Why is Being Nuetral in GamerGate a bad thing?

[Ima Lemming]

I don't even know what the hell is going on in GamerGate. I just saw it crop up one day and thought "Wait, that one online game retailer?" And even after scraping together what I can about it, I can't tell if it's supposed to be about journalistic integrity, or feminism in the games industry, or a bunch of people calling somebody a whore, or what. If I don't even know what the cause is, how am I supposed to take a stance on it?

But I think when people get mad about somebody being neutral about it, they've been heated up by the debate, and are either taking a "With us or against us" stance as was said before, or reading it as a thought-terminating cliche: "Who cares! Let's all just shut up and enjoy video games!"

 

[Dragonmouth]

Though I'm not neutral on Gamergate, I don't see neutrality as such a bad thing. To me, the most mind-blowing thing about Gamergate hasn't been the harassment or the misogyny. It's been how angry and serious people get over video game reviews and how "ethics in gaming journalism" is considered a worthwhile crusade. I hate biased journalism, but I can't imagine getting all bent out of shape over one of the least important sectors of the journalist profession.

 

[Combustion Kevin]

Though I'm not neutral on Gamergate, I don't see neutrality as such a bad thing. To me, the most mind-blowing thing about Gamergate hasn't been the harassment or the misogyny. It's been how angry and serious people get over video game reviews and how "ethics in gaming journalism" is considered a worthwhile crusade. I hate biased journalism, but I can't imagine getting all bent out of shape over one of the least important sectors of the journalist profession.

And normally we wouldn't care, but journalism in it's current state has gotten people fired over their opinions, gamejams sabotaged without anyone willing to publish a report on it, indie games given preferential treatment and accusations reported as fact with no fact-checking.
To top it off, discussion and confrontation are met hostility and censorship, that is why we care.

 

[Catfood220]

I didn't care about all this stuff, but I thought I'd get myself sort of up to speed with what was going on seeing as people are talking about it on the "we've been attacked" thread. Reading 8 pages of it made my head go numb.

I've gone back to not caring.

 

[grassgremlin]

An update to this thread, from this post on.
I weighed my options on it, and I think I lean more Anti-gg.
While I really have no interest to participate in this thing any further, I officially picked a side with my stance.

But thanks for the conversations and perspective guys.

 

[Calbeck]

Just as my opinion, if you are neutral, it seems to me that you are deliberately ignoring seriously terrible behavior --- behavior which could cause real, long-term damage to the gaming community --- on both sides.

There are the self-appointed Shitlords, who revel in making everyone miserable because they can. Less a matter of misogynism, perhaps, than being empowered by the Internet to live out their inner douchebaggery. Into this lot, the genuine misogynists also fall as a matter of natural alliance.

Then you have the self-appointed Cultural Rebuilders, who have openly said it's time to tear gaming culture down as a whole because they believe it's ALL misogynist, down to the core. They are massively overstating their case, but as members of the press able (and obviously quite willing) to shut down dissent on their own sites, they swagger about like drunken Navy men looking for some mook to dare crossing their collective paths. Let's not even get into the instances where they've tried exporting that to sites they DON'T own. Like this one.

In the middle, slammed by crossfire better described as an artillery duel, ARE THE REST OF US.

And we're pissed off at being lumped into one camp or another by the Shitlords and Cultural Rebuilders.

Those who want to be neutral in this can only do so either by remaining blissfully unknowing of how we all got here, or because the deliberately turn their backs to it. "I have had enough of your shit" is understandable, but... well... not really helpful in terms of ending this and getting back to Lovey-Dovey Land any faster.

 

[grassgremlin]

If you were actually neutral, you probably wouldn't be creating bait-threads about it.

Maybe the negative reactions you're getting is more from the fact that you're being obviously disingenuous in a manner that insults people's intelligence?

I literally have no idea what you're talking about. Are you referring to my last post?
Is it so hard to believe someone has a change of opinion over time. Also this thread is old.
Don't start conflicts because you hate someone's opinion.

 

[grassgremlin]

Just as my opinion, if you are neutral, it seems to me that you are deliberately ignoring seriously terrible behavior --- behavior which could cause real, long-term damage to the gaming community --- on both sides.

There are the self-appointed Shitlords, who revel in making everyone miserable because they can. Less a matter of misogynism, perhaps, than being empowered by the Internet to live out their inner douchebaggery. Into this lot, the genuine misogynists also fall as a matter of natural alliance.

Then you have the self-appointed Cultural Rebuilders, who have openly said it's time to tear gaming culture down as a whole because they believe it's ALL misogynist, down to the core. They are massively overstating their case, but as members of the press able (and obviously quite willing) to shut down dissent on their own sites, they swagger about like drunken Navy men looking for some mook to dare crossing their collective paths. Let's not even get into the instances where they've tried exporting that to sites they DON'T own. Like this one.

In the middle, slammed by crossfire better described as an artillery duel, ARE THE REST OF US.

And we're pissed off at being lumped into one camp or another by the Shitlords and Cultural Rebuilders.

Those who want to be neutral in this can only do so either by remaining blissfully unknowing of how we all got here, or because the deliberately turn their backs to it. "I have had enough of your shit" is understandable, but... well... not really helpful in terms of ending this and getting back to Lovey-Dovey Land any faster.

I was nuetral because I was weighing opinions on both sides. But this topic is relevent sense recently a few days after I posted this thread my opinion has changed. Still, is it so hard to be nuetral when your introduction to this debate is seeing both sides shouting with no clear goal transparent reason?

 

[Aurion]

Why is being neutral in GamerGate a bad thing? It's not, unless you actually care about the opinion of someone who blames you for being neutral in GamerGate. At which point you should re-evaluate whose opinions it is you care about.

Personally, I find both "sides" to be full of sneering, condescending douchebaggery. And yet, they both have at least the germ of a point buried under all the rhetoric.

So I can kind of see both sides, while at the same time thinking that both sides are relying pretty much wholly on misreps and bullshit to paper over the cracks in their own arguments. I pretty much clock out the minute I see the word misogyny or the term SJW as it is practically guaranteed whoever's using it has no bloody idea what they're talking about. It's almost as bad as reading a political argument.

Almost. The only funny part about the GameJournoPros thing was the people saying gaming discussion was a toxic shitpile. Clearly none of them ever tried reading a political argument on a site that doesn't have the moderation standards of, say, here.

 

[Aurion]

Oh, gays want to get married? Oh, gays can still be fired for being gay in several states? Gay being way likelier to commit suicide is a real thing? Oh I know actual gay people and don't wish them any ill will.

WELL, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE "A SIDE", COUNT ME NEUTRAL!

Not taking a side is being complicit in a stupid way. Try taking a reasoned approach.

That is a legitimately terrible analogy and you should be ashamed of yourself. GamerGate isn't nothing, but equating it to the debate over gay marriage?

Jesus. A little perspective would be nice.

 

[Aurion]

It's plenty apt. Hell, just 7 years ago CNN would have hate mongers no different than KKK members on to debate gay rights activists about the legitimacy of even being gay. It was an issue with no sides, forced to have one. Rightly, the "side" paradigm came down but when it was up people actually did things like stay neutral in a situation where neutrality was an insult.

This is not even remotely comparable to the ongoing debate over gay marriage in scale, focus, importance, or even the level of vitriol.

It's entirely possible to think that neither side in GamerGate is anything like right, and it's entirely possible to think they're both partially right but not entirely. This is not a binary proposition. This is not "if you're not with us, you're against us"; there is plenty of room for nuance.

What this is not is a social issue that will impact the lives of damn near everyone in at least some small way for generations to come.

So.

No. No, it's not even close.

-

As an aside, what do you mean, seven years ago? That happens now on CNN.

 

[Aurion]

What? I'M the one arguing that there isn't a binary here.

. . . . .

Elaborate. Were you being sarcastic, is this an attempt at time-travel backpedaling, or?

 

[Aurion]

What are you talking about, is gamergate a flimsy veiled attempt to further marginalize women by restricting their avenues for press? YES.

That is your opinion.

Prove it.

So is staying neutral on a misogynistic platform a good idea? NO. The binary doesn't exist, use that like a map to slash down. THERE ISN'T A SIDE YO.

Ah yes, "ideologues". The illogical race of unreasoning fanatics allegedly annihilating attempts at discussion.

Oh... unfortunately we cannot dismiss that claim.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

Obligatory:


Anyway, yeah, I'm neutral on this whole thing. While I'd probably lean more to the "SJW" side because I like the idea of inclusiveness (and I've been already operating under the assumption that game journalism is pretty corrupt anyway ever since that whole GameSpot/Kane&Lynch fiasco), there's no way I'd take up the banner for either side with how much maturity they both seem to lack. Maybe one or both sides have a reasonable, well-mannered core... but right now it seems like the bile-spewing loud voice on both sides is the majority rather than the minority. Frankly, I feel like both sides are handling the situation poorly and doing nothing but fueling each-other's fires. No one's making any progress, because everyone's just going around in circles.

That said, I don't think I've really been harassed (yet?) for refusing to take a side, so there is that, at least.