You don't have to be afraid of taking a public stance against #GamerGate.

[broadcaststatic]

For a group that has anti-censorship as one of its primary talking points, it sure seems like asking for trouble to say anything against it. Obviously, first off, you're going to get ten million comments telling you you obviously did no research, don't understand the movement, etc. Right? Well, yes, *but* it isn't that bad. I wasn't sure if I should say anything against GamerGate, even though it's something I follow very closely, because of the perception I had that I would be harassed, bothered, and that it would be a pretty serious clusterfuck to even broach the issue.

It wasn't. It was well worth it.

Sure, I got comments telling me I obviously did no research. I hate that one-- as if watching this thing unfold for over two months across hundreds of websites and forums, reading GamerGate in GamerGate's own words, doesn't count as research. What surprised me was that I only got a couple dozen comments like this among two hundred comments, and even then, other users were calling folks out about it. And no one was shit-slinging, either-- the video I did, while coming down firmly against GamerGate as a movement, didn't make any wild accusations and for the most part, neither did the commentors. And my channel is pretty small (7k subscribers), so it's a risk to come out with an opinion you know is going to alienate some of your viewers. I expected to lose up to a thousand subscribers. I ended up losing 120-- and considering that I lose 20-40 subscribers *every time* I put out a new video on anything, that's barely significant.

All in all, what I'm saying is that staying silent isn't as critical for your long-term security in the gaming community as you think-- all these blacklists and bullshit and bluster you see, it isn't actually very powerful. It's only got power now because they're the loudest voices in the room. It's important for people who are part of the consumer end of the gaming economy, who don't have any kind of agenda other than "I love games" to be able to have their voices heard too. It's not necessary to speak louder than the most toxic voices of GamerGate-- doing so would be incredibly obnoxious. Speak, though! GamerGate isn't as big or as meaningful as it thinks, it's only this bipartisan "Gamers vs. The Press, CHOOSE WISELY" dichotomy they try to force that makes it appear that way. This isn't a two sided issue. It's a thousand sided issue. The fewer people standing behind their honest, heartfelt opinions, the longer and more venomous this thing becomes.

 

[tippy2k2]

Considering, as of right now, there are 22,088 replies in the Gamer Gate thread, I can't imagine there are that many people who are afraid to take a stand on either side.

I suppose I haven't gone in that thread in weeks because I think both sides are blowing things waaaay out of proportion but I can't imagine that's 22,088 people all agreeing with one another.

 

[Jux]

-snip-

Aye, and for a movement that's supposedly moved past it's misogynistic roots, they can kindly tell that to Brianna Wu. What's your channel? And tippy, most people have abandoned the gg thread, it's an echochamber. Any sort of criticism of it just gets lost, ignored, or met with the same talking points.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Considering, as of right now, there are 22,088 replies in the Gamer Gate thread, I can't imagine there are that many people who are afraid to take a stand on either side.

I suppose I haven't gone in that thread in weeks because I think both sides are blowing things waaaay out of proportion but I can't imagine that's 22,088 people all agreeing with one another.

It's pretty much comprised of people who are all pro GG and the occasional handful that are against it. I think many of the anti voices in the thread have grown pretty frustrated with it, however.

I don't feel like taking an especially strong stance on the issue myself but I'm leaning towards supporting the movement.

As for the OP, it's fine that you took such a stance. I can't say I agree with the idea that it's a powerless movement at all.

Also, bipartisan would mean that people are exchanging dialogue and making compromises. Not forcing people into a dichotomy. Which is a problem both sides have had some issues with.

As an aside, wouldn't not being harassed for explaining your stance against the movement be a good thing for how people who support the movement are perceived? I dunno, I just had the thought pop up in my head.

 

[Gestapo Hunter]

It really doesnt matter if you choose the Escapist GG thread or Neogaf forms its pretty much an echo chamber on both side now. We are long past the point of discussions and right now the artillery barrage is starting and the troops are waiting for the signal to charge out of their trenches and into no mans land.

 

[Thorn14]

OP: Have you considered that maybe we respect your opinion to disagree with us as long as its done in a professional and non inflammatory manner?

I welcome discussion. When Erik Kain got others to discuss the round table, I disagreed with Greg Tito's stances but he was polite and willing to discuss so I applauded him.

 

[Ajna]

-snip-

Aye, and for a movement that's supposedly moved past it's misogynistic roots, they can kindly tell that to Brianna Wu. What's your channel? And tippy, most people have abandoned the gg thread, it's an echochamber. Any sort of criticism of it just gets lost, ignored, or met with the same talking points.

What misogynistic roots? You mean calling a journalist out on giving positive press to a woman who slept with him?

It was the woman and the journalist in question who shifted the focus onto her. The issue gamergate had was always with him.

It really doesnt matter if you choose the Escapist GG thread or Neogaf forms its pretty much an echo chamber on both side now. We are long past the point of discussions and right now the artillery barrage is starting and the troops are waiting for the signal to charge out of their trenches and into no mans land.

That'd be because it isn't actually a dichotomy, it's not a debate. You remember that quote from (I believe) Hitchens, where he said that "the problem with creationism/evolution debates is that by framing it as a debate, you're making it sound as though both sides have a rational argument"? That's pretty much what's going on. Anti-GG amounts to "some of the people on the internet are being dicks". GG amounts to "we want accountability in press". The reason anti-GG won't talk to GG is because they know they can't convince them. The reason GG won't talk to anti-GG is because they don't feel the need to convince them. Anti-GG only gets its way if GG shuts up and stops whining, GG gets its way by ensuring advertisers pull content from sites they dislike and then making their own sites that they do like.

Gamergate isn't a debate, and hasn't been one for months. Gamergate is a consumer activism movement. Think less "should sex ed be taught to middle schoolers" and more "if you keep putting pesticides in my oatmeal, I'll make sure nobody buys from you ever again".

 

[MerlinCross]

Any sort of criticism of it just gets lost, ignored, or met with the same talking points.

Oh look something that can be said about both sides.

 

[Jux]

-snip-

Aye, and for a movement that's supposedly moved past it's misogynistic roots, they can kindly tell that to Brianna Wu. What's your channel? And tippy, most people have abandoned the gg thread, it's an echochamber. Any sort of criticism of it just gets lost, ignored, or met with the same talking points.

What misogynistic roots? You mean calling a journalist out on giving positive press to a woman who slept with him?

It was the woman and the journalist in question who shifted the focus onto her. The issue gamergate had was always with him.

Is that what you people are claiming is the start of gg now? I never knew thezoepost was all about the journalist (whats his name again?). Here I thought it was all started by a jilted ex trying to shame someone, and the subsequent explosion of spammed threads across the internet by a bunch of 4chan trolls.

Tell me again where the proof is that this 'positive press' was the result of sexual favors?

 

[Phasmal]

I guess you could say I am against it. But probably not for the reason people think (though there'd probably be a bit of that if I could be arsed).

I just don't give a fuck. Boring shit happened and then a journalist said something mean about gamers? Say it aint so!

Can't get excited about it, just waiting for the next big controversy, maybe I'll jump on that one.

But I do agree with the whole `if you don't agree with me you're misinformed` being fucking annoying.

 

[MerlinCross]

Tell me again where the proof is that this 'positive press' was the result of sexual favors?

Tell me again where the proof is that this 'positive press' wasn't the result of sexual favors? Hell not even that, was being friends with Quinn enough to get 'positive press'? So that means I can make friends with a journalist and NOT have to shell out a bribe of somekind to get good press? Or maybe just nod my head and agree with the journalist's stance on things? What if a dev doesn't agree, do they get no press? Do the journalists go to their friends and say "Hey you shouldn't cover this guy he's X"? The behind the scenes actions have been a discussion that has LONG been needed.

It pisses me off that the discussion is happening because of this but a guess I have is because of all the closed topics around the net. Doritogate had discussion, ME3 had discussion, heck those that found out about the 2012 GMAs had discussion; but not this event that probably left a few people scratching their heads.

I don't know, but maybe just maybe, if we didn't have the whole censoring/stifle of discussion, would we be in this mess now? Because that's where a lot of people started to get really angry and paranoid(even if they later had a right to be)

But I do agree with the whole `if you don't agree with me you're misinformed` being fucking annoying.

Just saw this, and don't want to double post.

I do agree with that statement but there's a catch to it for me. Journalists and websites have been spinning their side of the story since this first got started. No one would take our side(The fact the Escapist at least puts up with us is grand). So probably the most accessible info is against us.

That's just how I see it but that could just be the tinfoil talking.

 

[Ajna]

-snip-

Aye, and for a movement that's supposedly moved past it's misogynistic roots, they can kindly tell that to Brianna Wu. What's your channel? And tippy, most people have abandoned the gg thread, it's an echochamber. Any sort of criticism of it just gets lost, ignored, or met with the same talking points.

What misogynistic roots? You mean calling a journalist out on giving positive press to a woman who slept with him?

It was the woman and the journalist in question who shifted the focus onto her. The issue gamergate had was always with him.

Is that what you people are claiming is the start of gg now? I never knew thezoepost was all about the journalist (whats his name again?). Here I thought it was all started by a jilted ex trying to shame someone, and the subsequent explosion of spammed threads across the internet by a bunch of 4chan trolls.

Tell me again where the proof is that this 'positive press' was the result of sexual favors?

The "zoepost" wasn't gamergate. It was before gamergate. That's like saying that a log is a fire because it's what was used to start the fire.

The zoepost was a bitter ex-boyfriend warning people away from his ex-girlfriend. People got pissed off because of who she slept with, not because she slept with people.

With all due respect, get your head out of your ass, your condescending sarcasm is both unwarranted and dismissed out of hand.

There's plenty of proof. I am not your web browser. Google is at your finger tips, and you're a big kid who can put on his own damn underwear.

I reiterate, this is not a debate. Gamergate is not a debate. It has not been a debate for quite some time now. Gamergate is a consumer activism movement to burn businesses to the ground and salt the earth for their ilk in the future. Gamergate is a mass-email campaign intended to change an industry to suit the liking of the majority of its consumers. That is all it is. There is no leader, there are no tenets, there is no collusion. The reason gamergate still exists after two months is because there are still things for people to be angry about. You cannot remove someone's anger by debating their right to be angry, you can only remove it by removing the source for their anger. "Debate" in the context of gamergate is a joke, and should be treated as such.

 

[Nirallus]

I just don't give a fuck. Boring shit happened and then a journalist said something mean about gamers? Say it aint so!

The problem is, it's not just one journalist. The GameJournoPros leak showed that journalists and editors of sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Gamasutra, et al. meet behind the scenes to push a single narrative and shut up dissenting voices. They tried to browbeat Greg Tito into submission (even though he agrees with them!) simply for allowing the discussion to continue. This was further evidenced on August 28, when those sites (as well as a few general interest sites like The Daily Beast) published eleven(?) hit pieces in one day with the exact same "Gamers are dead" message. The journalistic equivalent of a time on target barrage, and that's what made this take off the way it has.

 

[Thorn14]

I just don't give a fuck. Boring shit happened and then a journalist said something mean about gamers? Say it aint so!

The problem is, it's not just one journalist. The GameJournoPros leak showed that journalists and editors of sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Gamasutra, et al. meet behind the scenes to push a single narrative and shut up dissenting voices. They tried to browbeat Greg Tito into submission (even though he agrees with them!) simply for allowing the discussion to continue. This was further evidenced on August 28, when those sites (as well as a few general interest sites like The Daily Beast) published eleven(?) hit pieces in one day with the exact same "Gamers are dead" message. The journalistic equivalent of a time on target barrage, and that's what made this take off the way it has.

Don't forget Brad Wardell's treatment from video game "jouornalists" that almost destroyed his life. And no apology at all either.

 

[Flutterguy]

I took my stance by not making more redundant threads and not reading the updates.

#ignoremeaninglessmedia

 

[shrekfan246]

Tell me again where the proof is that this 'positive press' was the result of sexual favors?

Tell me again where the proof is that this 'positive press' wasn't the result of sexual favors? Hell not even that, was being friends with Quinn enough to get 'positive press'?

There was no positive press for Depression Quest.

Like, ever.

There was a three-word blurb alongside two or three other games in a list of 50 Steam Greenlight titles.

More than anything else, I'm sick of this perception that Zoe Quinn got unwarranted positive press, when a basic Google search would easily prove otherwise.

 

[Phasmal]

I just don't give a fuck. Boring shit happened and then a journalist said something mean about gamers? Say it aint so!

The problem is, it's not just one journalist. The GameJournoPros leak showed that journalists and editors of sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Gamasutra, et al. meet behind the scenes to push a single narrative and shut up dissenting voices. They tried to browbeat Greg Tito into submission (even though he agrees with them!) simply for allowing the discussion to continue. This was further evidenced on August 28, when those sites (as well as a few general interest sites like The Daily Beast) published eleven(?) hit pieces in one day with the exact same "Gamers are dead" message. The journalistic equivalent of a time on target barrage, and that's what made this take off the way it has.

Spoiler: Ugh, I know you guys are way into this so I'm gonna say it as nice as possible

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't not care because I'm an eeeeevil Something Jargon Word, but because I'm not really interested in wider gaming media. I like to play games, I've never cared too much about gaming journalism. Game journo's could meet over a bubbling cauldron in the dead of night and I wouldn't give a shit.
I respect you guy's right to care, but honestly the conspiracy theories have conspiracy theories at this point and I cannot be arsed to sit through it all.

I'm just... sitting this one out.

EDIT: Oh and the idea that people who don't like or don't care about this shitstorm `not being gamers` can go die in a fire.

 

[Ajna]

But I do agree with the whole `if you don't agree with me you're misinformed` being fucking annoying.

The term you're looking for is the illusion of asymmetric insight [http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the-illusion-of-asymmetric-insight/]. The idea that nobody who disagrees with you could have as well-founded of reasoning as you do.

The thing is, asymmetric insight is a heuristic, it's a mental shortcut like confirmation bias is. It's an error in our brain chemistry's pathways for reasoning, but it's not an error in reason. That is to say: If I'm shopping and I do the math wrong in my budgeting, but come out right anyway, I should probably figure out what I did wrong later so that I don't mess up in the future... But I also don't need to put any groceries back to come back in under budget, I'm still right.

The thing about gamergate is that the reason it exists is because of mass censorship and bannings for people speaking on it, the people performing those bannings/censorship claiming that the people they were banning and censoring were misogynists, and the press colluding (Look at Milo Yiannopoulos' stuff for info on that) to make sure only the side they liked was spoken of. It very much so was a campaign for information control, and the Streisand Effect is the only thing that prevented it from working. When you are discussing a problem that arose out of information control, it is entirely rational and logical for someone who is speaking out against it to assume dissenters don't have accurate information ? it is, after all, the very thing that the person is arguing against.

Are 100% of people who are against or neutral on the issue of gamergate misinformed? Unlikely. But the vast majority are. That's why gamergate exists in the first place. If the information that is easily accessible were accurate, gamergate wouldn't be around, because it wouldn't have anything to argue against.

EDIT: Per your later post (came up while I was typing this one) saying you "don't care about game press, just games", that's why people are angry. There are several developers who have come out and said that they've been threatened and bullied by journos into changing their games in order to suit what the journos would rather see. Look into the issues with the CM for Mighty No. 9 (the "spiritual successor" to Mega Man) if you don't believe me. These issues are much more wide-ranging than most people believe, and that is precisely why people say you're uninformed if you don't care.

 

[Nirallus]

I just don't give a fuck. Boring shit happened and then a journalist said something mean about gamers? Say it aint so!

The problem is, it's not just one journalist. The GameJournoPros leak showed that journalists and editors of sites like Kotaku, Polygon, Gamasutra, et al. meet behind the scenes to push a single narrative and shut up dissenting voices. They tried to browbeat Greg Tito into submission (even though he agrees with them!) simply for allowing the discussion to continue. This was further evidenced on August 28, when those sites (as well as a few general interest sites like The Daily Beast) published eleven(?) hit pieces in one day with the exact same "Gamers are dead" message. The journalistic equivalent of a time on target barrage, and that's what made this take off the way it has.

Don't forget Brad Wardell's treatment from video game "jouornalists" that almost destroyed his life. And no apology at all either.

That's just part of pushing their narrative. Remember, these people were so flippant when the leak came out because they either genuinely couldn't comprehend how they were in the wrong, or worse, they didn't care because "It's Okay When We Do It". Before the leak they compared themselves (favorably!) to JournoList, a group of political journalists coordinating a pro-Democrat narrative in the leadup to the 2008 elections. The message there was, "if they're not voting Democrat, deflect by calling them racists". The message here is, "if they resist the politicization of the gaming press, deflect by calling them misogynists".