Lissie InCode said:
So I know about the planted names, back and forth, etc. The thing is, there ARE actual slut shamers and bad guys in your group and they've carried your message and they lit your fires. I have been here from the start, and there was a reason an angry ex tipped it all. It would be more honest and show more integrity if you all acknowledged that because I am not buying that there were "plants." Sure, some shit may have been planted but I doubt all of it was. It's not likely.
Once again, that looters show up to peaceful protests doesn't make the protest somehow a group dedicated to looting. It just means that people are people and as such are biologically evolved to take advantage of exploits when they see them.
The angry Ex tipped multiple things. Some were relevant to the movement and some were just shaming his girlfriend. For example, I advocated right away that even if there ended up being something to the sleeping with the journalist bit then it'd be on the journalists' shoulders. Turned out that they had been making out two weeks before the article was released according to Zoe's own words. Even then, Zoe isn't so much the issue as just someone who was able to take advantage of the corrupt system. She was only able to tell journalists not to interview TFYC because the system allowed cronyism, she was only able to get additional coverage from Grayson because the system allowed nepotism, and she was only able to falsely accuse a group of people of harassing her (going so far as to attribute an anonymous call to the group with nothing but breathing happening on the other end) because the system allowed reporting accusations without any fact checking.
So the whole sex thing should have really been discussed from Grayson's side. Not Zoe's side. It's just that the only people discussing the issue were non-traditional journalists who went with it from Eron's side. But it was Grayson's fault that he didn't disclose the relationship, not Zoe's. The article should have been that Grayson wrote articles elevating and benefiting people he was in a relationship. Zoe isn't responsible for him doing that unless there was some explicit agreement of exchange of services anymore than you're responsible for what your loved ones do at work.
I doubt think you, or GamerGate, should be silent. I think you should grow. I think you should get another hashtag, organize apart from this brand, and leap forward. Because it's the best way to achieve your goals. The good in GamerGate is doing a sever disservice to itself by wrapping in the bad as a distraction. It also confuses your brand image and goal: if I was an outsider, I wouldn't know if you were for better journalism, or against "bad" feminism. Even if you don't believe in anything else I said, you should believe in smart social networking and inbound marketing if you want o make change on an online platform.
We've already been achieving our goals. Sites have already begun changing their ethical policies and the heightened awareness of journalistic ethical breaches is making other sites more cautious of their editing.
Pray tell, what other sort of success do you think we could expect from some other hashtag. #EthicalJournalism or something?
How about instead we continue to discuss the issue under the current controversy and show the gaming media's attempt to misdirect our point as part of the controversy. Dismissing complaints about journalism is going to have to stop eventually. Every time I've heard it brought up on all these interviews it's always been, "Sure, there's a huge issue with corruption but...". It's a shame that in that very moment the interviewer doesn't stop them and have them explain. But instead the rest of the interview is inevitably about how harassers exist and it's usually one sided without mentioning that both sides have the same elements afoot and the anti-gamergate even has people who are sabotaging and trying to derail charities... which is nuts.
To change brands or to stop talking because the very corruption we're talking about was aimed at us would be a misstep. Perhaps even cowardice. There's no reason why another hashtag movement can't spin up in addition to gamergate and when one such attempt finds solid ground then it'll make sense to jump on it. But for now, gamergater sheets are the only material we can find for a banner people can see.
I don't think this is about "winning" and neither should you. Making change is about compromise and strategy, and success. There are no goodies and baddies. There is only change.
I disagree. There are goodies and there are baddies. But I'm not as utilitarian as you. The in-between matters. The harassers on both sides, the doxxers, the threateners, those are baddies regardless of cause. The corrupt, the coercive, the colluding? Those are the baddies regardless of cause.
There can be both goodies and baddies in addition to change and not change.
And I don't buy it was just opponents who "tarnished GG;" the hashtag seems to have done a good enough job of that on it's own already. Remember, the real harms come from within. I doubt the successes GamerGate lauds (mostly advertisers pullings funds from gossip rags) is quite the success it seems now, because it doesn't help you achieve your goals. It just hurts the opposition.
Hurting the opposition, showing them that they can't bully us as consumers or wave off their serious ethical issues is important.
Their belief that they can lash out at their consumers without any repercussions was quite a white tower for them. That's now gone because we're also consumers of their employers (the marketing companies).
If it seems like I'm asking a lot, that's because GamerGate has demanded so much from others and to my eyes, so little from itself.
Adhering to standard ethics in journalism as well as acknowledging the indiscretions uncovered and committed ruing this whole scandal is a lot? That speaks volumes, I suppose. Seems like the escapist didn't have a problem with putting those in place months ago. It seems like everyone starts their statements with, "Yeah, there's a serious problem in the industry but..." and they think it's already time to move on in discussion when just dealing with the first half would get the vast majority of us to shut up.
So very, very little from itself.
We are consumers. This is a consumer revolt. If they do what we ask we continue to be their consumers. Those things they make a living off of. It's our prerogative as consumers to complain about the quality of the product without offering any concessions besides continuing to consume their product. Simple as that. Do you think a restaurant goer has to "ask" something of themselves when they ask the guy behind the counter to stop putting his genitals in their smoothie? That's a weird demand to make of a consumer.
You ask for integrity but GamerGate itself has little to none.
Says you. I'd say gamergate is a huge group with no leader and so it is irrelevant. We're not set up as "journalists" reporting news. We're not breaking a code of ethics when discuss something we care about. Are you proposing that the "anti-GamerGate" crowd has integrity? Last I saw they hacked a charity website to try and derail it as well as writing to multiple charities demonizing them for accepting money because they (the anti-GG community)
You preach charity claims from GamerGate supporters but those are private funds from private people, and they're not very much to brag about when weighed against the charity your opposition has given.
Huh? Who do you consider to be our opposition? People haven't donated in the name of Anti-GG as far as I know. Are you talking about individual charitable giving for all time? We're a mass of people from all different backgrounds. Are you making a claim that you have a God's eye view of our demographic and who we are or were before this? That we aren't otherwise charitable? Are you likewise saying that you know the personal charitable behaviors of the anti-GG side?
Look the point isn't even so much that we donated to a female developer charity group. It's moreso that our opposition tried to silence them, doxx their creators, hacked into their donation site and brought it down, and tried to bully the charity themselves into not accepting the donations when the bullies are the ones who refused to even cover them at the request of Zoe. That's hilariously droll.
GamerGate wants the discussion to move beyond Zoe Quinn yet it was that scandal itself which lit all your fires and coalesced everything. You all preach tolerance but everywhere I turn, most of your spaces scream against SJW as if that's a bad thing to everyone (it's not). It's dubious and spurious to me that there has been such opposition to Sarkeesian when even now, publishers and game devs who do actual harm are left untouched.
There's an issue of semantics that people may fall into when they discuss SJWs. It's easy to think that people are literally just talking about feminists or human rights advocates when they complain about SJW agendas but there turns out to be multiple different definitions of the terms.
People who are pro-SJW just define them as people who advocate for social justice. There's absolutely nothing wrong with social justice and is in fact a very admirable thing to pursue to the vast majority of us.
However, the other definitions, the ones that many of GG are using when they say SJW isn't the same one the pro-SJW are using. To them, these are the people who are exploiting social causes for personal gain or the individuals who aren't teaching equality but rather a full pendulum swing to the other side of the spectrum where the majority becomes underprivileged and only the minority groups are given a voice because it's "their turn now". To them it also means people who want them to feel bad, like they've done something wrong, just for being a man or for being white. That they're somehow evil for it.
So with such a vast disparity in the definition of the term, it may be that both sides are hearing the same words but thinking drastically different things.
For example, I am absolutely a feminist. I think a dollar spent by a female consumer is every bit as green as a dollar spent by a male consumer and should be seen identically. I completely believe in wage equality for the same job and equal opportunities elsewhere. I will fight for those rights. But when I think about SJWs I'm not thinking about groups advocating for equality or feminism. I think about people who exploit feminist causes and even abuse them for personal gain without any real motivations on the issue. I think about the people who call all men ticking time-rape-bombs without any irony or jest.
So... consider that you're misinterpreting what we're saying when we're expressing frustration about SJWs being given an amplified voice. People like Anita Sarkeesian should be able to be be criticized, particularly on the merits of her debate without magically throwing us into an anti-woman category. There are some significant holes in her damsel arguments and her claim that games actually harm society that should be discussed on an intellectual basis but the environment of journalism puts her on a pedestal whose top is unreachable. It's actually probably why so many people are vehemently against her. The media failing to address those issues is creating something like a streisand effect in that area. And why? Because journalists have decided that the cause she's advocating for is right and they're unwilling to have any further discussion about it.
That's not right. The discussion should happen and it should be fair/balanced. That will progress the ball more than being a tight-lipped ship taking sides because equality is the inevitable conclusion. Equality is the moral imperative. So them refusing to let nature take its course is just drawing a land in the sand and making it worse.
Liana Kerzner in the interview linked below states that the moderate members of gamergate she's interviewed say that "We want to support women in gaming, we want to believe that people are what they say, but the reporting (they believe) is so biased they can't trust it".
The worst in me says, GamerGate is a bunch of people being socially manipulated by some very, very good social engineers who want to just "shake things up" and that, as they say, is that. But the best in me says there are also some good ones there, and you do want change in some areas of gaming which need it. So I will reiterate: get a better brand, get organized, and get away from the mindset you need to protect the misogynist trolls in your brand to succeed (and if you don't or can't think you can do that, I feel sorry for you, because you can if you foster a culture from within which demands it).
I think there's merit to both sides having a significant amount of social manipulation going on. I've seen the anti-GG side acknowledge the journalism issues readily, like I said, but move onto the other side. So I've seen journalism absolutely only focusing on the harassers without giving any time to those of us making legitimate claims. Why do you think that is? Why do the harassers, most of whom are anonymous, get the only voice and not us?
You should consider that journalism sites are concerned about being exposed. That it benefits them to keep focusing on those few elements you're decrying here (and you are right to be upset about them) without addressing the other side.
As long as journalists fail to address the side of the sane people, the insane people are going to continue to have a wall of said sane people to stand behind. Again, like a peaceful protest, people will use that as long as it's there to mask their looting and pickpocketing. That doesn't make the protest wrong or illegitimate, that only really speaks to the looters.
We're beginning to see it break. We're starting to have the journalism issues discussed. David Pakman is beginning to give a voice to both sides and is asking tremendously hard questions.
Now that it's starting, we can begin to get to the facts of the matter. Once we have the facts, that's when compromise can happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OflBPs49vok
That's an interview with Liana Kerzner of Polygon being interviewed. I strongly recommend watching it. Excellent interview. She's taken a position somewhere in between both sides and it's wonderful to see such a balanced perspective from someone in the know.
He has also interviewed Brianna Wu and Nero who I think were both to the extreme on either side. Though Wu's extremeness is certainly understood considering her own behavior.
Love to see the right questions being asked of all sides. I actually only found the review above in responding to you to find a decent impartial interview. Interesting point she makes about Leigh Alexander not being on the journopros site. Smart, female, non-corrupt gaming journalist, gamer, nerd? She's our unicorn. Just look at the desk behind her, what a collection of fantastic lore. Darkwing Duck, Tin Tin, an Alex Ross print and of course Yoda. A fantastic addition to our coterie albeit with some well-placed caveats that she's on the more moderate side.
