Why is Being Nuetral in GamerGate a bad thing?

Madame_Lawliet

New member
Jul 16, 2013
319
0
0
Honestly, I used to be seriously against Gamergate and those who supported it (and I wasn't, and am still not, afraid to say that this whole damn thing is nothing but a joke), but I'm so past caring at this point, I just want this stupid NONtroversy to end.

I don't see how you can blame anyone for not wanting to be involved with this stupid thing, I certainly wish I hadn't gotten involved.
The more people are neutral the faster Gamergate will thankfully fade into obscurity, die an unceremonious death, and we can all move on to the gaming community's next mass hissy fit.

Also, out of curiosity what did Totalbiscuit say exactly? I heard that he tried to remain neutral on the matter but worded his response very poorly, I don't know exactly what he said though so I don't really have basis for an opinion yet.
 

Nirallus

New member
Sep 18, 2014
58
0
0
Zontar said:
Nirallus said:
Because of the positions taken by each side in this argument.

To the pro-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against collusion in media, censorship, and the efforts by far-left academia to push their agenda.
To the anti-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against misogyny, harassment, entitlement, and the patriarchal hegemony.
I think you have the two sides mixed up there, and I neither remember entitlement nor patriarchal hegemoney being brought up by the anti-GG side (I mean hell, you have to bend over pretty far backwards to make the claim that the latter even exists in the West outside of small niche markets).
The view from their side is simply this: The backlash represented by GG has been so fierce because one of the last bastions of male privilege is tumbling down. Gaming culture is a misogynistic construct, and must therefore be destroyed in order to further social justice.

I used to dismiss these people as Tumblr crazies, but the involvement of groups like DiGRA and Silverstring Media shows a concerted effort to push a far-left agenda [http://pastebin.com/jrLJyp0W] using just that sort of language. "We talked a big game at DiGRA about dismantling hegemonic masculinity through intimate friendships. Tearing down those emotional walls that are part of the infrastructure of gendered oppression." [http://silverstringmedia.com/blog/]
 

DC_78

New member
Dec 9, 2013
87
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
impartiality is bullshit. There's no such thing as an objective game review, and rather than pretend that objectivity exists, and pretend that the only thing that matters in every game is how it functions, and not how we react to it as human beings, we should embrace people for having opinions, for not giving GTA V a 10/10 because it checks all the boxes, yet was offputting for some reason or another. We should be welcoming people who will exercise their passion, and not bring down a firestorm of hate when they graded our favwoute gwame differently because they didn't like something about it that deviates from the checklist.
I entirely disagree. Impartiality is paramount to reviews to me. I do not care about what the "message" is in a game. I do not play games to be educated. I play them to relax and blow off steam. After you tell me if you know the developer, co-signed for a car loan for the person, or are second cousins. Tell me if a game is fun. What mechanics are good, new, and original. How good the story is even if you do not agree with it for some reason did it at least grab you enough to keep you interested? That type of stuff.

Do not preach at me that the game is off-putting to someone because it has a woman with big boobies and skimpy clothes in it. Do not try and tell me an NPC's portrayal is racist in some way because you think so. I am an adult I can figure that stuff out for myself.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
Nirallus said:
Zontar said:
Nirallus said:
Because of the positions taken by each side in this argument.

To the pro-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against collusion in media, censorship, and the efforts by far-left academia to push their agenda.
To the anti-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against misogyny, harassment, entitlement, and the patriarchal hegemony.
I think you have the two sides mixed up there, and I neither remember entitlement nor patriarchal hegemoney being brought up by the anti-GG side (I mean hell, you have to bend over pretty far backwards to make the claim that the latter even exists in the West outside of small niche markets).
The view from their side is simply this: The backlash represented by GG has been so fierce because one of the last bastions of male privilege is tumbling down. Gaming culture is a misogynistic construct, and must therefore be destroyed in order to further social justice.

I used to dismiss these people as Tumblr crazies, but the involvement of groups like DiGRA and Silverstring Media shows a concerted effort to push a far-left agenda [http://pastebin.com/jrLJyp0W] using just that sort of language. "We talked a big game at DiGRA about dismantling hegemonic masculinity through intimate friendships. Tearing down those emotional walls that are part of the infrastructure of gendered oppression." [http://silverstringmedia.com/blog/]
Just because they have two groups which are trying to shove their far-left opinions down our throats despite the fact that a large number of them either don't play games or don't play games which have the biggest market, that does not change the fact that they are still crazies. They may say that gaming culture is a misogynistic construct, but that changes nothing about the fact that the statement is disconnected from reality on a level which can only come about from a university class which provides junk degrees.

The most dangerous part of it all isn't the fact they exist (people of all opinions always will), it's the fact that people who should know better are taking them seriously, even in ways which are counter to their stated goals.
 

Nirallus

New member
Sep 18, 2014
58
0
0
Once objectivity is out the window, what stops reviewers from taking a hatchet to every aspect of a game because (say) it doesn't have an LGBT character? Or worse, what stops journalists from getting together behind the scenes and saying "This Game is 'problematic', so cover it as little as possible and rip it apart once we have no choice but to talk about it"?

Zontar said:
Nirallus said:
Zontar said:
Nirallus said:
Because of the positions taken by each side in this argument.

To the pro-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against collusion in media, censorship, and the efforts by far-left academia to push their agenda.
To the anti-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against misogyny, harassment, entitlement, and the patriarchal hegemony.
I think you have the two sides mixed up there, and I neither remember entitlement nor patriarchal hegemoney being brought up by the anti-GG side (I mean hell, you have to bend over pretty far backwards to make the claim that the latter even exists in the West outside of small niche markets).
The view from their side is simply this: The backlash represented by GG has been so fierce because one of the last bastions of male privilege is tumbling down. Gaming culture is a misogynistic construct, and must therefore be destroyed in order to further social justice.

I used to dismiss these people as Tumblr crazies, but the involvement of groups like DiGRA and Silverstring Media shows a concerted effort to push a far-left agenda [http://pastebin.com/jrLJyp0W] using just that sort of language. "We talked a big game at DiGRA about dismantling hegemonic masculinity through intimate friendships. Tearing down those emotional walls that are part of the infrastructure of gendered oppression." [http://silverstringmedia.com/blog/]
Just because they have two groups which are trying to shove their far-left opinions down our throats despite the fact that a large number of them either don't play games or don't play games which have the biggest market, that does not change the fact that they are still crazies. They may say that gaming culture is a misogynistic construct, but that changes nothing about the fact that the statement is disconnected from reality on a level which can only come about from a university class which provides junk degrees.

The most dangerous part of it all isn't the fact they exist (people of all opinions always will), it's the fact that people who should know better are taking them seriously, even in ways which are counter to their stated goals.
The whole problem has been that this left-wing fringe clique has, until recently, had things all their own way in the gaming press. They were using it to try to push their agenda into gaming itself, and if that doesn't work, try to destroy gaming and rebuild it to their liking.

Some people see in that a microcosm of their goals for journalism in general, and society at large. The universities that provide junk degrees in this stuff includes most college and university humanities departments.

Literally Who [https://twitter.com/FoolishReporter/status/513156016750329858/photo/1] herself seems to be an adherent. Whether the run-of-the-mill Special Snowflakes and SJW's are aware of it or not, the insane statements they spout can all be traced back to this philosophy.
 

DC_78

New member
Dec 9, 2013
87
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Yeah, I understand that people often look at reviews just solely for the objective values, which is why I think most reviewers should split their reviews into two segments - the game as a vehicle for the player (gameplay, graphics, controls, settings,) and the game as a world in which the player has a personal experience. Also, since the story is largely an emotional impact, I don't think it can fall into the former. Whether you think the story is good is all personal taste, and the closest thing to objective evaluation of its quality is counting up the number of plotholes, which is pretty difficult to do if you were invested in it (see: Bioshock Infinite honeymoon period).
I agree completely with this and would encourage it. I have no problems with the reviewer having opinions on social matters, feminist theories in games, or even extreme conservative anti-violence. I just do not want every review on every site to have the same snarky tone thrown in because the next AAA or indie they have on their to-review list is a genre or whatever off putting element they personally dislike.

Case in point: Yahtzee. Imagine if every major website had nothing but reviewers that hate FPS's as scum-gargle-wee-wee, and felt the need to tell the audience so whenever they review a FPS. Hence why I do not take Yahtzee's reviews of FPS seriously, but he is only one critic. On the other hand, this has become rather commonplace when it comes to the big 5 websites.

Partially because the reviewers are tired of the same thing every year. I can understand that. I am not thrilled to pick up this year's CoD either(this from a man that has three copies of Ghosts on different systems in his house right now). They look at AAA and see the franchises that make money, and they cringe at the thought of reviewing them because they're sick of them. That is fine. Just recuse yourself from that review, and find the next Gone Home to do instead. Stand by your principles and hand the CoD review off to the new guy that needs a break.

As for the "gamer's want their games to not be art" argument or that developers want their games to "grow into something real". Bullshit. Games are already art. They may not all be socially forward thinking, but every piece of art does not have to be. That is elitist to think that consumer art is different than intellectual art. I can think Gone Home is shite, but still call it art.
 
Feb 9, 2011
1,735
0
0
Xan Krieger said:
I'm firmly on the side of "meh", I'm neutral in that I don't really care. I've been ignoring the whole thing and sticking to playing games instead of whatever that whole thing was about.
Ditto. I honestly don't care at all. Corruption in gaming journalism is like, well, any other journalism category. There's good, bad and everything in between.

I'll stick to playing games and making my own judgements on everything since I do that anyway.
 

runic knight

New member
Mar 26, 2011
1,118
0
0
what is wrong with being neutral on this?

I know many would probably assume I would be hellbent to get people to side with gamergate itself, but honestly, if you are neutral, just be fair and keep about it Switzerland. Not everyone will feel the same passion about this subject, so expecting them to pick a side and dig in seems a little silly. Not sure about anyone else, but if you want to just watch things from the side lines and be neutral, all power to you.
 

Lunar Archivist

New member
Aug 28, 2014
19
0
0
Madame_Lawliet said:
Honestly, I used to be seriously against Gamergate and those who supported it (and I wasn't, and am still not, afraid to say that this whole damn thing is nothing but a joke), but I'm so past caring at this point, I just want this stupid NONtroversy to end.

I don't see how you can blame anyone for not wanting to be involved with this stupid thing, I certainly wish I hadn't gotten involved.
The more people are neutral the faster Gamergate will thankfully fade into obscurity, die an unceremonious death, and we can all move on to the gaming community's next mass hissy fit.
What shocks me is that people fail to realize how bad this is or could get in the future.

Everyone just looks at where this started and seems to be stuck there. It's like not being able to get past the break-in at the Watergate Hotel when we're already at the point where Nixon White House tapes are starting to surface.

Just to put this in context: because of one insignificant indie developer's tabloid-esque private life, a bunch of gaming media sites conspired to censor as much of the Internet as they could, quashed all discussion of it, and engaged in a massive smear campaign on the people who realized something fishy was going on to cover their own asses.

I can't understand how people can not worry about this. What happens if it's something more important or serious that they try and cover up next time?
 

AlouetteSK

New member
Sep 4, 2014
47
0
0
Heck, it's already bad now. Remember 4chan, that place where you can post almost anything you wanted, no matter how hateful? The place where everyone is a ______-[BundleOfSticks]? Mods are going trigger ban happy over there on GamerGate discussion and other things. I've heard of people being banned for being off topic on /b/. The random board of all places.

Staying neutral or being indifferent is fine. I have friends on another board that don't want to discuss this. Is why I post here on the subject. But to ignore the implications that it has, thinking it will go away soon. Yeah, not going to happen. Whatever happens, there's going to be a lot less trust between consumers and the journalists. We'll see where this goes, but if Destiny couldn't stop this, as a lot of anti-GG people claimed, not sure what will.
 

upgray3dd

New member
Jan 6, 2011
91
0
0
Jamieson 90 said:
I've been living under a rock for the past two months (real life has been really shit and busy), so could someone please explain what Gamer Gate is?
The only real way to explain Gamergate's current form is with a broad timeline of events.

1. Eron Gjoni, ex-boyfriend of controversial videogame developer Zoe Quinn, releases a blog alleging that she cheated on him with five other men, including a writer from Kotaku and her boss.

2. A group of reflexively anti-Quinn gamers discover the post, and start spreading it far and wide. They argue that her sleeping around with people from within the games journalism industry is proof that she was trading sex for good coverage, an accusation not even the ex-boyfriend leveled at her.

3. This sparks a movement known as Quinngate, along with widespread harassment of Zoe Quinn.

4. The Quinngate movement recieves widespread criticism from games journalists (much of it deserved). In addition, many websites refused to allow discussion of the movement entirely.

5. As Quinngate grows, it attracts many gamers completely disinterested in the Zoe Quinn side of the debate, and these people try to reconfigure the movement into one focused entirely on the various failings of games journalism. People start abandoning the term Quinngate and switch to the more neutral Gamergate name people use today.

6. The new members of Gamergate are hit with waves of misplaced condemnation that should have only been leveled at the truly distasteful members of the movement (who were at this point in the vast minority). The Gamergaters, understandably, condemned right back, leading to an endless shitstorm that raged and raged for WEEKS.

At this point, Gamergate is mostly a controversy about itself. People on the pro-Gamergate side say that the important part of the story is the criticism of games journalists, and any mention of Zoe Quinn is a smokescreen preventing us from dealing with the real issue. People on the anti-Gamergate side argue that the harassment is what's important, and the journalistic concerns are the smokescreen.

OT: I also find the criticism Jim Sterling's received to be bizarre. The entire Escapist crew (sans Moviebob) has been overwhelmingly respectful while still maintaining the Escapist's posting standards. I think many regulars stopped noticing how good we've got it here. Many sites I frequent had either banned Gamergate discussion or just given up on moderating it, letting it turn into a cesspool. This is really the best site on the web to discuss this issue.
 

DC_78

New member
Dec 9, 2013
87
0
0
Jamieson 90 said:
I've been living under a rock for the past two months (real life has been really shit and busy), so could someone please explain what Gamer Gate is?
On the first page of the shitstorm thread up there is a FAQ, from the Gamergate perspective. Feel free to read it, do some research, and think for yourself.

As far as broad outlines go that one is alittle too broad in my opinion, but factually correct. Thank you for posting it.
 

Starbird

New member
Sep 30, 2012
710
0
0
It's not. Despite what a very silly, very vocal minority of each side will have you believe.

Both sides have some valid arguments. Both sides have some bad arguments. Both sides have obnoxious agitaters egging the drama on.

The only thing I feel strongly about regarding the issue is the deep vein of ugliness it has exposed in a lot of the online community, via the death and terrorism threats made.
 

Elementary - Dear Watson

RIP Eleuthera, I will miss you
Nov 9, 2010
2,980
0
0
I came into this whole thing late, because of being deployed to fight against actual horrible people in the world, and didn't quite know where to start, or even understand what was happening.

I go through life avoiding group movements as they tend to be dangerous at falling out of hand, people get (butt)hurt and no one walks away with any differing opinion to what they started with.

None of the controversy has actually affected me personally as I have no idea who the people involved are, have never visited their sites or read their articles, and therefore I have remained neutral too. The best thing is just to ignore it. People who passionately care about it are best to argue the points, as they are affected and can possibly change things for the better for themselves. The rest of us should just let them get on with it and not get involved!

BobDobolina said:
Random question... is your username to do with the Del the Funky Homosapian song? If so: AWESOME!:p
 

Elementary - Dear Watson

RIP Eleuthera, I will miss you
Nov 9, 2010
2,980
0
0
Corey Schaff said:
Elementary - Dear Watson said:
I came into this whole thing late, because of being deployed to fight against actual horrible people in the world, and didn't quite know where to start, or even understand what was happening.
Thank you for serving our country. I think maybe this person's twitter comments on the situation given their like experiences might speak to you more than anyone else could.

https://twitter.com/Varibash/status/506267973896527872
Annoyingly I can't get on Twitter at the moment (Military computers don't allow it) so I will have to check it out later, but thanks for that chap.

What kind of sentiment is it following? Personally I have been struggling to take the 'mysoganistic' opinions of children who think girls are icky seriously when I am against an enemy that literally would bury a woman alive, or stone her to death 'legally' if she leaves the house without males permission...

I know it's a perspective thing, and I am not saying that there arn't some horrible opinions coming from this mess, but I always think when I read them whether it's their actual opinion, or just empty words for effect.

EDIT: Also... I have to be a dick! :p I'm not serving your country... But I definitely appreciate the sentiment, and thank you for that. It's always nice when we hear that people outside our own frinds and families support what we do!
 

Drop_D-Bombshell

Doing Nothing Productive...
Apr 17, 2010
501
0
0
The whole GamerGate situation has been escalating rapidly over the past few weeks, and each side believes there's enough at stake to continue fighting. The notion now has become a "with us or against us" situation, and anyone who wishes to speak out for proper discussion on the points both sides argue for are promptly shot down for not agreeing that the other side is filled with horrible people. I've seen this in discussions we've had on this site and even felt that sting myself when i decided to speak out.