Support NeoGAF

[Abelian75]

A few things boogie:

1) Feminism is an important and complex topic. It isn't something you want to dive into and start labelling people as logical feminists (as opposed to illogical feminists presumably) unless you've done your research. Especially when the feminists you're labelling as logical are as controversial as Sommers.

2) When someone criticises you for your opinions about feminism, a topic which you now admit ignorance of, it's not a good idea to dismiss that as a witch hunt. Feminism is incredibly important to people. It's a liberation movement. So, if you endorse controversial people you can expect some pushback.

3) I have no interest in discrediting you. I just disagree with you about some things.

So, I'm a little hesitant to jump in here, but this actually touches on some stuff that I think is a little wrongheaded. Possibly. If this advice is merely political, then I largely agree with you (because yeah, these topics are a political minefield).

Now, that said, I disagree that people shouldn't be encouraged to jump in and explore these topics, and freely move from theory to theory as they learn more. It should be ok to look into the "wrong" side for a while without people bringing out the knives straight away. Note that that's distinct from people simply calmly disagreeing and pointing out reasons why, which I think is actually what most people here did.

In particular, saying "I think that Sommers is wrong, and here's why" is totally cool and fine. Where it gets dangerous is when you say, "Sommers is wrong, and you shouldn't have even been in this conversation if you didn't already know that." I think THAT attitude is hitting on the tone problems that the social justice movement has that, imho, are at least partly responsible for triggering this mess.

People need to be allowed to make up their own minds, and that includes allowing them to embrace philosophies you consider wrong (even if they ARE wrong), so that when they come around to your point of view, they are there for justifiable reasons, not just because it's what the cool kids believe.

(Now, it's very possible, even likely, that your advice was purely political, just explaining why you kinda need to watch your ass around these issues so you don't get in trouble with a crowd of angry humans. In that case, I agree with you, though it's still a shame that's the reality.)

 

[bigwinnerx]

I think THAT attitude is hitting on the tone problems that the social justice movement has that, imho, are at least partly responsible for triggering this mess.

Victim blaming, eh? Don't like their tone, so, respond with threats and dox. Makes sense.

 

[Abelian75]

Victim blaming, eh? Don't like their tone, so, respond with threats and dox. Makes sense.

This would be why I opened with "I'm a little hesitant to jump in here".

I certainly wasn't implying this, but I should be taking my own advice and waiting a while to talk about some of this stuff, because emotions are indeed way too hot right now. I'm happy to be wrong, just sayin' some thoughts. Didn't mean to offend.

 

[Sneds]

So, I'm a little hesitant to jump in here, but this actually touches on some stuff that I think is a little wrongheaded. Possibly. If this advice is merely political, then I largely agree with you (because yeah, these topics are a political minefield).

Now, that said, I disagree that people shouldn't be encouraged to jump in and explore these topics, and freely move from theory to theory as they learn more. It should be ok to look into the "wrong" side for a while without people bringing out the knives straight away. Note that that's distinct from people simply calmly disagreeing and pointing out reasons why, which I think is actually what most people here did.

In particular, saying "I think that Sommers is wrong, and here's why" is totally cool and fine. Where it gets dangerous is when you say, "Sommers is wrong, and you shouldn't have even been in this conversation if you didn't already know that." I think THAT attitude is hitting on the tone problems that the social justice movement has that, imho, are at least partly responsible for triggering this mess.

People need to be allowed to make up their own minds, and that includes allowing them to embrace philosophies you consider wrong (even if they ARE wrong), so that when they come around to your point of view, they are there for justifiable reasons, not just because it's what the cool kids believe.

(Now, it's very possible, even likely, that your advice was purely political, just explaining why you kinda need to watch your ass around these issues so you don't get in trouble with a crowd of angry humans. In that case, I agree with you, though it's still a shame that's the reality.)

Anyone is free to explore and discuss feminism. Of course. But I do think it's a mistake to publicly endorse a controversial figure without first researching that person's work and arguments. For political reasons but also intellectually.

 

[SerRodrik]

My signs have only ever read

"Equality is super great"
"Be nice to each other"
"The extremists on both ends of this thing are assholes"
"Gamers are not evil."

if those are the same signs as everyone else i don't see the problem.

This kind of rubs me the wrong way. The extremes on the gamergate side were actively manipulating the others in their movement in order to ruin the life of a woman just because she might have had sex at some point. I have yet to see any behavior even approaching that level of awfulness from even the most extreme members of the opposition. Equating the two sides by just saying "they're both bad!" seems unfair and shitty.

 

[FF Seraphim]

Anyone is free to explore and discuss feminism. Of course. But I do think it's a mistake to publicly endorse a controversial figure without first researching that person's work and arguments. For political reasons but also intellectually.

And people make mistakes all the time, this is why it is best to carefully explain to someone why that person may be wrong instead of immediately jumping down their throat. Just opens up for more communications to happen between both parties.

 

[zeldablue]

After some heavy thinking, I'm beginning to consider all of the things you people have said. I think its time I took my graceful exit.

http://boogie2988.tumblr.com/post/96970301078/why-im-taking-a-break-from-discussing-gamergate

I love your work boogie! A lot of us admire you! I hope you can move on from this without carrying any guilt. I don't think guilt or shame is something any of us should be throwing at each other. It is an awful awful thing, and can definitely lead to depression. (Insults are psychological attacks after all.) I hope coming here has helped you gain a more open view of this ordeal. And I look forward to seeing more of your videos, I value your opinions and beliefs.

 

[Sneds]

And people make mistakes all the time, this is why it is best to carefully explain to someone why that person may be wrong instead of immediately jumping down their throat. Just opens up for more communications to happen between both parties.

That's a good point that I'll take on board.

 

[mattp]

If people think that I'm on the side of hate, by simply preaching equality and tolerance using a hashtag they dislike then...

Jason, not only will I be glad to burn for that but I HOPE THAT I DO. a world filled with people that can make that kind of misguided logical leap is not a world I want to participate in. The thought of it makes me hope I don't wake up when I go to sleep in a few minutes.

jesus fucking christ man, i can't read these posts anymore you're just digging yourself a hole you're never going to get out of

what do you not understand about "stop using #gamegate because it is totally tainted" do you not get? no one cares that you are saying "i just preach peace and love, man" when you are doing the total opposite!(by using and associating with that hashtag/symbol)

i'm gonna go make a flag with a swastika on it but underneath write "peace" and then hang it in front of a jewish temple and see how they react

 

[blitzcloud]

This kind of rubs me the wrong way. The extremes on the gamergate side were actively manipulating the others in their movement in order to ruin the life of a woman just because she might have had sex at some point. I have yet to see any behavior even approaching that level of awfulness from even the most extreme members of the opposition. Equating the two sides by just saying "they're both bad!" seems unfair and shitty.

Prior to gamergate there was another incident. Look up the vitriol directed to an entire imageboard of depressed people on twitter, over two comments on the board. Look it up, really. Hate is not something subject-bound, it's person-bound. Some people can just carry lots of hate in their hearts, and they're just ready to use it on whatever they don't agree with.

 

[Sneds]

Prior to gamergate there was another incident. Look up the vitriol directed to an entire imageboard of depressed people on twitter, over two comments on the board. Look it up, really. Hate is not something subject-bound, it's person-bound. Some people can just carry lots of hate in their hearts, and they're just ready to use it on whatever they don't agree with.

I understand your point more generally. But in the case of #GamerGate I do think it's a mistake to draw an equivalence between the two 'sides'.

I know that a lot of people feel hurt by the words of some in the games media. Leigh Alexander's article in particular upset a lot of people. I understand that. But I don't see people on that 'side' taking part in the type of harassment, abuse and threats that ZQ and AS have withstood.

 

[zeldablue]

And people make mistakes all the time, this is why it is best to carefully explain to someone why that person may be wrong instead of immediately jumping down their throat. Just opens up for more communications to happen between both parties.

This is so important. We should never attack people on subjects that they don't clearly understand. For the majority of people, everything is fine and dandy to them. Tell them why sometimes things aren't that dandy. Enlighten, don't scold.

Prior to gamergate there was another incident. Look up the vitriol directed to an entire imageboard of depressed people on twitter, over two comments on the board. Look it up, really. Hate is not something subject-bound, it's person-bound. Some people can just carry lots of hate in their hearts, and they're just ready to use it on whatever they don't agree with.

Yep. People come to the internet to release a lot of that tension. They don't exactly realize there are actual people receiving their raw anger.

 

[Sneds]

This is so important. We should never attack people on subjects that they don't clearly understand. For the majority of people, everything is fine and dandy to them. Tell them why sometimes things aren't that dandy. Enlighten, don't scold.

Yep. People come to the internet to release a lot of that tension. They don't exactly realize there are actual people receiving their raw anger.

I do feel as though there are exceptions to this rule. And when people are discussing topics that are incredibly important to them I don't think it's fair to expect a calm, polite response at all times.

 

[FF Seraphim]

jesus fucking christ man, i can't read these posts anymore you're just digging yourself a hole you're never going to get out of

what do you not understand about "stop using #gamegate because it is totally tainted" do you not get? no one cares that you are saying "i just preach peace and love, man" when you are doing the total opposite!(by using and associating with that hashtag/symbol)

i'm gonna go make a flag with a swastika on it but underneath write "peace" and then hang it in front of a jewish temple and see how they react

I hope for your sake that you do not go to a Asian country and freak out if you see a swastika, since that symbol is still used there.

Anyway, from boogie's perspective and I am assuming the messages he read he didn't see the same kind of messages that others (the ones being harassed) saw when associating with #GG.
He and many others got a little bit angry over articles that were released a week ago and saw #GG as a rallying point and due to not being in the know about all the issues surrounding it jumped in.

It would be best to explain to those people why they are wrong instead of using angry rhetoric. The trolls won't listen but the people who generally did not know might try to research more.

 

[Tetsuo9]

What worries me is that people like boogie are getting thrown under the bus for something respectable like agreeing or not with Sommers or maybe being more conservative than others.

Some gamers like boogie will retreat for a while and ponder about it. Others will respond back with more aggressiveness. I wonder if we are making a permanent divide here instead of trying to understand and tolerate each other.

This makes me remember The Mittani's way of dealing with misogyny in eve online. If someone said anything disrespectful he ordered the whole fleet to friendy-shoot and pod him, getting kicked from the fleet and told that he was shot for not respecting woman. Most of them rejoined fleets later and never repeated the same mistake again.

 

[mattp]

I hope for your sake that you do not go to a Asian country and freak out if you see a swastika, since that symbol is still used there.

i'm well aware. my point still stands. nitpicking my example doesn't change my point

 

[Galactic Fork]

I do feel as though there are exceptions to this rule. And when people are discussing topics that are incredibly important to them I don't think it's fair to expect a calm, polite response at all times.

I agree, plus the environment is very important, and consideration that if they seem angry, they might have answered that same thing just 10 minutes ago, and there are plenty of resources online.

 

[Sneds]

What worries me is that people like boogie are getting thrown under the bus for something respectable like agreeing or not with Sommers or maybe being more conservative than others.

Some gamers like boogie will retreat for a while and ponder about it. Others will respond back with more aggressiveness. I wonder if we are making a permanent divide here instead of trying to understand and tolerate each other.

This makes me remember The Mittani's way of dealing with misogyny in eve online. If someone said anything disrespectful he ordered the whole fleet to friendy-shoot and pod him, getting kicked from the fleet and told that he was shot for not respecting woman. Most of them rejoined fleets later and never repeated the same mistake again.

The divide has been there for a while.

Whenever a game is accused of having sexist, racist, or homophobic imagery or tropes then two opposing positions comes to the fore. In the past it's been over individual games like Far Cry 3 but it's been bubbling away under the surface. Distrust of the games media, whether justified or not, has also been a constant theme. I think #GamerGate was almost inevitable. The problem is that the two separate issues, media corruption and social issues, have become intertwined. It's become articulated as SJW journalists and indie devs vs 'gamers'.

 

[FF Seraphim]

i'm well aware. my point still stands. nitpicking my example doesn't change my point

Yeah it kinda does. Your point was the vast extreme. Unless you are equating what boogie and others are doing as doing the exact same thing.

There is a difference between generally trying to be nice and doing it the wrong way and simply saying you are being nice but utterly being dishonest about it. Your example is someone being dishonest about it and trolling.
Do you see boogie and others as being dishonest on their beliefs and trolls?

I don't and its best to explain to them why instead of using angry posts to show a point. Because once you throw in emotion to your post you will lose some people.

 

[mattp]

Yeah it kinda does. Your point was the vast extreme. Unless you are equating what boogie and others are doing as doing the exact same thing.

There is a difference between generally trying to be nice and doing it the wrong way and simply saying you are being nice but utterly being dishonest about it. Your example is someone being dishonest about it and trolling.
Do you see boogie and others as being dishonest on their beliefs and trolls?

I don't and its best to explain to them why instead of using angry posts to show a point. Because once you throw in emotion to your post you will lose some people.

i didnt necessarily say boogie was being dishonest about it, but if he's willfully being ignorant to the fact that whether he likes it or not, using that hashtag is counter to what he's saying, then it's really not all that different than straight up being dishonest

 

[PsychoSoldier]

The divide has been there for a while.

Whenever a game is accused of having sexist, racist, or homophobic imagery or tropes then two opposing positions comes to the fore. In the past it's been over individual games like Far Cry 3 but it's been bubbling away under the surface. Distrust of the games media, whether justified or not, has also been a constant theme. I think #GamerGate was almost inevitable. The problem is that the two separate issues, media corruption and social issues, have become intertwined. It's become articulated as SJW journalists and indie devs vs 'gamers'.

While there may be a social element that is involved, there is a simple distrust of many of the people who write about games that has been fed and nurtured by previous controversies, and this particular controversy just accentuated that particular aspect and added a nasty edge.

The next time video game writers take a position en masse that a large portion of their audience disagrees with it'll probably end up being worse than before.

 

[FF Seraphim]

i didnt necessarily say boogie was being dishonest about it, but if he's willfully being ignorant to the fact that whether he likes it or not, using that hashtag is counter to what he's saying, then it's really not all that different than straight up being dishonest

Well from pages 54 up to 57, it was explained to him why it wasn't the best to use that tag and he has stepped back.
Some posts were thoughtful, some not so much.

Also, it is hard for many people to keep up with the news going on about this whole mess, so I wouldn't say willfully ignorant more like not readily kept informed of the situation. Because lets be honest this thing is a mess and getting objective news about it is hard to get a hold of.

 

[Sneds]

While there may be a social element that is involved, there is a simple distrust of many of the people who write about games that has been fed and nurtured by previous controversies, and this particular controversy just accentuated that particular aspect and added a nasty edge.

The next time video game writers take a position en masse that a large portion of their audience disagrees with it'll probably end up being worse than before.

I think part of the distrust stems from the idea that journalists are trying to force feed their readership an SJW agenda. It's a consistent complaint from #GamerGate supporters.

 

[gogoud]

jesus fucking christ man, i can't read these posts anymore you're just digging yourself a hole you're never going to get out of

what do you not understand about "stop using #gamegate because it is totally tainted" do you not get? no one cares that you are saying "i just preach peace and love, man" when you are doing the total opposite!(by using and associating with that hashtag/symbol)

i'm gonna go make a flag with a swastika on it but underneath write "peace" and then hang it in front of a jewish temple and see how they react

But even other hashtags for a good causes have been tainted. And they recovered. Does it matter? There are bad apples on both sides. and no zoe and Anita are on the sidelines. Doesn't matter who they are or what they did or who they did it with. The extreme sides where idiots from gamergate will go and harass the idiots from the sjw and vice versa. Doxxing on both sides occurs. Harassment and hatred occurs in both extreme sides.

So, by your logic because some passionate extreme sjws defending feminism and women in gaming are harassing gamergaters because a few of them said that someone should get raped then feminism and sjwism is just as bad as racism/naziism/and all the evil things in the world because they go to the extremes to protect what they believe is right?

Please. Are you going to arrest every protester in a peaceful protest where a few hooded hoodlums decided to firebomb a couple police cars?

Boogie is doing the right thing now. More people should do the right thing. From all sides. Ignore the extreme bullshit and promote the right things. Show that not all gamers are rapists, and show that not all sjws are bad evil scumbags.

And journalism... Even polygon and kotaku put out good pieces once in a while. If you focus on the sensationalist bullshit rather than the hard work they put out then of course kotaku, gk, polygon, and many if not all internet media sites are nothing but shit. Which just isn't true.

Cpm is a thing. Click baiting therefore is a thing. These guys need to get paid. Click baiting has been a thing for ages... Even in print media. Best headline gets bought.

Coi doesn't matter either. Gaming was niche. Small. It grew up and exploded. But communities kept themselves as niche and small. Even though it no longer is that. Just pretend that everyone is working together and everyone knows one another and they're all friends.

Transparency is nice is real news. And we get that when we get real investigative gaming pieces. Who cares about some witty well written blogposts?

 

[blitzcloud]

I understand your point more generally. But in the case of #GamerGate I do think it's a mistake to draw an equivalence between the two 'sides'.

I know that a lot of people feel hurt by the words of some in the games media. Leigh Alexander's article in particular upset a lot of people. I understand that. But I don't see people on that 'side' taking part in the type of harassment, abuse and threats that ZQ and AS have withstood.

Let's draw a similarity, zoe quinn, annita and other people become lightning rods. They simply happen to attract all the surrounding lightning strikes. You can't see the same behavior on the other side because there aren't clear targets.

Jack thompson equivalence works. Male, white, not really feminist (?) guy gets online insane amounts of hate because he dared to touch videogames, GTA in particular. Okay, we all know from Jack Thompson that he really wanted videogame creative freedom taken away because some customers happened to be serial killers in mass shootings. he was drawing parallels between cartoon violence and real life murders. And that was enough reason for him to be taken out, and no one moved a finger (by no one I'd say no gamer representatives agreed at all). Now someone says: let's draw a parallel of real life sexism and videogame sexism, and people react similar. Are they being misogynistic or sexist? Can't tell if there's real hate towards their gender from abrupt messages. If we play sexism and mysoginy card, we have to be 100% sure that this wouldn't happen if the targets weren't males.. Just like I couldn't tell if "violent murderers, future to-be mass shooters" were behind the threats of Jack Thompson.

I definitely agree that threats online are too easy. You never know if they have any weight but you have to live scared. Just like swatting, that doesn't seem to have any real downside (except apparently they found out a guy that did 30 swatting calls across america. Hope the law makes an example out of him so it doesn't get out of hand). The problem is that this debate will only end when the internet freedoms are taken away. Real ID or something like that.

 

[Mael]

Doxxing on both sides occurs.

Source?

 

[Camp Freddie]

As someone who thinks Gamergate is totally fucked up, Boogie's experience is enlightening, since I don't think he's a bigot, yet he freely associated himself with the movement.

I guess the Tea Party is the closest analogy. A lot of people supported the anti-corruption agenda of the Tea Party, but it let the crazy element dominate the conversation and ended up causing a lot more hate to infect US politics than most people intended.

Like the Tea Party, #Gamergate has no clear aims. It's a catch all for those who feel attacked or who think there is some sort of corruption in gaming, or feel that their views are just not being addressed (whatever they are).

So you get a movement that wants no political activism, except when they want people to campaign against a corrupt industry.
They want no cronyism or cliques, except when it means they get to read an exclusive interview with some game dev.
They don't want to harass women, except when a woman is being an 'attentionwhore' by criticising a game.
They support gaming, except when someone makes a game that doesn't fit their definition of what a game is.
They support gamers, except when those gamers criticise a game they like.
They want transparency in where journalists get their funding, but then criticise journalists when they transparently ask for money on patreon/kickstarter for a project.

Gamergate is a trainwreck and it's best if we all focus our efforts on more targeted campaigns.
If you want to end corruption, arguing for better 'conflict of interest' disclaimers or for the end of hidden corporate sponsorship of youtube videos is a good thing to start with.

As it is, I think gamergate is the "I hate you mum & dad" phase of gaming culture growing up. Soon gaming will be part of the adult world and we'll all be able to take criticism as something to learn from rather than as a personal insult that must be avenged with maximum prejudice.
Anyway, on that rare outburst of optimism, I'm going to call it a day.

 

[Simply Sarah]

Look, even ignoring whether #gamergate is irredeemable from its toxic beginnings, it's a bad hashtag. It's far too nebulous and generic, resulting in a confused mess. These discussions need to take place in a more focused manner for there to even be a chance of something constructive coming from them.

 

[mattp]

But even other hashtags for a good causes have been tainted. And they recovered. Does it matter? There are bad apples on both sides. and no zoe and Anita are on the sidelines. Doesn't matter who they are or what they did or who they did it with. The extreme sides where idiots from gamergate will go and harass the idiots from the sjw and vice versa. Doxxing on both sides occurs. Harassment and hatred occurs in both extreme sides.

gamegate was not tainted afterwards though. it BEGAN as a tainted hashtag because it only existed for harassment.

So, by your logic because some passionate extreme sjws defending feminism and women in gaming are harassing gamergaters because a few of them said that someone should get raped then feminism and sjwism is just as bad as racism/naziism/and all the evil things in the world because they go to the extremes to protect what they believe is right?

Please. Are you going to arrest every protester in a peaceful protest where a few hooded hoodlums decided to firebomb a couple police cars?

Boogie is doing the right thing now. More people should do the right thing. From all sides. Ignore the extreme bullshit and promote the right things. Show that not all gamers are rapists, and show that not all sjws are bad evil scumbags.

And journalism... Even polygon and kotaku put out good pieces once in a while. If you focus on the sensationalist bullshit rather than the hard work they put out then of course kotaku, gk, polygon, and many if not all internet media sites are nothing but shit. Which just isn't true.

Cpm is a thing. Click baiting therefore is a thing. These guys need to get paid. Click baiting has been a thing for ages... Even in print media. Best headline gets bought.

Coi doesn't matter either. Gaming was niche. Small. It grew up and exploded. But communities kept themselves as niche and small. Even though it no longer is that. Just pretend that everyone is working together and everyone knows one another and they're all friends.

Transparency is nice is real news. And we get that when we get real investigative gaming pieces. Who cares about some witty well written blogposts?[

i'm not even going to take the rest of this seriously because you used "sjw"
sorry

 

[The Llama]

Let's face it, this has basically turned into 2 completely separate things: Gaming press reform and female harassment/feminism. The problem is you can't really discuss one without getting forced into an argument about the other.

 

[Sneds]

Let's draw a similarity, zoe quinn, annita and other people become lightning rods. They simply happen to attract all the surrounding lightning strikes. You can't see the same behavior on the other side because there aren't clear targets.

Jack thompson equivalence works. Male, white, not really feminist (?) guy gets online insane amounts of hate because he dared to touch videogames, GTA in particular. Okay, we all know from Jack Thompson that he really wanted videogame creative freedom taken away because some customers happened to be serial killers in mass shootings. he was drawing parallels between cartoon violence and real life murders. And that was enough reason for him to be taken out, and no one moved a finger (by no one I'd say no gamer representatives agreed at all). Now someone says: let's draw a parallel of real life sexism and videogame sexism, and people react similar. Are they being misogynistic or sexist? Can't tell if there's real hate towards their gender from abrupt messages. If we play sexism and mysoginy card, we have to be 100% sure that this wouldn't happen if the targets weren't males.. Just like I couldn't tell if "violent murderers, future to-be mass shooters" were behind the threats of Jack Thompson.

I definitely agree that threats online are too easy. You never know if they have any weight but you have to live scared. Just like swatting, that doesn't seem to have any real downside (except apparently they found out a guy that did 30 swatting calls across america. Hope the law makes an example out of him so it doesn't get out of hand). The problem is that this debate will only end when the internet freedoms are taken away. Real ID or something like that.

It's impossible to know whether the lack of clear targets is the reason for the different approaches. But, whatever the reason, one 'side' is certainly being more abusive than the other.

 

[Noaloha]

On being a genuine minority #GG supporter yet being called out as 'fake':

Around August 28th, 12 days after the initial post, a slew of websites began to post concurrent stories declaring “gamers” as an identity dead, over, unnecessary starting with the piece by Leigh Alexander:

[several links]

This caused the #GamerGate tag to kick into overdrive according to examination of the #GamerGate tag from topsy.com [link]

August 26: 0 tweets
August 27: 4,292 tweets
August 28: 8,124 tweets
August 29: 15,879 tweets
August 30: 43,328 tweets
August 31: 40,901 tweets

Compare that to #quinnspiracy [link] which never breaks over 400 tweets.


On #GamerGate being a lost cause from its very inception:

The unfortunate thing is that there is certainly corruption and a lack of ethics in many pockets of the video game industry’s journalistic wing. Suspect sponsorships and payola have been standard for years; anyone remember when Jeff Gerstmann got fired from GameSpot way back in 2007 after writing a middling review of Kane and Lynch, advertisements of which were plastered all over the website? Where was GamerGate back then? Why did it take The Zoe Post, a story utterly bereft of actual corruption, to galvanize gamers into pushing back against these entrenched practices?
No matter how desperately GamerGate proponents try to sweep this detail under the rug, the fact is that they only got truly interested in this subject when there was a woman to sexually shame for it. And that’s more damning than anything in The Zoe Post.

I picked both quotes from these very different articles as they describe different (yet, I don't think mutually exclusive?) reasons for why #GamerGate galvanised such a following.

Could it possibly be that the truth involves some middle ground between the two, or a combination or both, plus other, factors?

Interesting to note that both sides of this particular argument have no qualms pointing out that obviously there were attempts to steer the #gg conversation toward extremist shitheaddy goals, but the articles differ on how effective they think those attempts were (and, I guess, are).

 

[blitzcloud]

It's impossible to know whether the lack of clear targets is the reason for the different approaches. But, whatever the reason, one 'side' is certainly being more abusive than the other.

yeah well, should have clarified that it's my opinion, partially. I'm just saying you're more likely to see lightning strikes when you got a window pointing to a huge lightning rod than if they all strike scattered around. You might be right, because the hate is very strong from some messages I've heard and read.

 

[Corto]

Get well, Boogie! Stay strong, regain your health. That's all that matter.

 

[Sneds]

yeah well, should have clarified that it's my opinion, partially. I'm just saying you're more likely to see lightning strikes when you got a window pointing to a huge lightning rod than if they all strike scattered around. You might be right, because the hate is very strong from some messages I've heard and read.

And I should also say that I know that the vast majority of #GamerGate supporters aren't taking part in harassment.

But part of the reason I can't get behind #GamerGate is because, even if no-one was involved in harassment, there's a strong 'anti-SJW ' element to it.

It would be best for all concerned if we didn't think in terms of sides at all but it does feel as though lines have been drawn.

For that reason, I would encourage people to use the #gameethics hashtag as there are some productive discussions going on between players, journalists and devs about various issues in the games industry and media.

 

[FyreWulff]

Boogie's position is quite confusing as he has far enough reach where he doesn't need an astroturfed hashtag to reach people. #GamerGate is a brand with specific connotations attached to it. #gameethics is a hashtag to direct people to relevant conversation.


It'd be like someone with publicity of Jessie Jackson trying to push equality under a #kkk hashtag, when he has farther reach on his own. He could talk about all the stuff he wants to currently, which makes sense, but I have no idea why he must insist it be conveyed along with a certain brand that is working against what he's saying.

 

[Moon_frogger]

How is using #gameethics any better if it spawned from #gamergate, which it quite clearly did? It's literally the difference of a few letters, it's less likely to be seen and heard, and just as likely to become an avenue for abuse, by virtue of being on twitter.

 

[marrec]

How is using #gameethics any better if it spawned from #gamergate, which it quite clearly did? It's literally the difference of a few letters, it's less likely to be seen and heard, and just as likely to become an avenue for abuse, by virtue of being on twitter.

Honestly 60% of the tweets with Gamergate in them have some kind of dig at "SJW" or feminists or a proclamation of being against misogyny so moving hashtags would make sense. Actual discussion of corruption in journalism is in the minority. :lol

It's becoming more and more about 'political agendas'.

 

[gogoud]

gamegate was not tainted afterwards though. it BEGAN as a tainted hashtag because it only existed for harassment.

not really. We were flooded with the bad apples. Good apples were overshadowed. By the bad.

i'm not even going to take the rest of this seriously because you used "sjw"
sorry

same applies above. This isn't about feminism and mysoginsm. And sjw is not a bad term. It has become a bad term. There is nothing wrong with defending what you believe in. Sjw just brings everything together. Good and bad. But somehow gamergate only brings in the bad?

No one should care what Anita.S has done and will keep doing. No one should care what zoey.Q has done and will keep doing. Flood gates were opened. Bad apples are calling peoples whores while others are calling people rapists and scum. The extremists have flooded both sides and somehow lumping all the defenders of feminism in gaming in sjw is bad. But ignoring all the good tweets coming from gamergate and just focusing on the bad is good. It's horrible. It's just like attacking kotaku for the bad few articles... While ignoring all the good ones.

And for proof on doxxing from both sides... There is proof. It was posted in the other thread and all over the web. But willfully ignoring it and saying it doesn't exist is silly.

However everyone is focusing on someone's misdeeds as a person and making this whole thing just that. Ignore all that. Focus on the real issue and see that both sides are actually working together and it's the asshole extremists from both sides who are fucking the whole thing up.

Corruption has been in gaming press for years (paid reviews/previews/hand outs). Someone's misdeeds as a person should not have been the spark that ignited the movement. But it did. For that reason alone it will blow over. Once everyone does what boogey does and others are doing... Then maybe the movement has a chance. But both sides are nitpicking. They'll continue to do so. Because it's easier.

 

[Orayn]

How is using #gameethics any better if it spawned from #gamergate, which it quite clearly did? It's literally the difference of a few letters, it's less likely to be seen and heard, and just as likely to become an avenue for abuse, by virtue of being on twitter.

It's better because it's not having its agenda dictated by misanthropes on /v/ who still want this whole thing to be about "sticking it to the SJWs" and the bizarre notion that a handful of indie developers are somehow a bigger threat to journalistic integrity than the giant corporations who control access to games and a huge amount of advertising dollars.

 

[Toxi]

I know nothing about boogie, but from what I can tell from this thread his situation with supporting Sommers is similar to something that's happened to many people. You often associate with people who say some things we agree with without realizing that they might have some awful positions that we don't want to associate with. Then you learn and it hurts because we don't want to turn back on our positions. You'll sometimes even discover a friend of yours can say some truly nasty things. Then you face a tough choice of whether you break connections or try to deal with it without espousing those same views.

Also really helps to have people who know their shit like Mumei to point out things we wouldn't notice on our own.

 

[Eidan]

"Movement". Are we still acting like this has anything to do with video game journalist ethics?

 

[JackDT]

Let's face it, this has basically turned into 2 completely separate things: Gaming press reform and female harassment/feminism. The problem is you can't really discuss one without getting forced into an argument about the other.

It's not just that the #gamergate tag is being used for different issues: gaming press reform, and separately as war against SJWs bringing social issues into games.

It's that the efforts towards gaming press reform, the videos that have gone viral, the imgur corruption links, the loudest issues... it's all been focused on people associated with talking about social issues in games, on freelancers making pennies through Patreon, on Zoe Quinn, Jenn Frank, Danielle Riendeau, Anita Sarkeesian, etc.

 

[Deitus]

I picked both quotes from these very different articles as they describe different (yet, I don't think mutually exclusive?) reasons for why #GamerGate galvanised such a following.

Could it possibly be that the truth involves some middle ground between the two, or a combination or both, plus other, factors?

Interesting to note that both sides of this particular argument have no qualms pointing out that obviously there were attempts to steer the #gg conversation toward extremist shitheaddy goals, but the articles differ on how effective they think those attempts were (and, I guess, are).

It's definitely a combination of factors. There has been a building resentment between gamers and games media for several years now, for a variety of reasons. This was simply the match that lit the powder keg.

That said, the second quote is more than a little dishonest.

The unfortunate thing is that there is certainly corruption and a lack of ethics in many pockets of the video game industry’s journalistic wing. Suspect sponsorships and payola have been standard for years; anyone remember when Jeff Gerstmann got fired from GameSpot way back in 2007 after writing a middling review of Kane and Lynch, advertisements of which were plastered all over the website? Where was GamerGate back then? Why did it take The Zoe Post, a story utterly bereft of actual corruption, to galvanize gamers into pushing back against these entrenched practices?

No matter how desperately GamerGate proponents try to sweep this detail under the rug, the fact is that they only got truly interested in this subject when there was a woman to sexually shame for it. And that’s more damning than anything in The Zoe Post.

There absolutely was an outrage over Jeff Gerstmann's firing. But social media was a completely different beast back in 2007. Twitter was barely in it's infancy, and basically no one was using it at that time. Even Facebook was different back then (but I guarantee there were Facebook groups trying to get them to rehire Jeff and/or to boycott Gamespot in response). So there were a ton of people outraged and discussing the events, but there weren't a lot of ways to make this outrage heard by the world outside of their bubble. There certainly wasn't an effective way to spontaneously spearhead a social movement and have unrelated people jump on board like happens now with hashtags.

Also, it neglects to mention that there have been other controversies in between that and this latest event, such as Doritogate, which absolutely did result in mass outrage and social media campaigns. In addition, the success of the #PS4NODRM campaign last year, and other similar hashtag activism campaigns has emboldened people to further use social media in such a way.

It's absolutely not as simple as "people are only outraged because a woman is involved," and frankly that kind of oversimplification is exactly the attitude that enabled the Gamergate movement to pick up as much steam as it did. There are a lot of shitty people manipulating the entire movement, but caught in between are a lot of people unaware of any of that, who just want to be heard and respected, because they feel that hasn't happened in a while. Continuing to brand everyone even remotely associated with that movement as woman-hating bigots only pushes them further down that path.

That's not to say that there's any reason for the Gamergate campaign to continue. It was corrupted from the start, and it has done a LOT more bad than good. But there are decent people who were involved that don't deserve to be treated like scum.

 

[Sneds]

It's not just that the #gamergate tag is being used for different issues: gaming press reform, and separately as war against SJWs bringing social issues into games.

It's that the efforts towards gaming press reform, the videos that have gone viral, the imgur corruption links, the loudest issues... it's all been focused on people associated with talking about social issues in games, on freelancers making pennies through Patreon, on Zoe Quinn, Jenn Frank, Danielle Riendeau, Anita Sarkeesian, etc.

Exactly. I do think there are problems with games media but these relate to the relationship between the media and big games companies. These actual issues aren't being addressed by #GamerGate.

At the same time, people from #GamerGate complain that #gameethics doesn't address their concerns and feel as though the new hashtag is an effort by indie devs and journalists to sweep corruption under the rug. I've seen people on twitter using screenshots of people talking about #gameethics in this thread as supposed evidence of that. Yet the people using #gameethics are interested in corruption, just not dubious conspiracy theories.

 

[Moon_frogger]

It's better because it's not having its agenda dictated by misanthropes on /v/ who still want this whole thing to be about "sticking it to the SJWs" and the bizarre notion that a handful of indie developers are somehow a the bigger threat to journalistic integrity than the giant corporations who control access to games and a huge amount of advertising dollars.

You know, I've never pondered the idea that a lot of this subversive harassment is aimed at 'indie' gaming and it's perceived 'destruction' of the industry. It's a good point. Even on neogaf I see a lot of silly generalizing about smaller budget games along the lines of 'I don't like indie games and won't play them' which is ridiculous because it means nothing at all.

I will say a quick glance at twitter is pretty encouraging. Although half the tweets I saw were just 'use this tag instead of the other' variety I did see a lot of industry insiders tweeting it declaring their willingness for discussion and answering questions about their occupation and ethics. Good stuff.

 

[Orayn]

You know, I've never pondered the idea that a lot of this subversive harassment is aimed at 'indie' gaming and it's perceived 'destruction' of the industry. It's a good point. Even on neogaf I see a lot of silly generalizing about smaller budget games along the lines of 'I don't like indie games and won't play them' which is ridiculous because it means nothing at all.

I will say a quick glance at twitter is pretty encouraging. Although half the tweets I saw were just 'use this tag instead of the other' variety I did see a lot of industry insiders tweeting it declaring their willingness for discussion and answering questions about their occupation and ethics. Good stuff.

Basically, yeah. GamerGate is largely ignoring publishers' role in all this because that's not the narrative they want to convey. To them, it's all about a cabal of smalltime developers with technicolor hair who want to destroy their hobby by secretly pushing an agenda that targets "real" gamers for no reason.

A lot of the same conspiratorial thinking flared up around the release of Gone Home, and some people are using the recent Quinnspiracy drama as a chance to restart the crusade.

 

[Simply Sarah]

You know, I've never pondered the idea that a lot of this subversive harassment is aimed at 'indie' gaming and it's perceived 'destruction' of the industry. It's a good point. Even on neogaf I see a lot of silly generalizing about smaller budget games along the lines of 'I don't like indie games and won't play them' which is ridiculous because it means nothing at all.

I will say a quick glance at twitter is pretty encouraging. Although half the tweets I saw were just 'use this tag instead of the other' variety I did see a lot of industry insiders tweeting it declaring their willingness for discussion and answering questions about their occupation and ethics. Good stuff.

Well, that's the thing. The vast majority of people actually in the industry are quite happy to have discussions about industry ethics. For one, any corruption that may exist tends to benefit only a select few whereas the vast majority wants the industry to be as fair, clean, and respectable as possible.

Conversely, these same people tend to want a broad, inclusive, and creative industry because, well, that can mean more opportunities (of all kinds) for them. This is where #gamergate has largely missed the mark (by design of its creators): Lots of people want to talk about this stuff and want to improve gaming and making it "us vs them" prevents that.

 

[Cybit]

You really need to understand that continuing to support the tag #gamergate is participating in the campaign, and therefore implicitly supporting what they've done.

It's like standing at a Tea Party protest and shouting "go Tea Party! But also peace and love!" You might be a moderate who just wants people to treat each other better, but you are quite literally taking the side of radicals -- radicals who have already bullied out one of the most talented writers in games, Jenn Frank. THAT'S what this movement has accomplished. By supporting GamerGate, that's what you're supporting. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer.

Sadly, Occupy Wall Street had the same problem; radicals who had no bearing in the process ended up hijacking the movement and causing it to crash and burn. (Though I am not sure outside of the hilariously inept Streisand effect many websites caused, how this even really relates to journalism. I'm annoyed that some folks are trying to make themselves the gaming equivalents of Bill O' Reilly out of the whole mess, but that's another discussion).

With the way modern discourse takes form (Social Media); will it ever be possible to have a major movement that doesn't get hijacked by crazies? Especially if the sides are already looking for a reason to discredit each other?

 

[Noaloha]

Though I am not sure outside of the hilariously inept Streisand effect many websites caused, how this even really relates to journalism.

By that, are you referring to the sites and forums which opted, at their discretion, not to host a venue within which to baselessly gossip about someone's private sex life?