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

[Lunar Archivist]

This is why no one can take GG seriously, because one minute one person says the sky is blue, the next person says it's green, the next it's purple, and the next that it's yellow with tangerine spots. And each one is just as sincere as the other. No one seems to know what the other hand is doing, and it's a train wreck to watch. And for anyone that tries to come in to have a dissenting opinion, we get slapped about by each and every one of those opinions that don't match each other.

Okay, you know what? Let's settle this argument once and for all by going back in time:

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/08/25/gamers-revolt-another-take-on-the-zoe-quinn-scandal/

This is an article written by Derek Strickland for the Bright Side of News on August 25, 2014. Before the #GamerGate hashtag broke out. Before Adam Baldwin, Christine Hoff Sommers, or Milo Yiannopoulos stepped into the ring. Before the "Gamers are dead" article crapstorm. It's one of a handful of articles about this revolt as it was in its infancy but still one of the most accurate summaries of the events that created this powder keg for Zoe Quinn to sit on in the first place, something that the anti-Gamergate people have been doing their best to bury under a mountain of lies, misinformation, and claims about misogyny. And while we're at it, here are more articles about Strickland written at every milestone of this fiasco:

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/09/19/inside-the-secret-world-of-games-journalism/
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/09/26/how-sensationalism-continues-to-ignite-gamergate/
http://www.brightsideofnews.com/2014/10/11/gamergate-does-games-journalism-have-a-liberal-bias-problem/

And just for good measure, here's an article by Carol Young which debunks most claims that anti-GamerGate supporters have been making for the last six weeks:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/10/09/the_gender_games_sex_lies_and_videogames_124244.html

 

[Something Amyss]

However: Gamergate is not ABOUT Zoe anymore than WWI was ABOUT Archduke Ferdinand.

I wonder how often speeches in WW1, especially from other countries, actually addressed Ferdinand. Because, you know, Soe comes up all the time. As does She Who Must Not Be Named. It's not about them, but they're invoked constantly. And talked about heavily. They're practically GamerGate's Godwin's Law, in that the odds of them being invoked approaches 1:1 the longer the thread goes.

I'm betting that Gamergate is significantly more about Zoe (and Anita, though you didn't name her) than WW1 is about Ferdinand.

 

[AndrewEB]

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.

Uh dude, pot calling the kettle black much? People on the pro gamergate side have been unprofessional and extremely inflammatory as well.

 

[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.

Uh dude, pot calling the kettle black much? People on the pro gamergate side have been unprofessional and extremely inflammatory as well.

Of course there are buttholes on the Pro Side as well, but I don't want people to believe the narrative being spun that #GG is nothing but a misogynistic hate movement while those against it are shining paragons of tolerance and peace.

We need to shout down those who would harass and abuse, and support peaceful dialogue and discussion. And if some of us who get overly emotional at times need a slap on the head, so be it.

 

[Something Amyss]

This is why no one can take GG seriously, because one minute one person says the sky is blue, the next person says it's green, the next it's purple, and the next that it's yellow with tangerine spots. And each one is just as sincere as the other. No one seems to know what the other hand is doing, and it's a train wreck to watch. And for anyone that tries to come in to have a dissenting opinion, we get slapped about by each and every one of those opinions that don't match each other.

In fairness, this isn't a problem in itself. It's fine to have movements that are loosely organised or that operate as an umbrella. The problem comes in when they insist that nobody's saying X or everybody's saying Y. And this is incredibly common. It's sport of a no true scotsman in that it seems that the only people who count are the ones who agree with the given poster.

It'd be the equivalent of me insisting all feminists believed the exact same things I did. Which is absurd.

It's even worse that the particular individuals who are so quick to do this are the same ones tossing around the #notallmen and #notallgamers hashtags.

That's usually how it happens.

Not really. Gamergaters generally seem to like to play the victim card, though.

I'm also amazed that people who are ostensibly trying to have an adult conversation so frequently resort to the "he started it" defense. But even still, if people are so bothered and she's so irrelevant, why not ignore it?

 

[Plunkies]

I will become sympathetic to gamergate when their actions match up with their claimed grievances. People keep shouting this is about journalistic integrity and keeping marketing out of game reviews. If that's the case, then why have I learned about corruption in game journalism from this week's Jimquisition [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9782-Shadow-of-Mordors-Promotion-Deals-with-Plaid-Social] alone than from the entirety of the gamergate scandal? All Gamergate wants to talk about is Zoe Quinn's little known indie game she doesn't even charge for and Anita Sarkeesian, a figure who was a dead horse more than a year ago and is now just someone who very sad and angry people like to bang their frustrations against.

But you didn't hear about it from Jim Sterling. It was relayed to you by Jim Sterling because he's only good at jumping on a bandwagon when it's already started instead of putting his ass on the line himself. And you sure as hell didn't hear about it from games media. You heard about it from Totalbiscuit. A gamergate supporting youtuber who has been a diehard consumer defender since forever.

Furthermore, it had nothing to do with journalistic integrity. It was a PR firm/publisher issue, which is what we rely on games media to protect us from and what they have failed to do for the longest time now.

And ENOUGH with the ridiculous straw man of "all gamergate does is talk about Quinn and Sarkeesian." They don't, you know they don't, you look foolish saying it. Quinn and Sarkeesian are inevitably going to come up sometimes because they share the exact same source as the "Gamers are dead" articles and the exact same ideology. The same ideology that spawns the blanket attacks you like to use labeling all gamergate supporters as harassers and misogynists. You can't expect them to not come up when you use their same paint by numbers, ad hominem arguments.

Most of the things he listed have nothing to do with corruption in games journalism, or if it does it's such a tiny and unclear thing it isn't enough for anybody who isn't determined to be angry about it to get worked up about. It's the culmination of a bunch of Internet feuds which have been going on forever and brought together because apparently sites not wanting to report on such train wrecks is now "censorship."

Why even post if you won't even at least TRY to pay attention? None of that was intended to be a list of journalistic corruption. It was a response to someone just like you who wants spew weak and tired ad hominems to paint all gamergate supporters as harassers while completely ignoring the awful things done by their own side.

Gamergate is not a movement wanting to stamp out corruption in games. It's a group of people who are determined to be angry about a lot of things and use "journalistic integrity" as a way of telling themselves they're right if they ever begin to doubt their legitimacy. Those who are truly concerned about journalistic integrity are being smothered by all the other shit, and they aren't focusing on the big, unambiguous cases which could lend their claims of corruption true legitimacy.

You're a bigot labeling a large and varied group of people under one biased and insulting generalization.

Anti-gamergaters are a group of authoritarian cultural marxists who wish to police the thoughts of individuals and dictate the artistic direction of creative game developers to push their own ideological and political agenda. They wallow in the corruption of games media and binge on the clickbait and phony outrage generated by hack reporters who have long lost any will to defend or protect the consumer.

See? Doesn't feel good does it?

You can't sit here and try to take the high road, pontificating about how bad Gamergate looks and how awful they behave when you sit here and instead of attacking arguments made, you attack the group as a whole. You're not better. And the more you respond the more that becomes clear. The endless hypocrisy is tiresome. Try forming a real argument instead of attacking large groups of people.

 

[AndrewEB]

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.

Sometimes, ignoring a movement when it is so in your face is too hard, so the best one can do is to just simply reasonable dicuss and critique.

 

[Thorn14]

Someone brings up ZQ Anita, probably someone stating "GG is toxic because it began with ZQ"

GG Supporter says "GG is not about ZQ anymore"

Anti GG says "Why do you keep talking about ZQ?"

Repeat.

 

[redlemon]

Yeah, you don't have to be afraid to take a stance against GG. It's not like they'll doxx you, harass you, DDOS you, and get you fired from your workplace. You know, like what some of the anti-ggs have been doing. Not that you'd know about it because the media will never report it.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yeah, you don't have to be afraid to take a stance against GG. It's not like they'll doxx you, harass you, DDOS you, and get you fired from your workplace. You know, like what some of the anti-ggs have been doing. Not that you'd know about it because the media will never report it.

Wait, which one of those things didn't gamergate do?

 

[redlemon]

Yeah, you don't have to be afraid to take a stance against GG. It's not like they'll doxx you, harass you, DDOS you, and get you fired from your workplace. You know, like what some of the anti-ggs have been doing. Not that you'd know about it because the media will never report it.

Wait, which one of those things didn't gamergate do?

All of them. Well, except trying to get people fired. But those corrupt journalists really have to go.

 

[Sane user]

Jumping into a long topic with a new perspective - because I'm boss like that - I don't see why anyone WOULD take a "public stance against Gamergate". Like, at all.

I get not being invested, or simply not caring. That's cool. People who don't want to care mostly go on not caring until the end of days. But the people who want to take public stances against it, those are the people I don't get. The way I view Gamergate and the whole spectacle is as a big and nasty thing that just needed to happen. Stuff had been brewing for years, and it finally exploded. And now people have to vent and flame and fight, and ultimately mature and talk about it like adults, so the issue can be solved. Sometimes everything have to burn, so that something better can be built instead.


It's not like Gamergate is an evil thing. It doesn't hate women. It doesn't hate minorities. It's not just angry white dudes. Of the two sides, they mainly come off as the lesser assholes (Point me to the influential Gamergater, with a name and voice, who has called all game journalists and feminists 'worse then ISIS'). It's one important side of an even more important discussion.

People who wants to take a "public stance" against that, those people generally come off as arrogant and, quite frankly, ignorant. WHY would they do it? It makes no sense. It makes them look bad.

EDIT:
Thinking about what I just wrote, I have to add something else. Opposing viewpoints are good. They are always welcome. They should be part of any disscusion. My issue is that I don't see any particular reason or logic in this way of thinking.

 

[Thorn14]

Jumping into a long topic with a new perspective - because I'm boss like that - I don't see why anyone WOULD take a "public stance against Gamergate". Like, at all.

I get not being invested, or simply not caring. That's cool. People who don't want to care mostly go on not caring until the end of days. But the people who want to take public stances against it, those are the people I don't get. The way I view Gamergate and the whole spectacle is as a big and nasty thing that just needed to happen. Stuff had been brewing for years, and it finally exploded. And now people have to vent and flame and fight, and ultimately mature and talk about it like adults, so the issue can be solved. Sometimes everything have to burn, so that something better can be built instead.


It's not like Gamergate is an evil thing. It doesn't hate women. It doesn't hate minorities. It's not just angry white dudes. Of the two sides, they mainly come off as the lesser assholes (Point me to the influential Gamergater, with a name and voice, who has called all game journalists and feminists 'worse then ISIS'). It's one important side of an even more important discussion.

People who wants to take a "public stance" against that, those people generally come off as arrogant and, quite frankly, ignorant. WHY would they do it? It makes no sense. It makes them look bad.

EDIT:
Thinking about what I just wrote, I have to add something else. Opposing viewpoints is good. They are always welcome. They should be part of any disscusion. My issue is that I don't see any particular reason or logic in this way of thinking.

Opposing viewpoints are great.

Some people do however believe Gamergate is nothing but a hate movement run by angry white males who want women to get away from gaming. And no matter how many times we tell them its not true, they refuse to listen.

 

[Something Amyss]

All of them. Well, except trying to get people fired. But those corrupt journalists really have to go.

Only if "corrupt" means people who disagree with gamergate conspiracies and nothing more.

But then, you lost me at "all of them," because you'd have to pretend the doxing and such that happened didn't.

And at that point, I might as well pretend that gamergaters staged their doxing (etc), since it'd be on the same level.