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

[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.

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.

I don't mind people sitting out. Hell I don't blame people. I just dislike it when people go "Well I have no opinion on this and did no research but I'm just going to state an uninformed opinion and move on."'

Not saying you did it if course, but just something I'm mentioning.

 

[CymbaIine]

Are 100% of people who are against or neutral on the issue of gamergate misinformed? Unlikely. But the vast majority are.

Are they? That's not been my experience at all. The problem is you say "misinformed" when what I think you mean is "not interpreting the situation the same way we are".

 

[Zontar]

Tell me again where the proof is that this 'positive press' wasn't the result of sexual favors?

The burden of proof rests on those making the accusations. Reasonable people do not assume guilt.

You mean like with Wizzardchan where everyone in games media did assume that the unfounded accusations where factual? Or when Brad Wardell suffered character assassination which was admitted to be false in a court of law, yet was still called a rapist and never got a public redaction or apology from the sites which called him him this, that and the other?

Really when you get right down to it when was the last time burden of proof was something games media needed to publicly shame someone and try to get them fired and black listed? It's not a joke or exaggeration to say that people have been forced out of the industry for less by these people.

 

[MerlinCross]

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.

I can't find that list myself mainly because the search results are such a jumbled mess these days. But again this kinda points towards what I said earlier. If the sites had just let discussion(Granted the first wave of topics would probably be the worst) happen, all of this would have been avoided. Can we get a redo, like go back 2 months and see what happens?

The burden of proof rests on those making the accusations. Reasonable people do not assume guilt.

Then I and just about everyone on the net are not reasonable people if we look at what's happened over the last few weeks. Everyone is guilty no matter what happened. It's something that's being pushed by both sides.

And dang this topic is moving fast, I keep having to reedit.

 

[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.

Brianna wu who got the same copy pasted death threat as gamergate feminist did? From the same person?

Oh yeah that's totally not suspicious, and totally doesn't make you look bad, Jux. /s

And vague allusions that this is fake, or some false flag don't make you look any better Twinkie.

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.

Someone clearly is having trouble understanding what 'roots' means. Thezoepost led to gg. The spam across multiple websites and subforums wasn't about journalistic integrity, it was only shifted to that focus because they weren't gaining traction with the smear campaign, and yet used the clampdown of the websites on that smear campaign as some sort of proof that there was 'censorship' and trying to 'shut down discussion'.

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

I love how people think they can say anything as long as it's preceded by 'no offense' or 'all due respect' as if that makes anything that comes after not insulting.

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.

That you clearly don't understand the burden of proof concept is no surprise either.

 

[Little Gray]

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.

The best thing you can do as a person who just wants to play games is to ignore GamerGate. It is never going to actually go anywhere for multiple reasons and it will go away faster if we just ignore them. By reading their news posts and talking to either side you are just giving more fuel and more money.

 

[shrekfan246]

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.

I can't find that list myself mainly because the search results are such a jumbled mess these days.

Here you go. [http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/]

It's the one thing written by Nathan Grayson which involves Depression Quest. Though there's also the fact that it was posted months before their affair supposedly began, by the admission of the original post that started this entire thing in the first place. Timeline of causal events, etc. there's no reason to believe that any pushing of Depression Quest in that article is due to any relationship between Grayson and Quinn.

Not to mention the fact that if two people are jeopardizing their careers over coverage like that, then they're both pretty bloody silly.

 

[Thorn14]

Something I noticed.

The Anti-GG group constantly wants to talk about ZQ while Pro-GG wants to move away from it and discuss journalism.

Not once did I give a shit about ZQ or the ZoePost and to this day I don't. I doubt TB and others who now support GG do either.

 

[Silvanus]

You mean like with Wizzardchan where everyone in games media did assume that the unfounded accusations where factual? Or when Brad Wardell suffered character assassination which was admitted to be false in a court of law, yet was still called a rapist and never got a public redaction or apology from the sites which called him him this, that and the other?

Really when you get right down to it when was the last time burden of proof was something games media needed to publicly shame someone and try to get them fired and black listed? It's not a joke or exaggeration to say that people have been forced out of the industry for less by these people.

Indeed. Assuming guilt is just as irrational and unethical in any case. I don't know exactly what happened with Wizzardchan, note.

Then I and just about everyone on the net are not reasonable people if we look at what's happened over the last few weeks. Everyone is guilty no matter what happened. It's something that's being pushed by both sides.

Yes, other people do it. It doesn't make it any more reasonable to do it yourself. Nobody is under any obligation to prove that sexual favours weren't traded.

The Anti-GG group constantly wants to talk about ZQ while Pro-GG wants to move away from it and discuss journalism.

Neither side is homogeneous, so any generalisation like the above is flawed.

 

[Internet Zen Master]

The Anti-GG group constantly wants to talk about ZQ while Pro-GG wants to move away from it and discuss journalism.

Neither side is homogeneous, so any generalisation like the above is flawed.

While you are correct that neither "side" [personally I find this whole Anti-GG/Pro-GG, Blue Team/Red Team nonsense to be rather annoying] is a hivemind that thinks and acts with one voice, the journos against GamerGate, who already have a bigger platform to speak from than anyone pro-GG (outside of TotalBiscuit), do have this tendency to keep focusing on the spark (Zoe Quinn) and barely giving GG's complaints lipservice before spending the rest of the article attacking the entire movement as 'sexist misogynist men determined to drive women out of "their hobby"'.

 

[LetalisK]

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.

This is pretty much where I am. The initial spark was just...dumb. And then people started acting dumb. Then people started reacting dumb in response to the dumb. It's one big ball of dumb. So I've pretty much walked away from it and went back to killing orcs with cockney accents.

Edit: Oh! Here's a game. If you had to be subjected to this pro/anti GamerGate clusterfuck OR the Mass Effect 3 clusterfuck, which would you pick? I think I might pick the latter.

 

[Plunkies]

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.

Does it? Maybe you shouldn't start your thread with a statement that completely contradicts your entire thread.

No, you don't need to be afraid. You do, however, need to be afraid of taking a public stance for GG, or even taking a neutral stance (As both gaymerx and a polygon employee have learned).

You bought into the nonsense that GGers are all hateful and evil people and when you didn't receive much hate and evilness from your video you assumed that meant they weren't powerful. Congratulations, you've shown roughly the same quality of logic that most anti-GG people show. Though, if you truly belonged, you would have isolated a few of the meanest comments you received, posted them claiming all GG people are awful, and then used your new found victim-hood to drive traffic to your channel. You still have a lot to learn about being anti-GG, champ.

 

[Thorn14]

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.

This is pretty much where I am. The initial spark was just...dumb. And then people started acting dumb. Then people started reacting dumb in response to the dumb. It's one big ball of dumb. So I've pretty much walked away from it and went back to killing orcs with cockney accents.

Edit: Oh! Here's a game. If you had to be subjected to this pro/anti GamerGate clusterfuck OR the Mass Effect 3 clusterfuck, which would you pick? I think I might pick the latter.

You'd be surprised how close both clusterfucks are with each other.

Remember when all the journalists called gamers "Entitled" because of the ME3 controversy? Yeah, that was the early signs of all this shit.

 

[Jux]

If you had to be subjected to this pro/anti GamerGate clusterfuck OR the Mass Effect 3 clusterfuck, which would you pick? I think I might pick the latter.

Mass Effect. If I had to pick between pulling off my own fingernails with pliers or reading that megathread start to finish, hand me the damn pliers.

 

[Ajna]

I love how people think they can say anything as long as it's preceded by 'no offense' or 'all due respect' as if that makes anything that comes after not insulting.

Actually, it was a reference to a strip by Scott Adams, but y'know.

But yeah, I'm checking out of this thread. It's blatantly obvious you think that you know everything there is to know on this subject (despite also clearly having not actually read any of the threads about it, "smear campaign", really? 95% of the time I see Literally Who brought up in a gamergate discussion, it's by someone who is anti-GG. As in this thread.

Given you're the only one here who actually seems to care to argue, but you also don't care to fact-check your statements and are operating under a "what I said started it is the only thing that matters" line of reasoning (sorta like how property tax debates are really about liquor consumption because of the Whiskey Rebellion, I guess) and I've seen you elsewhere post that you put anyone who is new to the forums and loosely pro-GG on your ignore list... I'm fine with letting you "win" and going off to take a nap instead.

Though one point: You should change your avatar from Hobbes to Calvin. He suits you more.

 

[laraem]

-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".

-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.

You are not the majority, you are NOT the majority. You don't want to read those sites great don't read em but there are plenty who do and continue to do so (no site has really been hurt by your movement). It is an appalling goal to destroy those site that don't adhere to your viewpoint.

 

[laraem]

Tell me again where the proof is that this 'positive press' wasn't the result of sexual favors?

The burden of proof rests on those making the accusations. Reasonable people do not assume guilt.

You mean like with Wizzardchan where everyone in games media did assume that the unfounded accusations where factual? Or when Brad Wardell suffered character assassination which was admitted to be false in a court of law, yet was still called a rapist and never got a public redaction or apology from the sites which called him him this, that and the other?

Really when you get right down to it when was the last time burden of proof was something games media needed to publicly shame someone and try to get them fired and black listed? It's not a joke or exaggeration to say that people have been forced out of the industry for less by these people.

It was not admitted to be false, it was a case of dueling lawsuits and Brad won because the woman's risk of losing his suit was greater than winning hers.

 

[Silvanus]

While you are correct that neither "side" [personally I find this whole Anti-GG/Pro-GG, Blue Team/Red Team nonsense to be rather annoying] is a hivemind that thinks and acts with one voice, the journos against GamerGate, who already have a bigger platform to speak from than anyone pro-GG (outside of TotalBiscuit), do have this tendency to keep focusing on the spark (Zoe Quinn) and barely giving GG's complaints lipservice before spending the rest of the article attacking the entire movement as 'sexist misogynist men determined to drive women out of "their hobby"'.

I've not truly seen that kind of stuff, I must say. I've seen people saying that misogyny exists within the movement, and that it's not properly addressed, but not people dismissing the entire movement as such people.

I'm willing to be shown otherwise, note, I'm not dismissing the possibility. I dislike generalisations in general.

 

[Thorn14]

While you are correct that neither "side" [personally I find this whole Anti-GG/Pro-GG, Blue Team/Red Team nonsense to be rather annoying] is a hivemind that thinks and acts with one voice, the journos against GamerGate, who already have a bigger platform to speak from than anyone pro-GG (outside of TotalBiscuit), do have this tendency to keep focusing on the spark (Zoe Quinn) and barely giving GG's complaints lipservice before spending the rest of the article attacking the entire movement as 'sexist misogynist men determined to drive women out of "their hobby"'.

I've not truly seen that kind of stuff, I must say. I've seen people saying that misogyny exists within the movement, and that it's not properly addressed, but not people dismissing the entire movement as such people.

I'm willing to be shown otherwise, note, I'm not dismissing the possibility. I dislike generalisations in general.

When people say "its not properly addressed" I have to ask exactly what that means. We do not endorse harassment of any kind and support women in gaming. How many times do we have to repeat it?

#GG isn't a secret club where we carefully monitor our members. Its a hashtag to organize our movement. Literally you or I or a random person or even a person with a bone to pick against #GamerGate could literally spend 2 minutes making a new twitter account and start typing horrible hateful things, and because they then add #GamerGate to the end of it, its suddenly our fault and we aren't doing anything about it.

What do people want us to do? Invent mind control devices?

 

[SentimentalGeek]

While you are correct that neither "side" [personally I find this whole Anti-GG/Pro-GG, Blue Team/Red Team nonsense to be rather annoying] is a hivemind that thinks and acts with one voice, the journos against GamerGate, who already have a bigger platform to speak from than anyone pro-GG (outside of TotalBiscuit), do have this tendency to keep focusing on the spark (Zoe Quinn) and barely giving GG's complaints lipservice before spending the rest of the article attacking the entire movement as 'sexist misogynist men determined to drive women out of "their hobby"'.

I've not truly seen that kind of stuff, I must say. I've seen people saying that misogyny exists within the movement, and that it's not properly addressed, but not people dismissing the entire movement as such people.

I'm willing to be shown otherwise, note, I'm not dismissing the possibility. I dislike generalisations in general.

http://theweek.com/article/index/269377/intels-awful-capitulation-to-gamergates-sexist-thugs

To name one, from a possible plethora (I'm not in the habit of collecting articles that demonise us, so I'll leave the rest to yourself/others).