Over 1,800 Gaming Professionals Condemn Hate Speech in Open Letter

[Tsun Tzu]

Agreed, but I'll stop you right away. You're absolutely mad if you think that this is about journalistic integrity. Oh, I don't doubt that some people care about it, or maybe even a lot of people have an issue with it. However the response is well beyond that. It's known, downright advertised that videogame journalism is funded by corporations, biased, and otherwise "corrupt"... not unlike all media journalism. This isn't a case of the wool falling from the innocent eyes of the gaming community.

What this is about, and always has been about, is that an idiot woman who's been shouting her mouth off about "feminism" (the worst kind of -ism, clearly) was caught out being a fat hypocrite, and the internet seized on that. Largely, I don't have a problem with that, but what I do have a problem with is the extent of the backlash, the scale of which prompted the linked responses.

I'm hardly mad for believing it to be about journalistic integrity and visible corruption running rampant through a sect of gaming journalism. Just that much is made readily apparent by Kotaku's changing of their ethics code and "adjustments" or "updates" to articles, past and present, to actually represent verifiable conflicts of interest.

We've "known" that they're corrupt for a long time, with examples (dorito pope/kane and lynch firing) cropping up every couple years or so then swiftly forgotten, but this is the single most concrete bit of evidence we've gotten on the subject. It's pervasive and occurring directly in front of our faces with absolutely no effort to hide it. The brazenness of activities and outward showing of contempt from this lot is what's fueling the fires.

I won't lie. Quinn was definitely the impetus, but she was little more than an ignition source, the discussion has long since moved on from her to corruption, cronyism, censorship, and journalistic integrity/ethics. The discussion is about the obvious narratives (see the dozen or so articles with the same tone and idea hitting within a 48 hour period, after the idea to "kill gaming" was suggested by people involved behind the scenes) these people put forth and how, frankly, it's not acceptable.

The entire problem is that they, and folks like yourself, are doing nothing but trying to limit the conversation to that initial ignition source. That would be where the desperate cries of "they just hate women" are originating from. It's a narrative. They don't want to address the actual concern, not directly or publicly announced (see kotaku's rule changing) as that would put them in a less than advantageous position.

I said "for years". These public figures who are dishing out dirt are largely people who write on a regular basis in support of the community. They are people who are personally invested in gaming, the industry and whatever. That's the only reason why they're even identifiable above, say, you or me. Their reaction to "Zoegate" has been rude, sure, because it's insane seeing people form such an online lynch mob. I never said that they were level headed in this situation, but rather that they are professionals, and clearly aren't out to murder people who own consoles.

As for your second paragraph, that just seems naive, without meaning to insult you. Of course you can. Opinions on this are split to that level, and this thing has become so huge it's swept up people who may not normally vocalise their beliefs. People are watching these videos just trying to keep up, and there have been many opportunists on both sides, with firm right wingers who already hate personalities like MovieBob making videos about him to take advantage of the situation, and man haters taking advantage in the same way to prove how sexist the games community is. Of course they are.

The people in question have been abusing their positions "for years" in order to get where they are now. You're very right in your statement that they're "invested" in gaming, most of them being financially invested in one another and profiting from one another's advancement. You're making excuses for their behavior. They are not anonymous trolls. These are people who've built a career by purporting to be, at least outwardly, more professional than some random blogger yammering on in a darkened corner of the internet, but their actions certainly don't merit the respect afforded to professionals. At the very least everyone has the right to call these guys/girls what they are, which would be "jackasses," as un-apologetically as they do the aforementioned trolls. The only distinction between the two is that one has a face and power to sway public opinion while the other is rightfully derided for their actions.

And of course people are taking advantage of the situation (I'm genuinely surprised and heartened to see you mention both sides being in the wrong), that really goes without saying, though whether or not small subsets on either side of the fence behave like petulant children and ignore the focal point of conversation to better suit their aims has little bearing on the evidence being presented. There really is a startling amount floating around, some of it circumstantial, but most goes through a pretty damned rigorous search by multiple people over days. The level of commitment, especially to attempts at verifying what can be verified and openly admitting when something is or isn't circumstantial, we're seeing from all sorts of people on this is sincerely amazing.

I don't think I've seen this many disparate online groups working toward a common goal in...ever. It really is worth taking a look at, just for that reason alone.

I'm glad you do, but you are aligned with a group of people that are doing criminal acts. Hacking, "doxxing", making bomb and death threats... that's not just one guy, and these things haven't happened just once. Are they gamers doing it? Given it's a gaming situation, I think it's safe to assume so. Is it the 00.05% as you've suggested? Neither of us know that. The verbal abuse is very real, and very very visible.

Firstly, the hacking you're referring to has gone unverified as to who the perpetrators are, in all instances that have yet been seen. Each, in fact, has thrown up major red flags about who would or could be the culprits. I mean... /V/? Seriously? TFYC was hacked, if you didn't know. The charity /v/ was supporting. Look into this, it's disconcerting stuff.

Secondly, I'm not aware of "doxxing" taking place from my "side," however, I've seen examples of your "side" doing it (faraci posting an email) though I may just not have seen that yet. I'm certainly open to seeing examples and, frankly, it's bullshit for anyone to be doing that, no matter where they stand on the issues at hand.

Lastly, Why on earth would you think that people associated with this would make bomb threats to Sony? What does that serve? Who even said they were gamers or what their motivations were/are? Claiming that they're part of the group seeking to root out corruption in gaming journalism, when there is absolutely no evidence to prove it, is ludicrous. The same goes for the death threats, if we're referring to that specific one we've all seen in the...ugh...articles on the subject. If we're referring to general threats? It's pretty damned rampant, but surprisingly not from who you'd think. There are certainly individuals doing it, but the "party line" as it were has been to avoid doing such things and do our utmost to be respectful. I keep seeing a general theme of somebody getting aggressive, then five other people jumping on them or advising them to calm down.

The most vile shit I've seen has actually been from your "side" (threatening the life of a ten year old/entire hash tags devoted to insults), though, again, that's just what I've seen. We're sort of at a disadvantage here, because both of us are having to draw on a certain amount of anecdotal evidence to support our view points.

Again, in any case, the harassment and vitriol is not acceptable. It isn't acceptable from anyone, "sides" be damned.

No, I've not, and I won't. I'm an enthusiast, but "gamer" has always held a negative connotation for me, now even more so.

I'm sorry you feel that way? I've referred to myself as such since I was ten and never saw any negative connotations in it, aside from what I was being told by society at large, which, coincidentally, is the metaphorical bludgeon that we're being hit with now; the stereotypical image of a fat neckbearded nerd living in his mom's basement.

"Enthusiast" is a perfectly serviceable term though and whatever nomenclature you deem fit to use is entirely up to you.

The community reacts to a leak about a woman disproportionately, rudely and dangerously. Some figureheads decry this reaction. Now the community is upset that they got called names. You see how ridiculous this sounds? But that's it, boiled down to it's most basic level. It's like the bank robber asking for an apology from the council because they stubbed their toe on the way out.

I've looked into the grievances, yes. They're ridiculous. Even if you all care about journalistic integrity (and I'm prepared to put money that this group of people aren't out protesting against cable news, or bias in music magazines) the reaction and actions of the group are obscene and deserve to be called out. Now, I would never have compared you to ISIS, mostly because as a comparison it doesn't make immediate sense, but the intention behind it stands: if being a "gamer" means that you are the sort of person to create this kind of shitstorm over something so trivial, that you are the kind of person who will hack, abuse and attack in the most despicable way, then that identity needs to be torn down. There's no excuse for it, and while I fully appreciate that YOU have legitimate grievances, and want to discuss and tackle them in a constructive manner, many more don't. They are opportunistic and would be considered a stain in any community.

See, it wasn't that bad at first.

At first, it was just the typical "Oh, ha ha, look at this hypocrite (insert anti-feminist whatever)" shit that crops up from time to time, but once people started really digging into the actual meat of the subject, questions were raised and summarily dismissed by the same people who's ethics were being called into question. And this happened while the mass bans and deletions started...on reddit and 4chan of all places. Deletions of most of 25,000 comments, along with shadow bans, being perpetrated by a reddit mod while they're speaking directly to the people involved in the controversy...how is that not going to rile people?

The community is upset because their legitimate concerns are being outright brushed aside by, again, the same people who's ethics are being called into question in the first place. The same people who have, since this began, instituted a "fuck you" policy to their userbase and done their utmost to stamp out conflicting opinion, even in their own circles, going so far as to ostracize the ones who don't fall in line...and I'm not even touching the "gamers are over" nonsense.

It should come as no surprise at this point that I don't agree with you. The complaints are not ridiculous. There should not be a politically (on either end of the spectrum) driven narrative, blatant conflicts of interest, cronyism, and incestuous behavior in an industry meant to cover games of all things. And why on earth would a group of gamers, ideologically diverse people as they are, go on the offensive against general journalistic integrity in major news and cable/music outlets? It isn't our domain, nor is it something we can affect or that affects our chosen hobby. You could no more claim such a thing than you could claim that we should be out rallying against the North Korean government's lack of journalistic integrity. It isn't at all our domain. It isn't about games. This is.

I can understand if you don't view this issue as being important, but it certainly isn't trivial. And the people behaving abhorrently, on both sides, are not to be held up as representations of the whole. Doing so is just dishonest and a means of reducing either group down to its extremes. All people on your "side" are not flailing social justice psychopaths calling for the mass murder of gamers. All people on my "side" are not murderous sexists hell bent on raping Anita Sarkeesian.

I do sincerely appreciate you taking the time to engage with me and apologize for my earlier hubris on the matter, but, like I said from the get go, the likelihood of us seeing eye to eye on this is really quite low...and after weeks of this, I really am quite tired.

 

[Verlander]

snip

Well you're very right about this going in circles. I make a statement, you circumvent it, then I feel obliged to... all because we have a firm opinion on the matter. I'm happy to call the conversation quits on peaceful terms if you like? I've never actually gone out harassing people who disagree with me, and you don't strike me as the kind either, so I'm thankful for your explained opinions - even if I disagree!

 

[Tsun Tzu]

snip

Well you're very right about this going in circles. I make a statement, you circumvent it, then I feel obliged to... all because we have a firm opinion on the matter. I'm happy to call the conversation quits on peaceful terms if you like? I've never actually gone out harassing people who disagree with me, and you don't strike me as the kind either, so I'm thankful for your explained opinions - even if I disagree!

I don't really agree on the circumvention, if you mean I'm evading them. I really was trying to hit points. :/ But agreeing to disagree sounds good to me.

Glad to have had the discussion regardless and I do appreciate your candor on the matter.

 

[Verlander]

snip

Well you're very right about this going in circles. I make a statement, you circumvent it, then I feel obliged to... all because we have a firm opinion on the matter. I'm happy to call the conversation quits on peaceful terms if you like? I've never actually gone out harassing people who disagree with me, and you don't strike me as the kind either, so I'm thankful for your explained opinions - even if I disagree!

I don't really agree on the circumvention, if you mean I'm evading them. I really was trying to hit points. :/ But agreeing to disagree sounds good to me.

Glad to have had the discussion regardless and I do appreciate your candor on the matter.

Poor choice of words on my part, hardly woken up. I simply meant that I raise points, you answer mine with points of your own, I answer them with new points... the endless waltz of online debate

 

[Tsun Tzu]

snip

Well you're very right about this going in circles. I make a statement, you circumvent it, then I feel obliged to... all because we have a firm opinion on the matter. I'm happy to call the conversation quits on peaceful terms if you like? I've never actually gone out harassing people who disagree with me, and you don't strike me as the kind either, so I'm thankful for your explained opinions - even if I disagree!

I don't really agree on the circumvention, if you mean I'm evading them. I really was trying to hit points. :/ But agreeing to disagree sounds good to me.

Glad to have had the discussion regardless and I do appreciate your candor on the matter.

Poor choice of words on my part, hardly woken up. I simply meant that I raise points, you answer mine with points of your own, I answer them with new points... the endless waltz of online debate

Ah, yeah, I got ya. More than a little off right now myself, rest assured.

No worries.

 

[ScorpionWasp]

If you want to know what the outrage here is all about, let me use a metaphor: yesterday, the leadership of faction A executed a highly coordinated carpet bombing operation that razed an entire town from faction B. People from faction B are furious and outraged. The next day, you open the newspaper and here are the headlines: "Random nobody from faction B witnessed being rude to old lady from faction A in bakery", "Faction B's beer more pricey and tastes like bear piss", "Wave of impolite behavior from faction B perplexes innocent Faction A's leadership", "Sign this petition to end the hatred"

No mention of anything relating to, you know, the carpet bombing that razed a freaking town yesterday. But how can you possibly be furious at something as innocent and agreeable as "Sign this petition to end the hatred"??? Only goes to show what an unreasonable savage you are. Which is precisely what they want people ignorant of what's really going on to think.

 

[ScorpionWasp]

The sad thing is, we people who took the time to research and fact check what's going on are and will probably remain a minority. I hazard the guess that the average reader peruses some articles and videos and that's that. And that's the demographic that matters. That's the demographic that has to be "protected" from us and our "contamination". These articles aren't meant to convince us. They're meant to try and keep who's still ignorant, ignorant. "Uninfected".

 

[hentropy]

If you want to know what the outrage here is all about, let me use a metaphor: yesterday, the leadership of faction A executed a highly coordinated carpet bombing operation that razed an entire town from faction B. People from faction B are furious and outraged. The next day, you open the newspaper and here are the headlines: "Random nobody from faction B witnessed being rude to old lady from faction A in bakery", "Faction B's beer more pricey and tastes like bear piss", "Wave of impolite behavior from faction B perplexes innocent Faction A's leadership", "Sign this petition to end the hatred"

No mention of anything relating to, you know, the carpet bombing that razed a freaking town yesterday. But how can you possibly be furious at something as innocent and agreeable as "Sign this petition to end the hatred"??? Only goes to show what an unreasonable savage you are. Which is precisely what they want people ignorant of what's really going on to think.

That's not a bad metaphor (for my purposes) because it applies to both sides. To one side, the unceasing harassment of Internet personalities for speaking their mind and driving of certain (female) figures from the industry is "the carpet bombing." To the other group, "corruption" (indie devs being close friends with journos covering them) is the "carpet bombing" or something close to it- and it's been going on for years.

What the latter side doesn't understand is that harassment and driving women from the industry is always, always going to be more goddamn important than hearsay about who was too cozy with who. Gaming reviews are simply not that important. Yellow journalism matters in mainstream media because it can start literal wars that end up with people dying.

It's a matter of perspective. Outside the gamer bubble, "X number of women being driven from the industry by #Gamergate" WILL NEVER LOOK GOOD ON YOU. No matter how much you try to tweet or repeat that it's about corruption and ethics, because no matter what you want it to be about, it has turned into a movement which has done nothing practical but sow more spite for gamers and is actively spooking people from the industry, as well as spooking people from speaking freely even in public spaces.

So stop it. Want to support the industry? Support the Fine Young Capitalists. Don't howl and scream about some kind of grand conspiracy that must be stopped at any cost when you're talking about video games.

P.S. guy I quoted, I don't direct any of the 'yous' in this post to you. You just brought up an interesting way to frame the argument, no matter what side you support.

 

[Something Amyss]

If you want to know what the outrage here is all about, let me use a metaphor: yesterday, the leadership of faction A executed a highly coordinated carpet bombing operation that razed an entire town from faction B. People from faction B are furious and outraged. The next day, you open the newspaper and here are the headlines: "Random nobody from faction B witnessed being rude to old lady from faction A in bakery", "Faction B's beer more pricey and tastes like bear piss", "Wave of impolite behavior from faction B perplexes innocent Faction A's leadership", "Sign this petition to end the hatred"

No mention of anything relating to, you know, the carpet bombing that razed a freaking town yesterday. But how can you possibly be furious at something as innocent and agreeable as "Sign this petition to end the hatred"??? Only goes to show what an unreasonable savage you are. Which is precisely what they want people ignorant of what's really going on to think.

I'm sure that made sense to you, but it's completely indistinguishable from a conspiracy theory on this end. Especially with this amorphous "THEY" concept.

 

[Artaneius]

Most basic example: The word "******". Black people can use it to refer to other black people all the time. I can't, since I'm a white guy, without, at best, getting dirty looks and at worst being called a racist. Why am I not allowed to use a word to refer to them that they use? Because it has negative connotations, yet they use it freely. That's privilege, not equality.

It's not privilege. It's a tiny, tiny rebalancing. Fact is, when you call a black person the n-word, you're participating in and contributing to an endemic and historically significant oppression of black people. When people laugh at your 'whiteness', it does you no significant harm, and it's not a product of any systemic harm being done to you and others like you. It's kind of a dick move, but it's not at all the same.

The thing is the literal word of equality has no symbolic meaning. If you ever want true equality to happen, which many minorities and feminists claim then your going to have to let others say things that you say to each other on a daily bases. Your also going to have to forget and forgive about things that no longer dictate what is right or wrong. Equality means being able to treat everyone the exact same. Historically, Africans enslaved themselves way before Europeans starting to setup trade in Africa. And slavery was something practiced since the stone age and all races did it. Look at things objectively rather than just what benefits your race, family, or ethnic origin. We consider ourselves smarter than previous generations but that's not the case.

 

[Something Amyss]

Horribly botched post. I'm going to try and fix it. Hang on.

 

[Something Amyss]

The entire problem is that they, and folks like yourself, are doing nothing but trying to limit the conversation to that initial ignition source.

You now, unless there's mind control involved, they don't have any power over you. Yet I keep seeing the "other side," so to speak, coming back to Quinnspiracy and Anita Sarkeesian. That's why

That would be where the desperate cries of "they just hate women" are originating from.

Sounds like crap. The people flinging poo at at Zoe and company are still doing so. It's bordering on ubiquity and looks like nothing more than a grudge match. To that end:

The community is upset because their legitimate concerns are being outright brushed aside by, again, the same people who's ethics are being called into question in the first place.

There should not be a politically (on either end of the spectrum) driven narrative, blatant conflicts of interest, cronyism, and incestuous behavior in an industry meant to cover games of all things.

And by and large, there has been no demonstration of the latter. Which is why the former sounds like conspiracy theory talk. Most of this is disparate information, cobbled together, taken out of context, to form a narrative, which you are accusing others of doing. A lot of this requires taking people at their word, while complaining about "the official story" and dismissing anyone who says things to the controversy. People should absolutely be against cronyism and conflicts of interest, but that sounds like nothing but more empty rhetoric at this point. The people who are "just asking questions" sound completely indistinguishable from truthers. And they use the same rhetoric.

If only someone had that power to simply not address the Quinnspiracy. If only it didn't sound like an Illuminati-level body would be necessary to keep things in check. If only there was more hard evidence for such grandiose claims. If only we loved just like before, there would be no war....Wait, that's a song. My bad.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Edit: Delete me. I'm not terribly bright.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Horribly botched post. I'm going to try and fix it. Hang on.

I was wondering about that...but sincerely, that exchange actually, somehow, ended on a surprisingly positive note. Any chance of just leaving it be?

I don't particularly want to get into this with ya.

Edit: God damn it. Too late.

You now, unless there's mind control involved, they don't have any power over you. Yet I keep seeing the "other side," so to speak, coming back to Quinnspiracy and Anita Sarkeesian. That's why

That would be where the desperate cries of "they just hate women" are originating from.

Sounds like crap. The people flinging poo at at Zoe and company are still doing so. It's bordering on ubiquity and looks like nothing more than a grudge match.

I'd really hoped "and folks like yourself" would be seen to encompass...well, all the "folks" who make a point of bringing that back up.

A decent chunk of the "dude, stay on topic" posts over in the mega thread have been toward people doing just that sort of thing, especially when some new information or accusation gets posted. They usually calm down, admit to having become distracted, and get back on point.

You do keep seeing it because, as I mentioned, it was the ignition source and, frankly, the narrative, from the other side, has been all about misogyny and harassment of women, so it's bound to be a recurring point of discussion, if only to offer reasons as to why it isn't about those things.

To that end:

The community is upset because their legitimate concerns are being outright brushed aside by, again, the same people who's ethics are being called into question in the first place.

There should not be a politically (on either end of the spectrum) driven narrative, blatant conflicts of interest, cronyism, and incestuous behavior in an industry meant to cover games of all things.

And by and large, there has been no demonstration of the latter. Which is why the former sounds like conspiracy theory talk. Most of this is disparate information, cobbled together, taken out of context, to form a narrative, which you are accusing others of doing. A lot of this requires taking people at their word, while complaining about "the official story" and dismissing anyone who says things to the controversy. People should absolutely be against cronyism and conflicts of interest, but that sounds like nothing but more empty rhetoric at this point. The people who are "just asking questions" sound completely indistinguishable from truthers. And they use the same rhetoric.

If only someone had that power to simply not address the Quinnspiracy. If only it didn't sound like an Illuminati-level body would be necessary to keep things in check. If only there was more hard evidence for such grandiose claims. If only we loved just like before, there would be no war....Wait, that's a song. My bad.

If you've looked through the amassed tweets, links, articles, infodumps, videos, and etc and still come to conclusion that accusations of corruption, with conflicts of interest/cronyism being the primary provable and not circumstantial (by admission of the people actually looking into this) facets, are nothing but people tinfoil hatting all over the place...then...all right? I'm glad you at least took the time to look through things before forming an opinion on the matter and I can't really argue with you on what you choose to believe at this juncture.

I do take issue with the "truther" comparison, however. It just comes off as hyperbolic.

I'm not at all claiming it's some big conspiracy and I take most "links" with a massive grain of salt, as we all should given the current atmosphere, but one can easily point to patreons and pre-existing relationships as points of honest contention in terms of conflicts of interest. At the very least, Kotaku and similar sites addressing the inquiries with changes to their policies illustrates that it is, in fact, a genuine point of concern, whatever you may think of the rest of it.

Apologies if I seem more disjointed or stupid (not hard) than usual. I'm going on 30 hours here.

Edit #2: ...My lack of mental faculties being further illustrated by forgetting to just edit my post.

 

[Six Ways]

The thing is the literal word of equality has no symbolic meaning. If you ever want true equality to happen, which many minorities and feminists claim then your going to have to let others say things that you say to each other on a daily bases. Your also going to have to forget and forgive about things that no longer dictate what is right or wrong. Equality means being able to treat everyone the exact same. Historically, Africans enslaved themselves way before Europeans starting to setup trade in Africa. And slavery was something practiced since the stone age and all races did it. Look at things objectively rather than just what benefits your race, family, or ethnic origin. We consider ourselves smarter than previous generations but that's not the case.

What you just said amounts to 'ignore inequality'. Inequality doesn't just go away because you act like it's not there. The poor stay poor, the rich stay rich, the oppressed stay oppressed etc etc. It's all very well saying 'just treat everyone equally', but the fact is the everyone isn't treated equally yet. So we have to fight actively for equality (not just passively say 'treat everyone equally', and in the meantime if black people reclaim the n-word as their own it's a total non-issue. When we get closer to equality in the more meaningful areas of life, then I'll care about that.

 

[Six Ways]

If you've looked through the amassed tweets, links, articles, infodumps, videos, and etc and still come to conclusion that accusations of corruption, with conflicts of interest/cronyism being the primary provable and not circumstantial (by admission of the people actually looking into this) facets, are nothing but people tinfoil hatting all over the place...then...all right? I'm glad you at least took the time to look through things before forming an opinion on the matter and I can't really argue with you on what you choose to believe at this juncture.

Frankly, the sheer volume of the stuff you refer to is a big part of why it looks exactly like conspiracy theorists doing their thang. The more of this stuff piles up, the more tenuous the links look and the more it resembles a chaotic assortment of newspaper cuttings plastered on a wall, scribbled on with red pen and webbed together with map pins and string.

one can easily point to patreons and pre-existing relationships as points of honest contention in terms of conflicts of interest. At the very least, Kotaku and similar sites addressing the inquiries with changes to their policies illustrates that it is, in fact, a genuine point of concern, whatever you may think of the rest of it.

There are certainly actual facts in there, and genuine concern. But as much as you personally might not take it as a conspiracy, in reality these are very small, innocent connections which only look sinister because they're being framed in the conspiracy narrative that GamerGate is formed around.

And I think a lot of it on 'our' side is refusal to engage with that narrative (which is again, based on conspiracy and born of sexism, even if that's not the only driving force now*), which can easily come off as a blanket dismissal of all concerns. Which I would say it's not, using the very Kotaku example you've given there.

*The reason I claim sexism is still a driving force is that a lot of this is going hand-in-hand with 'Get SJWs out of our hobby!', suggesting that at the very least, the sexist contingent of the community is using it as vindication and a platform for that agenda. For many, it's not about gender, but I have no doubt that it secretly is for a sizeable fraction, be it minority or majority.

 

[panador]

And where's the article about Boogie2988's petition, that has already gained over 8000 supporters?

 

[TKretts3]

Meanwhile, the trolls are furiously masturbating at all the attention they've received, and the games media and game devs alike get to have a guilt-free self-congratulatory wank over how they sure set those nasty gamers on the straight and narrow with the power of their self-righteous indignation.

The thing about trolls is that they really only want a certain amount of attention from a certain group of people. Some random forum goers giving them a bunch of exposure and attention? Yeah, cool, they laugh it off and celebrate. But when a lot of people, powerful people in a position do actually have an effect on things, take notice, that's when they have too much of the wrong kind of attention.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Frankly, the sheer volume of the stuff you refer to is a big part of why it looks exactly like conspiracy theorists doing their thang. The more of this stuff piles up, the more tenuous the links look and the more it resembles a chaotic assortment of newspaper cuttings plastered on a wall, scribbled on with red pen and webbed together with map pins and string.

The sheer volume isn't really a problem, to my eyes, as the connections being made (some of which are tenuous, I and those making them will and do readily admit it) aren't usually stretches of the imagination and, as I said in brackets, the far out ones are labeled as such or generally dog piled on for being that way. A driving ideal behind it seems to be "only bring forth and bank on what can be reasonably interpreted as evidence, back up your conclusions, and admit when you're wrong."

The idea seems to be to gather tidbits and context in order to cast as deep of a shadow of doubt as possible. To these people's credit, the saddest part about this whole thing is that they're not really having to try very hard in order to do it.

There are certainly actual facts in there, and genuine concern. But as much as you personally might not take it as a conspiracy, in reality these are very small, innocent connections which only look sinister because they're being framed in the conspiracy narrative that GamerGate is formed around.

And I think a lot of it on 'our' side is refusal to engage with that narrative (which is again, based on conspiracy and born of sexism, even if that's not the only driving force now*), which can easily come off as a blanket dismissal of all concerns. Which I would say it's not, using the very Kotaku example you've given there.

*The reason I claim sexism is still a driving force is that a lot of this is going hand-in-hand with 'Get SJWs out of our hobby!', suggesting that at the very least, the sexist contingent of the community is using it as vindication and a platform for that agenda. For many, it's not about gender, but I have no doubt that it secretly is for a sizeable fraction, be it minority or majority.

I'm glad that you can see there's at least some merit in what's being brought forth, but we just disagree on our interpretation of what is "innocent."

Journalists were and are reporting, positively, on the work of or in defense of friends, partners, and people they financially support without disclosing the information in their articles. Simply recusing themselves and handing it off to a peer or disclosing would have resolved that issue, but...no.

Frankly, this article by Erik Kain over at Forbes does a good job of outlining the problems involved here while being pretty even-handed, and still sort of falling on the non-gamergate side of things:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/

The primary problem is a fundamental lack of trust, which has been damaged even more during this debacle, and it's allowing for all sorts of ideologues to throw their hats into the ring and be taken seriously...well, more than there were to begin with anyway.

It's a bit of a cluster fuck in general.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Wow, a lot of people with backwards opinion with way too much time on their hands here in this forum. This community is toxic, and it's not Game Journalism fault that it's that way. It's ours. Their responses are the appropriate amount of disgust to how we behave, or nearly as damning, what we don't say and allow. Sure, I can see it being often tactless (the ISIS comment), and maybe a call for more thought is in order, but their condemnation is right on the mark. We constantly ruin the fun and some cases lives, for thousands if not millions of people with our terrible attitude and behavior, or our acceptance of it.

A woman can't even play online for one hour without being sexually harassed, nor can she show up at convention and be accepted by all as a legitimate fan of the hobby, or criticize the content of a game without being threatened with assault, murder, and rape of her and her family. And that's just our issue with gender and their still race and sexuality to contend with, so yeah, we need condemnation, and furthermore we need to purge any and every person that thinks that any of the above is acceptable.

This will probably be a bit offensive, but you're blatantly wrong and are (possibly unintentionally) being an example of exactly why so many in the gaming community are pissed off. Much of the gaming community is sick of being grouped in with the asshats that genuinely are misogynistic as fuck, and the notions that the way many high-profile gaming journalists have reacted is in any way appropriate is hypocritical at best. Telling people that they should die, putting words into people's mouths, deflecting all criticisms as misogyny and harassment, harassing and doxxing others - all of these thing are what many journalists are guilty of, and none of this is ever appropriate. That's not even touching the journalistic integrity side of this, either.

Simply put, gamers as a whole should not be written off as a bunch of misogynists, because most of us are not. We've gladly played with women in WoW, in TF2, in CoD even. We've followed women journalists, female devs, and lady gamers on their sites and channels. Just look at how popular Susan Arendt was on this very site as proof of that. To write all or even most of us off as women-hating douche bags who actively harass women at any given opportunity is... well, offensive. It's straight up offensive, and demeans us as people.

Yes, some people like Anita do get a LOT of crap, and there are misogynists that do harass and threaten her. However, most people who criticize her do so because of who she is personally, not because they hate all women as a whole. On top of that, even Anita's critics are nowhere near large enough to represent all gamers, so bundling them together only adds to the "grouping all gamers as misogynists" fire.