reader is in their 50's?

But please, do continue to dismiss gamergate as opposing feminist and not just, you know, what they actually have been claiming from the start in being opposition to a lack of ethical and professional behavior in gaming journalism itself by use of ideological bias and dishonest McCarthyism-like tactics to dismiss, discredit, deflect, defame and outright demonize in order to avoid addressing the very real concerns of their audience. Though I suppose fairness would dictate you could add "by use of feminist ideology in particular".

You DO realize that you're citing the same study that says 48% of all gamers are women right? The same study GGers tend to discredit because it includes casual gamers? The same industry-funded study?

Also, how do you know the most frequent game purchasers are core gamers? It would make more sense if core gamers were to tend to buy fewer longer games rather than many short ones in the way a casual gamer might. A casual gamer could buy 30 casual games on their iPhone for the price of a single core game, after all.

It wouldn't make sense for statistics including so-called casual gamers to have the core gamers be older than the average either. Casual gamers often are much older than core gamers and members of a different generation than that of the supposed core audience.

 

[Impulse725]

*regretful peek into the megathread* ...#Comicgate now? Did I miss some news about how comic book authors sometimes have one another's emails or how indie comic artists have to sleep with powerful bloggers or... the Spiderwoman cover? Seriously? This is the... you're fighting for the right to force Marvel to use crappy art just because you prefer it's ludicrous over-sexualization, if only because it pisses off the EssJay-Dubbs?

captcha: "Live Life." Good call, Captcha.

There's been periodic calls for a comic gate thing on comics forums by the odd loose GG cannon who's also into comics. I seldom see even a couple of posts in support. I believe comics culture has less of a knee jerk reaction to feminist and other critiques as they consider comics legitimate art, and criticism is the price of admission for leaving the kids table.

Comic demographics also trend 20 years older than gamer, so there's that too. There's less people whipped into a panic because they're confronting their first realization that other people see the world differently.

You know I read that, and then use google for 2 seconds to check things and I see stuff like this

http://www.theesa.com/facts/

saying that the average age of gamers is 31. Average age of most frequent game purchaser (read:core demographic) is 35.

You are saying the average comic book reader is in their 50's?

But please, do continue to dismiss gamergate as opposing feminist and not just, you know, what they actually have been claiming from the start in being opposition to a lack of ethical and professional behavior in gaming journalism itself by use of ideological bias and dishonest McCarthyism-like tactics to dismiss, discredit, deflect, defame and outright demonize in order to avoid addressing the very real concerns of their audience. Though I suppose fairness would dictate you could add "by use of feminist ideology in particular".

I'm obviously talking about the more hardcore fan communities that cares about these things, you cited the amount of people who play games, total. I'm glad you know how to goggle, but your ability to find relevant statistics instead of grabbing the first thing that looks like it makes your point is lacking. I do appreciate the effort, though. The gamer community, the hardcore enthusiasts, average much younger than 31. Much as not everyone that goes out to see Transformers is not a cinema buff, not everyone that games is a gamer. The overall category would be "player".

I dismiss gamergate because I think they're incompetent as an overall movement, for the record. I don't feel the need to talk about it because a movement that can't do better than 40% support in their own demographic isn't going anywhere. You're totally unable to win over people who should be your allies because, as this thread suggests, you have an image problem, and are comically opposed to acknowledging it. Beyond maybe crushing some indie developers who are powerless in the grand scheme of things, gamergate will accomplish nothing due to their inability to make their case. The knee jerk reaction to feminism is less a cause to dismiss gamergate per say, and more a sign that the movement tends to get off on irrelevant tangents that gain them little.

I have no interest in opposing gamergate, I'm sure you'll collapse just fine on your own. I'm not even really talking about gamergate, I'm spitballing about probable reasons there's a larger number of gamers who have a trouble with girly stuff compared to other nerd culture communities. You are the one projecting gamergate into this. Granted, the thread is tangentially about discussing gamergate, but it's not like that's happening much anyway.

 

[RexMundane]

See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.

We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.

What is "winning" to GG? Is it a mass boycott or something else?

See GG has spent a lot of time creating for itself an "opposition", in the form of "anti-GG". This doesn't exist in any real form. There are those who "oppose" the themes and agenda and will debate that, but that isn't real opposition. GG wants to debate its image without realizing there's a reason many haven't jumped on the bandwagon, and its what I, and many others, tried, and failed, to get across.

Jim Sterling made a really great point when this really started to pick up. He saw a GG blacklist and tweeted, that before he said one word his "side" was chosen for him. That happened a lot, to a lot of people. It only got worse and worse.

This is the problem with the GG hashtag, its burned too many bridges to be effective. GG is just a loud angry mob at this point. It can boycott and rant about the vast SJW conspiracy but what else?

You do bring up an excellent point, there are people you can't convince to jump on board, even though so many have similar goals. That's an image problem.

The whole "having your side chosen for you" thing is endemic, happens for their allies as well as their enemies.

JonTron for instance has been on every whitelist I've seen, the #IStandWithJonTron hashtag getting huge and everything, but as far as I can see he doesn't really get involved with the main hashtag or the debate about ethics very much, if at all, and only got involved when he complained about Anita Sarkeesian, who I'm told again and again has nothing to do with this, yet that seems sufficient to make him a patron saint of GamerGate, even now that he's made amends with Tim Schaffer.

But The Escapist? Not on most blacklists since the policy clarification (a roughly similar clarification to the ones Kotaku and Polygon made, it's worth acknowledging) but not on any whitelist I've seen either, I assume because Moviebob hasn't been publically flogged.

Hell, before all this Milo wrote worse anti-gamer nonsense than alot of the tweets I see them going to war over, yet now he spotted a cult he can take advantage of and can keep them fed on that sweet-sweet rage-sauce, all of a damn sudden everything's forgiven and he's the risen Christ in an argument about journalistic integrity, and tragically none of them even get the joke.

Even that Sommers woman is now "Based Mom" and a valued ally, even though her entire contribution is poorly arguing against Anita and calling her a Hipster on behalf of a think-tank with a political agenda, and, again, I keep being told Anita's nothing to do with this but here we are again.

And I think this comes back to the problem. At this point they're so actively reluctant to clarify what they're about they can just declare anyone they like an ally or enemy, so long as it fuels the angry mob that is, somehow, not collectively angry about the same thing.

 

[tyriless]

As someone that is not a fan of Gamergate, the cause comes across the strongest when it's focusing on Journalism Ethics and steers away from Anti-Feminism. Even if you think the ethics and feminism are related ( I don't, or at least not enough to warrant it getting singled out as an issue) the anti-feminism remarks just drive away anyone that might of listened to you about the state of the industry and the people that cover it.

I would say do what you can to divorce the two as much as possible. You might not be able to completely stop members from bringing it up, but highlight the stories that have nothing to do with Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian, and you lessen the perception of bias.

Also, calling people Social Justice Warriors may seem like a fair response to you be called a bunch of misogynist, but it only drags down whatever you are trying to get across into a flame war, and it can insult people that have a progressive leaning and belief in gender equality.

 

[Dragonbums]

See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.

We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.

What is "winning" to GG? Is it a mass boycott or something else?

See GG has spent a lot of time creating for itself an "opposition", in the form of "anti-GG". This doesn't exist in any real form. There are those who "oppose" the themes and agenda and will debate that, but that isn't real opposition. GG wants to debate its image without realizing there's a reason many haven't jumped on the bandwagon, and its what I, and many others, tried, and failed, to get across.

Jim Sterling made a really great point when this really started to pick up. He saw a GG blacklist and tweeted, that before he said one word his "side" was chosen for him. That happened a lot, to a lot of people. It only got worse and worse.

This is the problem with the GG hashtag, its burned too many bridges to be effective. GG is just a loud angry mob at this point. It can boycott and rant about the vast SJW conspiracy but what else?

You do bring up an excellent point, there are people you can't convince to jump on board, even though so many have similar goals. That's an image problem.

Yeah, that's what I'm asking myself right now to be honest. It comes off as one of those "with us or against us" kind of things.

I mean, one user I argued against was clearly insinuating that I was choosing to be willfully ignorant on the GG movement because clearly if I knew everything about it up to date, I would be taking up the GG banner. But I don't care. I think that's honestly the worst I've seen anti- GGers. They basically said I agree with the sentiment of Journalistic integrity, but I don't agree with how you went about it.

For me the very beginnings of it left a rotten taste in my mouth, and the big names championing it are horrible. Especially when it was clear that "corrupt" journalists simply was a code word for journalists who said a social justice commentary of gamer culture in the big picture that wasn't trashing feminists, minorities, and lgbtq+ people for being assbabies and demanding they be fired. They went for super high visible targets while the real corrupt clowns are not Patricia Hernandez on Kotaku but less than moral AAA companies who will deal anything under the bus for good reviews. Which seems to me that hurt feelings by a bunch of news sites means more to gamers than possibly being cheated out of $60.00 like a fool yet again by the Activision/EA/Ubisoft evil triumvirate.

And honestly even the worst of them- Kotaku and Polygon- still have exactly what GG is championing for for the most part. Unbiased, banal reviews of shit. Go on Kotaku and see what the majority of the articles now. It's either shit from Japan, Snaktaku, a bunch of reviews where devs complain about stupid shit, and the occasional op ed piece that once again rakes in 60k views because gamers still can't understand the concept of ignorning people you don't care about.

Despite people demanding writers like Patricia being fired, the majority of her article posts are mobile games, indie games, and Pokemon shit. Same can be said for a lot of other ones as well.

This is why I can't get mad over this shit. When Jim or Yahtzee talk about gamers, you don't see people put up the pitchforks and go on a rampage against the Escapist. They get mad at Jim and Yahtzee themselves, and if they REALLY don't like them....then they just stop watching their shows. That's it. That isn't even to mention that Yahtzee himself when he reviews games are so fucking biased you would think GGers would go after him as well. But...you know...like I said. So long as he isn't hurting the feelings of "attacked" white male gamers he's clearly an uncorrupted journalist

 

[Impulse725]

I find this idea of an anti GG side a bit baffling. I'm sure there's some tumblr mailing lists or whoever the boogeyman is organizing tweet campaigns and the like. To extrapolate that therefore there's an organized anti GG movement is overly paranoid. Why would game developers and journalists come in here and rile you up? That nets them zero gain. They obviously think the best course is to disengage and wait it out.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you, sure. That doesn't need you have to ACT paranoid and counterproductively dismiss every contrary opinion as a massive conspiracy. Even if you're right, it looks nuts.

 

[KRosen]

Just a reminder, everyone here mentioning that GamerGate is a tainted thing - I mean, the exact same thing can be said for Feminism. It really doesn't matter how many speeches Emma Watson gives, it isn't going to erase #KillAllMen. Not going to go into preach mode (though I could) - just want to let people know that abandoning the title based on this isn't a very good idea, in my humble opinion. Thanks.

 

[Impulse725]

Just a reminder, everyone here mentioning that GamerGate is a tainted thing - I mean, the exact same thing can be said for Feminism. It really doesn't matter how many speeches Emma Watson gives, it isn't going to erase #KillAllMen. Not going to go into preach mode (though I could) - just want to let people know that abandoning the title based on this isn't a very good idea, in my humble opinion. Thanks.

Woman's liberation had the sense to rebrand as feminist too, when the former term acquired too much baggage. Feminist is itself a rebrand, and their success is in part because they had the sense to abandon a tainted title.

Side note, I'm also of the opinion that feminism is about due for another rebrand, but now that it's more established, there's too much sentimental value attached to the title. I think something like equalitist or whatever would serve them better while allowing them to pursue the same goals.

 

[Dragonbums]

Just a reminder, everyone here mentioning that GamerGate is a tainted thing - I mean, the exact same thing can be said for Feminism. It really doesn't matter how many speeches Emma Watson gives, it isn't going to erase #KillAllMen. Not going to go into preach mode (though I could) - just want to let people know that abandoning the title based on this isn't a very good idea, in my humble opinion. Thanks.

It won't get rid of #KillAllMen, but unlike GG which only has a stronghold in gaming and gaming only, feminism has reaches in all facets of society. It also helps that there are women today who are still under systematic oppression and look to feminism to better themselves. For instance, the Taliban justifying killing people because women go to school for education, or selling them off to slave wives and sex slaves as punishment for not being an uneducated, submissive, being. Feminists in videogames is but a small facet of feminists in general, and honestly the general perception from feminists on average probably puts shit in videogames as a lowbrow issue.

I mean, for fucks sakes it's 2014 and we still have to fight for the right to have birth control covered under our healthcare and have access to abortion, while Viagra and penis enhancement surgeries being covered by our tax dollars practically go uncontested in political debates. (But that's for another topic.)

 

[Dragonbums]

Just a reminder, everyone here mentioning that GamerGate is a tainted thing - I mean, the exact same thing can be said for Feminism. It really doesn't matter how many speeches Emma Watson gives, it isn't going to erase #KillAllMen. Not going to go into preach mode (though I could) - just want to let people know that abandoning the title based on this isn't a very good idea, in my humble opinion. Thanks.

Woman's liberation had the sense to rebrand as feminist too, when the former term acquired too much baggage. Feminist is itself a rebrand, and their success is in part because they had the sense to abandon a tainted title.

Side note, I'm also of the opinion that feminism is about due for another rebrand, but now that it's more established, there's too much sentimental value attached to the title. I think something like equalitist or whatever would serve them better while allowing them to pursue the same goals.

I'm actually curious what happened to the Women's Liberation name for it to get tainted to have a rebrand. I mean we are talking about times where women couldn't do anything without a man's signature.

As for feminist rebranding I doubt it's going to change anytime soon. Especially now that well loved and wildly popular celbrities like Beyonce claimed on public television to not only be feminists, but promoted it in a big way.

 

[Impulse725]

Just a reminder, everyone here mentioning that GamerGate is a tainted thing - I mean, the exact same thing can be said for Feminism. It really doesn't matter how many speeches Emma Watson gives, it isn't going to erase #KillAllMen. Not going to go into preach mode (though I could) - just want to let people know that abandoning the title based on this isn't a very good idea, in my humble opinion. Thanks.

Woman's liberation had the sense to rebrand as feminist too, when the former term acquired too much baggage. Feminist is itself a rebrand, and their success is in part because they had the sense to abandon a tainted title.

Side note, I'm also of the opinion that feminism is about due for another rebrand, but now that it's more established, there's too much sentimental value attached to the title. I think something like equalitist or whatever would serve them better while allowing them to pursue the same goals.

I'm actually curious what happened to the Women's Liberation name for it to get tainted to have a rebrand. I mean we are talking about times where women couldn't do anything without a man's signature.

As for feminist rebranding I doubt it's going to change anytime soon. Especially now that well loved and wildly popular celbrities like Beyonce claimed on public television to not only be feminists, but promoted it in a big way.

Pretty much the same thing as now. Reactionaries branded them as anti-man and over enough time it had acquired a number of people who would associate them with that. Modern feminism did have some extreme theorists who made it easier to tarnish their brand, but it would have happened anyway.

If they do rebrand in another 5o years whatever they change to will have come to be associated with hating men with a percentage of the population.

Edit: you're right that people trying to improve the label are on the upswing. I think that's overall more work, but that might do the trick.

 

[RexMundane]

And with the Escapist's recent article on female Gamedevs discussing Gamergate, I imagine they're destined for the blacklist once again. I see they're already losing their minds about it a little, they dare not patronize an establishment that dares to impugn them in the slightest, after all.

My favorite lack-of-self-awareness quote out of the megathread at the moment?

As Archon tweeted we should use this thread as an opportunity to inform the female devs on what gamergate is. They are all reading it. Which also begs the question ... If they are reading it why did they give such uninformed answers ?

I mean... is it possible... juuuuuust possible... that someone might just come to an unflattering conclusion after honestly reading through the thread? That maybe... juuuuuust maybe... they might be coming off in the way being described? That they're neither lying or stupid or ill-informed and might... juuuuuust might... be honestly describing things as they see them?

Nah, feminazi conspiracy to destroy indie games through mailing lists. It's the only thing that makes sense.

 

[TheBacklogGamer]

I made a similar post in another thread, but have been encouraged to post my entire piece I wrote on twitter about the misconception that #Gamergate was born of hatred, misogyny, and harassment. Here is the post, in full:

I see it time and time again. "#GamerGate was born out of hatred, misogyny, and harassment." As someone who saw all of this escalate from Day 1, this saddens me. This means the narrative spun against us worked. I'm happy that a lot of our discussions have shifted it a bit, and that instead of people saying "You're all a bunch of misogynist sexist nerds" they now say "It started with a bunch of misogynist sexist nerds."

I'm sure I've upset a lot of people already by saying that, so let me address something. I am not saying harassment did not happen. It most certainly did. But make no mistake, those people who did those things, were NOT doing them for #GamerGate's sake, but their own sinister reasons. While these trolls were harassing people, the actually supporters of #GamerGate were investigating and debating what it is we could even do. @AdamBaldwin hadn't even coined #GamerGate yet, and we were using The Quinnspiracy for several different reasons. Many of us were simply talking on our respective forums, while only a small fraction took the debate to Twitter, which was especially difficult with all the trolls out.

When @AdamBaldwin used the hashtage #GamerGate for the first time, that's when a large part of the conversation went to Twitter. We finally had a name we could adopt, and had the support of a large prominent figure. If anything, the hashtag #GamerGate was a way for us to talk publicly about this WITHOUT being associated with the trolls. People ask us why we didn't use the #GameEthics tag instead, when it was proposed. There are many reasons, but the main one is this. #GamerGate was NOT created or adopted by those doing the harassment. Regardless of that, we were still associated with those trolls, even though we constantly spoke out and condemned them. People weren't listening to us though, and the reason is because the narrative spun against us.

The media's reaction to us was extremely confrontational. Instead of opening a dialogue with us and addressing any of our concerns, we were dismissed time and time again. I'm not just speaking about the "Gamers are Dead" articles, but a lot of it had to do with ONLY covering the harassment side of things. Once #GamerGate was strong and trending, news outlets began to attribute the harassment to the tag itself, rather than accurately report someone receiving harassment from a large group of individuals. I've seen a lot of the screenshots about the harassment, and very little of them even mention #GamerGate in the tag. The point is though, the only coverage these news outlets would give was a message of harassment and abuse. So of course most of the people who weren't there when this started would just be exposed to that narrative. This simply isn't true, but it was their way from deflecting from the concerns we wanted to talk about. Instead of treating us like adults, they dismissed us. Here we were, coming to them asking them to address something, and they said "Yeah well, we'd love to talk about this, but that person over there in the corner is acting like a child, so your points are automatically discarded."

#GamerGate was NOT born from hatred, misogyny and harassment. This is inaccurate and misleading. Yes, it was born while a lot of trolls were using this opportunity to harass, but they were NOT the people who were legitimately upset by what thezoepost revealed, and all the additional connections that came to light. The internet is a very large place. Understatement of the year right there. But it does not take a large amount of people to focus harassment on you to make it seem like the entire internet is after you. It's generalizing and stereotyping to claim an entire group of people are responsible for the vicious actions taken by an aggressive minority.

This is especially true today. The past week or so, several #GamerGate supporters have been attacked for their view point. Doxxing, phone calls, phone calls to employers which ultimately lead to them being fired, things sent to their homes, DDOSing major sites, and death threats have all been launched at many #GamerGate supporters. All of these things have happened since Day 1, but recently there's been a massive escalation and every day it seems they become more bold. But what I said before about #GamerGate's connection to harassment is true here too. Do not judge those who oppose #GamerGate just because of the actions taken by an aggressive minority. I do think it should be discussed, and many of these same sites who made articles about the harassment Zoe Quinn received have been silent, but don't judge those who clearly are not a part of the this attack.

It seems to me, that many of us have forgotten rule one of the internet. Do no feed the trolls. Perhaps it's because these trolls have escalated their harassment, and instead of just saying inflammatory things, they are flat out threatening and causing real life consequences with their harassment. Maybe it's easy for me to say because I still haven't been targeted. But when you feed the trolls, they get the attention they want, and will continue to harass because of the reaction they've provoked. This is internet 101. Why have so many people forgotten this?

I want to direct you to a post that accurately shows just how #GamerGate came to be, before and after the hashtag came into existence. It's a fantastic post that provides sources to archives and logs to support its claims. In it you can see for yourself how #GamerGate came about, and how the harassment and threats were not associated with #GamerGate's concerns. It doesn't just brush the harassment under the rug either, it address it head on. What makes it great are ALL the sources the person provides. You can see first hand what I'm talking about.

Here: https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60

Let me reiterate, yes harassment happened. But to blame that harassment on #GamerGate is baseless. These are not facts, and yet it is widely accepted as such. Stop giving attention to the trolls, and please start paying attention to what WE are actually saying.

Link: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sbr2ir

 

[Panda Pandemic]

And with the Escapist's recent article on female Gamedevs discussing Gamergate, I imagine they're destined for the blacklist once again. I see they're already losing their minds about it a little, they dare not patronize an establishment that dares to impugn them in the slightest, after all.

My favorite lack-of-self-awareness quote out of the megathread at the moment?

As Archon tweeted we should use this thread as an opportunity to inform the female devs on what gamergate is. They are all reading it. Which also begs the question ... If they are reading it why did they give such uninformed answers ?

I mean... is it possible... juuuuuust possible... that someone might just come to an unflattering conclusion after honestly reading through the thread? That maybe... juuuuuust maybe... they might be coming off in the way being described? That they're neither lying or stupid or ill-informed and might... juuuuuust might... be honestly describing things as they see them?

Nah, feminazi conspiracy to destroy indie games through mailing lists. It's the only thing that makes sense.

That's one of my big problems with them. Any disagreement and it must be a misunderstanding. No one can genuinely disagree. And if you dare to disagree in that thread you *must* be supporting the other side. As if disagreeing with them is enough for a cohesive side and there can't be myriad reasons someone may disagree

 

[RexMundane]

Spoiler: snip

I made a similar post in another thread, but have been encouraged to post my entire piece I wrote on twitter about the misconception that #Gamergate was born of hatred, misogyny, and harassment. Here is the post, in full:

I see it time and time again. "#GamerGate was born out of hatred, misogyny, and harassment." As someone who saw all of this escalate from Day 1, this saddens me. This means the narrative spun against us worked. I'm happy that a lot of our discussions have shifted it a bit, and that instead of people saying "You're all a bunch of misogynist sexist nerds" they now say "It started with a bunch of misogynist sexist nerds."

I'm sure I've upset a lot of people already by saying that, so let me address something. I am not saying harassment did not happen. It most certainly did. But make no mistake, those people who did those things, were NOT doing them for #GamerGate's sake, but their own sinister reasons. While these trolls were harassing people, the actually supporters of #GamerGate were investigating and debating what it is we could even do. @AdamBaldwin hadn't even coined #GamerGate yet, and we were using The Quinnspiracy for several different reasons. Many of us were simply talking on our respective forums, while only a small fraction took the debate to Twitter, which was especially difficult with all the trolls out.

When @AdamBaldwin used the hashtage #GamerGate for the first time, that's when a large part of the conversation went to Twitter. We finally had a name we could adopt, and had the support of a large prominent figure. If anything, the hashtag #GamerGate was a way for us to talk publicly about this WITHOUT being associated with the trolls. People ask us why we didn't use the #GameEthics tag instead, when it was proposed. There are many reasons, but the main one is this. #GamerGate was NOT created or adopted by those doing the harassment. Regardless of that, we were still associated with those trolls, even though we constantly spoke out and condemned them. People weren't listening to us though, and the reason is because the narrative spun against us.

The media's reaction to us was extremely confrontational. Instead of opening a dialogue with us and addressing any of our concerns, we were dismissed time and time again. I'm not just speaking about the "Gamers are Dead" articles, but a lot of it had to do with ONLY covering the harassment side of things. Once #GamerGate was strong and trending, news outlets began to attribute the harassment to the tag itself, rather than accurately report someone receiving harassment from a large group of individuals. I've seen a lot of the screenshots about the harassment, and very little of them even mention #GamerGate in the tag. The point is though, the only coverage these news outlets would give was a message of harassment and abuse. So of course most of the people who weren't there when this started would just be exposed to that narrative. This simply isn't true, but it was their way from deflecting from the concerns we wanted to talk about. Instead of treating us like adults, they dismissed us. Here we were, coming to them asking them to address something, and they said "Yeah well, we'd love to talk about this, but that person over there in the corner is acting like a child, so your points are automatically discarded."

#GamerGate was NOT born from hatred, misogyny and harassment. This is inaccurate and misleading. Yes, it was born while a lot of trolls were using this opportunity to harass, but they were NOT the people who were legitimately upset by what thezoepost revealed, and all the additional connections that came to light. The internet is a very large place. Understatement of the year right there. But it does not take a large amount of people to focus harassment on you to make it seem like the entire internet is after you. It's generalizing and stereotyping to claim an entire group of people are responsible for the vicious actions taken by an aggressive minority.

This is especially true today. The past week or so, several #GamerGate supporters have been attacked for their view point. Doxxing, phone calls, phone calls to employers which ultimately lead to them being fired, things sent to their homes, DDOSing major sites, and death threats have all been launched at many #GamerGate supporters. All of these things have happened since Day 1, but recently there's been a massive escalation and every day it seems they become more bold. But what I said before about #GamerGate's connection to harassment is true here too. Do not judge those who oppose #GamerGate just because of the actions taken by an aggressive minority. I do think it should be discussed, and many of these same sites who made articles about the harassment Zoe Quinn received have been silent, but don't judge those who clearly are not a part of the this attack.

It seems to me, that many of us have forgotten rule one of the internet. Do no feed the trolls. Perhaps it's because these trolls have escalated their harassment, and instead of just saying inflammatory things, they are flat out threatening and causing real life consequences with their harassment. Maybe it's easy for me to say because I still haven't been targeted. But when you feed the trolls, they get the attention they want, and will continue to harass because of the reaction they've provoked. This is internet 101. Why have so many people forgotten this?

I want to direct you to a post that accurately shows just how #GamerGate came to be, before and after the hashtag came into existence. It's a fantastic post that provides sources to archives and logs to support its claims. In it you can see for yourself how #GamerGate came about, and how the harassment and threats were not associated with #GamerGate's concerns. It doesn't just brush the harassment under the rug either, it address it head on. What makes it great are ALL the sources the person provides. You can see first hand what I'm talking about.

Here: https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60

Let me reiterate, yes harassment happened. But to blame that harassment on #GamerGate is baseless. These are not facts, and yet it is widely accepted as such. Stop giving attention to the trolls, and please start paying attention to what WE are actually saying.

Link: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sbr2ir

You know, I don't even care that I'm not reading through your tedious textwall. You came here and didn't want to participate in an active conversation on equal terms, and tell yourself you made a positive difference because you re-posted an essay you just posted to the megathread. That level of tone-deafness and refusal to discuss things on equal terms? It's part of the whole Image Problem we're actually here to discuss.

edit: Now they're talking about going nuclear and boycotting all AA games this holiday season if they don't get their unspecified way, and sweet jesus that's adorable. I mean, look, for arbitrary recent point of comparison, Destiny sold near 10 million copies just on day one. Do they realize how many of them there'd have to be to make anything like a dent in numbers that big? Hint: it's much, much, much more of them than there ever were or will be.