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

[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.

 

[redlemon]

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.

Try "people who are blatantly lying and manipulating public opinion".

Gamergate doesn't condone harassment or doxxing. They immediately condemn harassment when it happens. And the recent Wu doxxing? The threats didn't even mention Gamergate. And then Gamergators went and investigated, tracked down the person responsible, and informed the FBI. But again, you wouldn't know about this because the media will never report it.

And I don't remember any DDOS that was blamed on Gamergate.

 

[broadcaststatic]

Hey Guys! It's the OP! So I went to work, hung out with my girlfriend, and now I'm finding that this thread got HUGE. It's been a hell of a read. Here are my highlights:

1) The guy claiming another guy was 'belittling minorities' because, since #GamerGate and #NotYourShield are the same movement, being critical of #NotYourShield is the same thing as ignoring minority voices and being guilty of actual racism.

I found this to be a very peculiar interpretation of the phrase "Not Your Shield." I don't think GamerGate is a wholly white movement, I think it's a wholly misguided and counterproductive movement-- I don't need anyone to be my shield for that. I'm saying it directly to you, through my keyboard. If you're a minority and you say the kind of weird conspiratorial nonsense I see GG saying all the time, yeah, I'd be dismissive too. Not because anyone's a minority. Because I think GamerGate on the whole is fundamentally and deliberately misinterpreting *editorial* freedom of expression for oppression and censorship. You can be black, white, or calico and still be open to criticism for the words comin' out of your mouth, or your fingers, in most of these cases-- saying that #NotYourShield and #GamerGate are so intertwined that criticism of GG has racial overtones is using #NotYourShield as, well, *A SHIELD*. That whole argument I found kind of amazing-- is GG as a whole really trying to reframe this as being kindly, caring, respectful GamerGate against those monstrous, racist, anti-semitic journalists? Are they really going to try to make the hilariously contradictory accusation that "Social Justice Warriors" are hateful towards disenfranchised groups? Or is it just this jackass?

2) How folks have treated the user 'Not The Bees'. She had a really solid initial point-- *I* might not mind the consequences of speaking out against GamerGate, but for most folks, the weight of condescending bullshit thrown their way is too much of a hassle to want to ever get sucked into it. Then, several pages later, about three GG's hassle her with condescending bullshit. I'm sorry that Not Your Bees had to be the audience volunteer that demonstrated why GamerGate looks so unappealing and problematic from the outside, but it's illustrative to have in the thread:

Skeptical Outsider: I don't like talking about my opinion because I get disrespectfully treated by a half dozen strangers every time I do.

A Half Dozen Strangers: Well, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about, how about you provide sources and citations for all of your reasonable, mild opinions and we'll pretend to take you seriously for two seconds before saying something shitty to you again.

3) I'm surprised by the people who are all like "OP's wrong, it's bullshit on both sides, don't say anything." The guy who was like "Oh, I *KNOW* you're gonna call me a coward for not having an opinion, 'cause you're just as bad as them," was a standout. I mean, that's just way off the mark. If you don't care, you don't care, I'm talking about people like the user I mentioned last paragraph, who get really irked by GamerGate but say nothing because it's not worth the hassle and the bullshit. And hassle and bullshit is something that you really do have to put up with if you even remotely criticize GamerGate-- my point is that actual hacking, doxxing, the serious threats don't seem to trickle down to the user level. Just the endless self-aggrandizement. Taking the time to stand behind your opinion that GG is a lot of toxic nonsense if that *is* your opinion is worthwhile, and I think it's important to stand with the folks who love games but feel alienated by this whole thing. If it really is about anti-censorship, you'll be fine. If it isn't, you're helping prove the hypocrisy. If you're willing. I think it's worth it to be willing.

 

[tm96]

I'm begining to suspect most people's patience on GG is wearing thin. Its been two months since this hurricane started. I avoided saying something because of how big an impenetrable clusterfuck this has become.

I want to echo some sentiments. GG, I think is a great idea but you are still in the same place with only a small amount of victories. Just get organised. That is all you to earn my sympathy and make some big changes like what happened here on the Escapist. Isn't that want you want?

 

[broadcaststatic]

But none of that happened. She wasn't even called a bad name.

You're right, all you did was make a woman with a mild opinion feel alienated and uncomfortable. Obviously, that has nothing to do with GG's PR problems.

 

[redlemon]

But none of that happened. She wasn't even called a bad name.

You're right, all you did was make a woman with a mild opinion feel alienated and uncomfortable. Obviously, that has nothing to do with GG's PR problems.

It doesn't. GG's PR problems come from the media that they're fighting against. You can't understand what's truly going on without understanding this first.

 

[broadcaststatic]

"social justice" is just a lie those white journalists tell to other white people to make themselves look good, but when push comes to shove they are just as hateful as any 4channer.

So don't come around here trying to spin the very real pain that happened in notyourshield. It was what proved that the industry is still deeply racist and beyond saving.

About how long did this argument take to arrive from left field? How were shipping costs?

 

[broadcaststatic]

Nice to know you can't keep track of your own arguments.

Well, I did lose track of the fact that you're the guy I was talking about in my number one paragraph. So, I suppose the answer to my question is "Yes, just this guy."

But who am I to argue with a WORDSMITH EXRTRAORDINAIRE!

 

[DANEgerous]

Good please do not fear #GamerGate we do not want you to fear us, just hear us.

 

[ThreeName]

You're right, all you did was make a woman with a mild opinion feel alienated and uncomfortable. Obviously, that has nothing to do with GG's PR problems.

Oh noes, a woman feels bad! See guys, it's worse because she's a female! QED, everyone is a misogynist!

Their gender is relevant because you fucking want to be. The only people pushing the separation of gender around here are people like you who can't help but push it into everything. GG's problem is on your end, not theirs.

 

[KokujinTensai]

I'm sure it's been mentioned already, but the whole GaymerX affair invalidates this topic. They made a NEUTRAL stance and were BULLIED into denouncing it.

But hey what do I know I'm just a angry, misogynistic pissbaby uncle tom.