Support NeoGAF

[KevinKeene]

This is supposed to be a follow-up discussion to this thread, with a new focus.

As we've fully established in the above thread, GamerGate isn't the evil, racist, misogynistic, women hating harassment movement that some want you to believe. Sure, there are idiots within GG, just like there are idiots within feminist, yet we don't demonize the latter. The big problem, however, that appears after coming this far: Who actually cares about educating the masses?

To this day, I've never seen any of the big gaming websites (kotaku, polygon, ign, eurogamer, etc) attempt in the slightest to correct the extremely one-sided image that GG currently carries in the mind of the mainstream. Whenever they mention GG, no matter the context, they'll just assume that GG is made of racists, misogynistic, harassers, and don't forget about the alt-right affiliation. This is used as established, true fact, and it's never questioned. And how could anyone?

I recently had a talk with someone from a bigger website, and the moment he realized I wasn't demonizing GG, he called me dumb and quit the conversation. And that's, I'm confident, exemplary for the overwhelming majority of all outlets.

It's snake that feeds on itself:
1) Call GG a harassment movement of all the worst people
2) Be scared/outraged when someone doesn't hate GG
3) return to 1)

And due the climate we're in, once a group is labeled as misogynistic, it's over. Because even only trying to correct a wrong statement bears the risk of bining associated with said group. And thus everyone keeps silence or nods without care.

With this in mind, it's no surprise why it seems to be impossible to have a nuanced debate about GG. I just don't what can be done. Because it's incredibly frustrating to continuously be dismissed or even insulted, all because I don't demonize a group that's basically against censorship and for the fun in games.

And like in the other thread: keep discussion civil and don't verbally murder each other.

 

[OH-MyCar]

I don't think there's a lot of incentive to "set the record straight" for anyone. From the perspective of a neutral who knows the media (knowingly) got a lot of things wrong, but also finds a few elements of GG sorta tiresome, it would just be a battle not worthy of sticking my neck out for. I don't visit a lot of these sites that GG have problems with, because I largely feel the same about them, but that's the best I can do.

So, if I were a public figure with any kind of reach, I'd be extraordinarily careful about becoming a useful idiot for GG even if I'd love to see Polygon go the way of Gawker. People in groups are awful, and often need an unrealistic amount of consistency and "purity" from the people they prop up.

I mean, for example: I think Liana K is an awesome Youtuber and she's also cautious to throw in her lot with any side for those exact same reasons. At that point you're no longer allowed to be an individual for a lot of people and there's simply no benefit whatsoever.

 

[godhandiscen]

This shit should be in OT. This isn't games discussion. Along with the other thread about CNN's shitty reporting.

 

[Soul of Cinder]

How else could you so effortlessly move and control people if you are going to have accurate reporting.

 

[dragonfart28]

This sounds like you just received your email talking points from Jordan Peterson.

Not that you're wrong, but the cadence and context of post sounds like it's been regurgitated a bunch of times already in the last two years.

 

[Kadayi]

To this day, I've never seen any of the big gaming websites (kotaku, polygon, ign, eurogamer, etc) attempt in the slightest to correct the extremely one-sided image that GG currently carries in the mind of the mainstream. Whenever they mention GG, no matter the context, they'll just assume that GG is made of racists, misogynistic, harassers, and don't forget about the alt-right affiliation. This is used as established, true fact, and it's never questioned. And how could anyone?

Why would they? There's no gain to it. As outlets they have enough of an audience presumably to be able to skate by regardless, so what's the motivation from a media perspective? Short of major upheavals in management at any of these sites, you're extremely unlikely to see any difference in viewpoint. Like employs like, and the gaming press is no different from anyone else in this regard. It's a very small pool and to get on and get writing gigs you need to subscribe to views on matters. Whether at heart all believe something truthfully is another matter entirely, but considering how people who've transgressed what the collective deem acceptable have been made pariahs, I'm not surprised that there has been no sea change.

I'm not sure what you are hoping for OP.

 

[GrimDarkDarrel]

As we've fully established in the above thread, GamerGate isn't the evil, racist, misogynistic, women hating harassment movement that some want you to believe.

Can someone link me to where this is "fully established"? Because I don't buy it, and it reads more like OP is trying to rewrite history. GamerGate as I understand was started by an ex boyfriend of Zoe Quinn publicly airing out their dirty laundry while accusing Nathan Grayson of providing coverage he never actually provided. There was never so much as a microsecond of time when GamerGate wasn't about harassing women. If some post exists which shows otherwise I'm willing to read it, but in my present view, anyone who self identifies with this toxic movement is simply "okay" with the part where women are harassed in it's name.

And for what? Ethics in game journalism of all things. That is the great justice that is used to excuse the harm this movement causes. One could debate the extent to which the movement was co-opted by the alt-right but I have to disgree with the notion that it isn't so inundated with misogynistic women hating harassment that one could support GamerGate without tacitly endorsing these things at the same time.

 

[Mr. Grumpy]

And like in the other thread: keep discussion civil and don't verbally murder each other.

Mr. Grumpy endorses this comment. Please be aware of this endorsement if you choose to not keep things civil and/or attack other members.

 

[F0rneus]

We've fully established in the above thread, GamerGate isn't the evil, racist, misogynistic, women hating harassment movement? Yeah, no? Cause it's kinda what it was, and still is.

Not targeting anybody. I think some people believe in this evangelized version of GamerGate where it wasn't a movement that started out of a butthurt dude harrassing his ex. If you actually care about ethics in game journalism, call yourself something else. Because GG was never more than a shitty hate movement that served as a testing ground for the alt-right. And I read that thread, and all I see is heavily cherry-picked evidence to the contrary.

For example, I don't think that you KevinKeene, are a misogynist. But you support a movement that totally was.

 

[Dunki]

We've fully established in the above thread, GamerGate isn't the evil, racist, misogynistic, women hating harassment movement? Yeah, no? Cause it's kinda what it was, and still is.

Not targeting anybody. I think some people believe in this evangelized version of GamerGate where it wasn't a movement that started out of a butthurt dude harrassing his ex. If you actually care about ethics in game journalism, call yourself something else. Because GG was never more than a shitty hate movement that served as a testing ground for the alt-right. And I read that thread, and all I see is heavily cherry-picked evidence to the contrary.

For example, I don't think that you KevinKeene, are a misogynist. But you support a movement that totally was.

So we are just ignoring the fact that only 0.6% of actual accounts and interactions about GameGate was harassment? I was deeply involved in it and I never met these so called harassers but I have also seen a lot of people who got death threats, harassment, doxxing who actually were Gamergate supporter. I just do not think it is as easy as your post make it look like. And to be correct the event that caused all this was basically something that was breeding for a long long time and this was the last straw and escalated with the Gamers are dead articles IMO.

Also quick question if so called leader of BLM spread racists opinions, advocating of breaking laws, violent riots etc. can we call BLM also racist? BLM is way more of a group than GamerGate ever was. Everyone had the right to use the #

 

[strange headache]

I'm not sure what you are hoping for OP.

Yeah, as much as I try to have a nuanced view on things, I wonder why this couldn't have been continued in the already existing topic? I'm not keen on starting this whole conversation all over again, when there is a perfectly fine topic already containing many good and reasonable arguments that are relevant to the context of this particular discussion.

 

[Gormless Noodle]

We've fully established in the above thread, GamerGate isn't the evil, racist, misogynistic, women hating harassment movement? Yeah, no? Cause it's kinda what it was, and still is.

Not targeting anybody. I think some people believe in this evangelized version of GamerGate where it wasn't a movement that started out of a butthurt dude harrassing his ex. If you actually care about ethics in game journalism, call yourself something else. Because GG was never more than a shitty hate movement that served as a testing ground for the alt-right. And I read that thread, and all I see is heavily cherry-picked evidence to the contrary.

For example, I don't think that you KevinKeene, are a misogynist. But you support a movement that totally was.

I know it's kind of dark, but I just find it so funny that some internet clown war over video games was ESSENTIALLY the opening salvo to this new culture war we're in.
And now the Americans are sittin' there. Ruled over by a living Cheeto in his golden tower.

 

[ProfessorLobo]

I have never heard of anything remotely interesting come out of GamerGate, besides their harassment. Did they uncover some big story about games journalism that I missed?

 

[TrainedRage]

I know it's kind of dark, but I just find it so funny that some internet clown war over video games was ESSENTIALLY the opening salvo to this new culture war we're in.
And now the Americans are sittin' there. Ruled over by a living Cheeto in his golden tower.

I know.... Its fantastic!

 

[Musky_Cheese]

I still don’t know what Gamergate. Every time someone explains it, someone else says “no it’s about this”. And I’m confused again.

 

[e0n]

I first heard about this "movement" when there was a panel at SXSW about it years ago, and thought it was just some juvenile online nonsense. The vast majority probably equates it to online harassment because that is still pretty much a crime that happened around that time. I'm not exactly sure why you act like you are being persecuted? It's not that hard to find opinions you disagree with online.

 

[Dunki]

I still don’t know what Gamergate. Every time someone explains it, someone else says “no it’s about this”. And I’m confused again.

Because it is a mess and not black and white like games journalists back then claimed. Honestly It is not really worth the time anymore so I would not bother to read up since there is no real and easy to find objective view on it. But it is kind of ridiculous that some people believe that GamerGate was the reason for Trump getting elected.

 

[F0rneus]

So we are just ignoring the fact that only 0.6% of actual accounts and interactions about GameGate was harassment? I was deeply involved in it and I never met these so called harassers but I have also seen a lot of people who got death threats, harassment, doxxing who actually were Gamergate supporter. I just do not think it is as easy as your post make it look like. And to be correct the event that caused all this was basically something that was breeding for a long long time and this was the last straw and escalated with the Gamers are dead articles IMO.

Also quick question if so called leader of BLM spread racists opinions, advocating of breaking laws, violent riots etc. can we call BLM also racist? BLM is way more of a group than GamerGate ever was. Everyone had the right to use the #

The thing with, is that as far as I can tell, GG was always more organized than BLM. Aren't you are referrring to the (I believe) leader of the Ontario's BLM chapter (which is a misnomer, since they are all independent)? Yeah she's a full on black Supremacist, and a despicable woman.

Thing is, that none of the evidence presented to me, convinced me that Gamergate was more than a hate movement. And I suppose that you also ignore the evidence of it's ties to the alt-right and Trump supporters since you make it out as a "lie".

I don't think you are a bad person, I just think you are part of a terrible movement, and you are willingly ignoring the terrible things it represents because you want to believe that it's more than that. It isn't. Something that was breeding for a long time? That got big because of one guy trying trying to get some revenge on his ex? I think you know why gamers got so fired up, lol. And it sure wasn't about ethics.

I'd like to add, that I am glad to be able to interact with Gaters. I love this kind of discussion and sharing of opposing POVs. Well done GAF. And I do agree, let's keep it civil.

 

[KevinKeene]

Yeah, as much as I try to have a nuanced view on things, I wonder why this couldn't have been continued in the already existing topic? I'm not keen on starting this whole conversation all over again, when there is a perfectly fine topic already containing many good and reasonable arguments that are relevant to the context of this particular discussion.

This thread isn't about 'is GG good or evil'. That's what the other thread was about. This thread assumes that people have read the other thread and realized that GG is not that evil harassment campaign the thought it to be because of all the one-sided reporting about it.

What this thread is about, is discussing if anybody in the mainstream gaming media is even interested in having a nuanced view on GG and set the record straight (thx, oh mycar, that's the term I couldn't think of).

This deserves being highlighted, because from my experience, no amount of discusion about GG will go anywhere when journalists have no interest in leaving their bias behind them. It's like those clichee situations where nobody dares going near a certain house, because the old lady living there is supposedly a witch that eats children. Then one day a kid stumbles into her house and, surprise, instead of being a witch, the old lady turns out to be a nice grandma who treats you to cookies and hot chocolate. That's the situation with GG, exceot I doubt anything can be set straigth by stumbeling.

 

[KevinKeene]

. I'm not exactly sure why you act like you are being persecuted? It's not that hard to find opinions you disagree with online.

I feel persecuted when everytime I talk positively about GG, I'm being pushed into an alt-rigt, misogynistic, harassment corner. Not that hard to understand?

 

[Dunki]

The thing with, is that as far as I can tell, GG was always more organized than BLM. Aren't you are referrring to the (I believe) leader of the Ontario's BLM chapter (which is a misnomer, since they are all independent)? Yeah she's a full on black Supremacist, and a despicable woman.

Thing is, that none of the evidence presented to me, convinced me that Gamergate was more than a hate movement. And I suppose that you also ignore the evidence of it's ties to the alt-right and Trump supporters since you make it out as a "lie".

I don't think you are a bad person, I just think you are part of a terrible movement, and you are willingly ignoring the terrible things it represents because you want to believe that it's more than that. It isn't. Something that was breeding for a long time? That got big because of one guy trying trying to get some revenge on his ex? I think you know why gamers got so fired up, lol. And it sure wasn't about ethics.

I'd like to add, that I am glad to be able to interact with Gaters. I love this kind of discussion and sharing of opposing POVs. Well done GAF. And I do agree, let's keep it civil.

People on GamerGate went to Milo and co because these were the only people that wanted to listen what they have to say. It is their own fault for getting so political in the end. Gamergater always wanted to have discussions on these topics. They wanted panels on cons etc and even when these cons agreed the outrage was so big by the other site and they used so much accusation and personal attacks that these cons had to cancel these events.

As for the last straw. It was the concrete disconnect between Gaming "journalists" and actual gamer. Same you kind of you can see now in terms of movie critics and viewer. But Gaming journalism made the big mistake to not fight for gamer or at least be objective about it but rather to attack them. Example Mass Effect 3. Sim City etc. Games

 

[F0rneus]

People on GamerGate went to Milo and co because these were the only people that wanted to listen what they have to say. It is their own fault for getting so political in the end. Gamergater always wanted to have discussions on these topics. They wanted panels on cons etc and even when these cons agreed the outrage was so big by the other site and they used so much accusation and personal attacks that these cons had to cancel these events.

As for the last straw. It was the concrete disconnect between Gaming "journalists" and actual gamer. Same you kind of you can see now in terms of movie critics and viewer. But Gaming journalism made the big mistake to not fight for gamer or at least be objective about it but rather to attack them. Example Mass Effect 3. Sim City etc. Games

Can you clarify about Mass Effect 3 and Sim City? I feel like I am misunderstanding here.

ME3 had a problematic ending for many people, and I feel like that was covered well. Sim City had big DRM concerns which again were covered well (except for Polygon and their ever evolving score, but that's mostly due to Arthur Gies and how much he shills for big companies, and not the site. Although he didn't review it, but you could kinda feel his influence IMO).

 

[InterMusketeer]

Gamergate is mostly irrelevant now. Anybody who'd suddenly bring it up now to say: "Hey, they weren't all bad!" would just be ignored or accused. I think it's too late now to honestly examine this whole thing. I personally don't think it's all that necessary either. What's important, is the future. Gamergate can't be salvaged anymore, but the culture war it was born from is still going on. I believe a new movement could start in the future, if something happens to trigger it. I hope all sides can handle themselves better when that happens, having learned from the gamergate debacle.

 

[Dunki]

Can you clarify about Mass Effect 3 and Sim City? I feel like I am misunderstanding here.

ME3 had a problematic ending for many people, and I feel like that was covered well. Sim City had big DRM concerns which again were covered well (except for Polygon and their ever evolving score, but that's mostly due to Arthur Gies and how much he shills for big companies, and not the site. Although he didn't review it, but you could kinda feel his influence IMO).

As an example how "journalists" did react. Same with Sim City. And Gies or was it Sessler even called people terrorists for not liking the game.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...cious-myth-of-gamer-entitlement/#710705fe2517

 

[Kadayi]

Can you clarify about Mass Effect 3 and Sim City? I feel like I am misunderstanding here.

ME3 had a problematic ending for many people, and I feel like that was covered well. Sim City had big DRM concerns which again were covered well (except for Polygon and their ever evolving score, but that's mostly due to Arthur Gies and how much he shills for big companies, and not the site. Although he didn't review it, but you could kinda feel his influence IMO).

I would guess he's referring to the gaming press attacking its audience. With Mass Effect 3 and the response debacle, we had the emergence of the entitled gamer narrative. This lead to some really fucked up articles which maligned the audience. Stuff like this for instance: -

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-11-why-devs-owe-you-nothing

Which basically go down the route of assigning developers the airs of the lone auteur (ala GRRM is not your bitch...still one of the worst defences of a serial procrastinator ever written) and attempts to put them on a pedestal beyond the censure of the ungrateful rabble. It's all very anti-consumerist when you get down to it, but when you're getting your games for free it's all easy to get preachy about matters because it's not your hard earned money getting spent.

 

[F0rneus]

As an example how "journalists" did react. Same with Sim City. And Gies or was it Sessler even called people terrorists for not liking the game.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...cious-myth-of-gamer-entitlement/#710705fe2517

Isn't Colin Moriarty a cool guy in the alt-right circles? Because he is 100% right about ME3's ending (fans shouldn't throw an entire game aside because they dislike the ending, and they shouldn't harass the devs), and the article is saying that fans are passionate and supports their anger...

I kinda fail to see your point here. Like what are you trying to say? That Colin is right? Or wrong? That fans should harass the devs, or not?

I see an opinion video about ME3's ending, and an article "Well fans are pissed and it's fine". So...what should I be looking at here?

 

[GrimDarkDarrel]

This thread assumes that people have read the other thread and realized that GG is not that evil harassment campaign the thought it to be because of all the one-sided reporting about it.

Again, I take issue with this assumption. How can you expect a productive discussion to occur on the grounds of such a contentious assertion without backing up your claim? Saying "the thread isn't about that" is a cop-out because what you claim is established appears very much not to be.

I would say the persecution you feel is much less about one sided reporting and more to do with the assumptions you make about the subject at hand. Further, if you are wrong in your assumptions about the nature of gamergate, it means you are contributing to real harm just by trying to excuse the damage it causes. A lot of people would reasonably take issue with that.

 

[Dunki]

Isn't Colin Moriarty a cool guy in the alt-right circles? Because he is 100% right about ME3's ending (fans shouldn't throw an entire game aside because they dislike the ending, and they shouldn't harass the devs), and the article is saying that fans are passionate and supports their anger...

I kinda fail to see your point here. Like what are you trying to say? That Colin is right? Or wrong? That fans should harass the devs, or not?

I see an opinion video about ME3's ending, and an article "Well fans are pissed and it's fine". So...what should I be looking at here?

I do not care what ideology Colin follows and it was one example of many calling gamer entitled for being upset and also being mad for journalists giving the game the scores it got etc. And it was one of many as I said. Journalists never have fought for the sake of gamer but always fought against them. And the whole Zoe thing when nobody cared how this was a breach of ethics and even had skype sessions in which they argued together how they can counter this (Yes these exist as log files) and then suddendly the gamers are dead articles were released on several sites in such a short time frame it was the end for rational actions.

 

[gioGAF]

The current climate is terrible for discussing matters. The people on the far left and the far right are ruining discussions. The truth doesn't rest in either extreme. I personally think this whole GamerGate thing got blown way out of proportion with extremely cherry picked examples all over the place.

I stay away from this topic in general because of how stupid the situation can get.

 

[F0rneus]

I would guess he's referring to the gaming press attacking its audience. With Mass Effect 3 and the response debacle, we had the emergence of the entitled gamer narrative. This lead to some really fucked up articles which maligned the audience. Stuff like this for instance: -

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-02-11-why-devs-owe-you-nothing

Which basically go down the route of assigning developers the airs of the lone auteur (ala GRRM is not your bitch...still one of the worst defences of a serial procrastinator ever written) and attempts to put them on a pedestal beyond the censure of the ungrateful rabble. It's all very anti-consumerist when you get down to it, but when you're getting your games for free it's all easy to get preachy about matters because it's not your hard earned money getting spent.

I don't think the article is anti-consumerist. That's a bit of a stretch. They kind of have a point about MMORPGs but then again, these games live off continual membership fees. So yes, you should listen to the fans. But for story-driven games like Mass Effect?

To paraphrase from Marilyn Manson "If you make something that everybody loves, then there was no point in doing it all." Company makes thing. You buy it. It's a piece of art, in the same way that a movie or a book are. Or a song. You are free to judge if you got your money's worth. But you don't get to actually decide how a creator's story goes, because of internet echo chamber bullshit. It's their story. Not yours. Feel free to call it shit. Don't harass them because you do.

 

[NickFire]

But it is kind of ridiculous that some people believe that GamerGate was the reason for Trump getting elected.

I am not going to stretch myself so far as to say it was definitely the reason or even a major contributing factor. HOWEVER, I will say that the tactics used to demonize it by the media and those who jumped on the "if you say anything neutral or positive about it, you are a racist, sexist, etc." bandwagon, were the exact same tactics used by the media and the Dems leading to Trump's election, and those tactics played a huge role when everyone afraid to speak to pollsters were able to express their feelings in the privacy of a voting booth. And just like the gaming media refuses to own their role in creating the gaming shit storm, the left leaning media continues to refuse to own its own role in Trump's rise, and the fact the election was as much an FU to the media as it was to HRC.

So yeah, there were some stark parallels. And when you factor in the time frame, the relationship of gaming and the internet, the internet's growing importance to election cycles, Breitbart's coverage of both events, and the manner the independents / neutrals were treated by the left in both events, please pardon me for not being shocked that some people think there was a direct correlation, or for calling their claims ridiculous. Unlikely yes, but ridiculous not so much.

 

[Bryank75]

I do not care what ideology Colin follows and it was one example of many calling gamer entitled for being upset and also being mad for journalists giving the game the scores it got etc. And it was one of many as I said. Journalists never have fought for the sake of gamer but always fought against them. And the whole Zoe thing when nobody cared how this was a breach of ethics and even had skype sessions in which they argued together how they can counter this (Yes these exist as log files) and then suddendly the gamers are dead articles were released on several sites in such a short time frame it was the end for rational actions.

I feel like this about game journalism , back when I was a kid it was so reputable with CVG and PCGamer UK being so transparent and scores broken down into Story, Audio, Graphics etc. They didn't treat their audience as idiots either...
I guess it's a by-product of 'click based' media, it's done a lot of harm to the content and created a very negative tone.

 

[strange headache]

This thread isn't about 'is GG good or evil'. That's what the other thread was about. This thread assumes that people have read the other thread and realized that GG is not that evil harassment campaign the thought it to be because of all the one-sided reporting about it.

I hope you realize that what you are saying is not cohesive at all. You don't want this topic to be about the question whether GG is 'good or evil', yet in your opening statement you present your conclusion knowing full well that this particular subject remains a source for great contention. What did you expect would happen?

What this thread is about, is discussing if anybody in the mainstream gaming media is even interested in having a nuanced view on GG and set the record straight...

Why would they be interested in doing that? The more concessions they make, the more complicity they have to admit. Or let me put it this way, how many concessions are you willing to make? Judging by your OP, not too many, so why expect something else from the opposing side?

I can appreciate the valiant effort from the gaming community to push back against the far-left/radical left culture critique, but that's about it. I don't care about the petty squabbles between notorious individuals from either side and I care even less about the opinion-leaders that GG tried to rally behind. Maybe they had little choice, but by doing so they irreparably damaged their own reputation instead of trying to stand on their own feet. It also didn't help that they focused themselves too much on certain personalities and their private doings, rather than addressing the arguments at hand by offering a reasoned rebuttal.

 

[LegendOfKage]

I don't think the article is anti-consumerist. That's a bit of a stretch. They kind of have a point about MMORPGs but then again, these games live off continual membership fees. So yes, you should listen to the fans. But for story-driven games like Mass Effect?

To paraphrase from Marilyn Manson "If you make something that everybody loves, then there was no point in doing it all." Company makes thing. You buy it. It's a piece of art, in the same way that a movie or a book are. Or a song. You are free to judge if you got your money's worth. But you don't get to actually decide how a creator's story goes, because of internet echo chamber bullshit. It's their story. Not yours. Feel free to call it shit. Don't harass them because you do.

There were a lot of people in the press who decided to write articles on how "entitled" gamers were for being upset about the ME3 ending. It wasn't the press saying "I disagree" it was the press attacking and sometimes mocking people who were angry about the ending, especially as it related to asking for / demanding a better ending.

I would have understood the press taking issue with demanding a better ending, except for the fact that the original ending pretty much did exactly what the developers promised wouldn't happen, which I felt was a consumer advocacy issue.

 

[Kadayi]

To paraphrase from Marilyn Manson "If you make something that everybody loves, then there was no point in doing it all." Company makes thing. You buy it. It's a piece of art, in the same way that a movie or a book are. Or a song. You are free to judge if you got your money's worth. But you don't get to actually decide how a creator's story goes, because of internet echo chamber bullshit. It's their story. Not yours. Feel free to call it shit. Don't harass them because you do.

I hardly call creating a steam group harassment. Also, it is anti-consumerist if it it's about denying said consumers a voice. Articles like that and the whole entitled gamer narrative, were all about 'othering' what they as writers see as gamer dissension because the actions of developers are in their view beyond criticism By any measure within any other business arena Valves failure to deliver on a promised trilogy having spectacularly blown their own public deadline would be viewed with complete disdain by the associated media (and rightly so). Imagine if Peter Jackson having released The Fellowship of the Ring and then the Two Towers to universal acclaim and box office then opted to go radio silent about when the Return of the King was coming out? Despite having previously said it was planned for the following Christmas, but instead went on to make The Lovely Bones, or some such and actively refused to be drawn about it even ten years later? Do you think the film press would be all ' you entitled filmgoers'? No. Fucking. Way. It's a position that just doesn't hold up to any degree of intellectual scrutiny or an inherent understanding of social contracts. If you sell a book, film or game on the basis of a trilogy of titles, short of death, bankruptcy or madness, people who buy into it with both their time and money are going to expect you to deliver on it within a timely fashion.

 

[KevinKeene]

I hope you realize that what you are saying is not cohesive at all. You don't want this topic to be about the question whether GG is 'good or evil', yet in your opening statement you present your conclusion knowing full well that this particular subject remains a source for great contention. What did you expect would happen?

Again, this thread assumes that one read the other thread. If someone disagrees with that disclaimer, he's free to be contentious - in that other thread.

Why would they be interested in doing that? The more concessions they make, the more complicity they have to admit. Or let me put it this way, how many concessions are you willing to make? Judging by your OP, not too many, so why expect something else from the opposing side?

I'm making all the needed concessions when I admit that there are idiots who associate themselves with GG. I also admit that not all feminists are militant men-haters.
The gaming journalists seem to be incapable of making these concessions towards GG. And I'm saying that is because they don't care about facts here for the aforementioned reasons.

I'd agree with giving up on the GG level and start anew based on the 3 core values (no censorship, games are about fun, facts over feelings), but similarly I've often expressed my opinion that feminism also needs to give up its label if it wants to be taken seriously again - but the same journalists demonizing and ridiculing GG won't say anything about that and keep trucking on as if current feminism was still the, very good and needed, feminism it started out as.

In the end, I'm simply frustrated about the lack of justice when it comes to how GG is beimg treated, or really anything that dares opposing feminists' viewpoints. See the Alison Rapp case, for which Patrick Klepek hasn't apologized to Nintendo even to this day. He doesn't care. Because facts don't matter when they don't support your own ideology. I find that frustrating and worth talking about.

 

[strange headache]

Again, this thread assumes that one read the other thread. If someone disagrees with that disclaimer, he's free to be contentious - in that other thread.

You can't expect to have only people who agree with you to participate in this topic.

In the end, I'm simply frustrated about the lack of justice when it comes to how GG is beimg treated, or really anything that dares opposing feminists' viewpoints. See the Alison Rapp case, for which Patrick Klepek hasn't apologized to Nintendo even to this day. He doesn't care. Because facts don't matter when they don't support your own ideology. I find that frustrating and worth talking about.

I can sympathize, but you don't need a label to speak your mind and say what you think is right. Especially considering how labeling people seems to be the modus operandi of this highly interconnected and medialized world. What we need is more individuals, less identity, less labels.

Do you think the film press would be all ' you entitled filmgoers'? No. Fucking. Way. It's a position that just doesn't hold up to any degree of intellectual scrutiny or an inherent understanding of social contracts.

Pretty much this. The gaming press should be aware that it is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the gaming community and not the other way around. You can criticize, but you don't demonize. Most gaming journalists make for lousy political commentators and even worse moral educators, why would I take their so-called 'expertise' seriously? If they behave like little spoiled brats holding their community, and therefore myself included, in outright contempt, there's no reason to treat them with kid gloves.

 

[gioGAF]

You can't expect to have only people who agree with you to participate in this topic.

All on point. Whenever you are having a discussion, there will be those that agree with you and those who disagree. As long as we are able to have a productive discussion, as long as we are able to "negotiate" favorable solutions, or even just agree to disagree, I feel we are going down the "right path".

I can sympathize, but you don't need a label to speak your mind and say what you think is right. Especially considering how labeling people seems to be the modus operandi of this highly interconnected and medialized world. What we need is more individuals, less identity, less labels.

This is an important point. The "identity politics" that are currently popular are, IMO, a horrible state of affairs. They are being used to silence entire groups (your opinion doesn't matter since you are white, straight, etc.). We, as a society, should at least hear out individuals with well-thought out and articulated ideas (barring stuff that is straight up hate obviously). You don't have to be a member of X group to participate in an intelligent discussion or to have insight.

Another problem with this division into groups is the fact that when you get down to it, we are all individual human beings, who are very different from each other. The divisions would be endless. For example, you have white people and black people, then you can say, white male / white female vs. black male / black female, rich, poor, gay, tall, short, from the west/east coast, north, south, city, small town... This can go on forever.

Putting labels on people doesn't work. We are individuals, and should be treated as such. Groups of people can have similar beliefs and they can be from different places, different colors, different orientations, etc.

Pretty much this. The gaming press should be aware that it is entirely dependent on the goodwill of the gaming community and not the other way around. You can criticize, but you don't demonize. Most gaming journalists make for lousy political commentators and even worse moral educators, why would I take their so-called 'expertise' seriously? If they behave like little spoiled brats holding their community, and therefore myself included, in outright contempt, there's no reason to treat them with kid gloves.

This highlights another problem in our society. People naturally pay attention to people who are receiving attention. A long time ago, exceptional people filled this role. The doctor in your small town received attention, the best educator at your school got a lot of attention, that outspoken person who advocated for the people got attention, etc.

Now, any idiot can get attention as long as the media puts the spotlight on them. This leads to people erroneously focusing on them. Just because someone like Kim Kardashian or LeBron James is receiving attention from the media, that does not make them worthy of your attention, it does not make their views any better/worse than yours. They are not political, policy, humanitarian, theory, trade, foreign policy, education experts!

That is how the games media is working. Someone gets attention, then they are somehow the "voice of gamers". Ridiculous.

Everything I am stating is obvious to most people here, I am not attempting to "try to sound smart" or whatever. Just stating the obvious because it needs to be repeated. Totally just agreeing with Strange Headache.

 

[way more]

Gamer Gate is evil dude. It's just that it's so insignificant nobody gives a shit.

 

[Gray Rentable]

There were people who actually believed Gamergate's so-called "fake" cause, which was ethics in games journalism.

there really were people that didn't want awards or good review scores freely given as industry favors or favors for friends. And a lot of indie game personalities had this going on. it was quite smarmy.

That said, the alt-right portions of GG are abominable. and when I say alt-right I mean the truly extreme, misogynistic right. There are a lot of people that do not fall into this bucket that the Kotaku & Friends were happy to label as monsters.

 

[Ethical Hedonism]

you guys sure are delusional

 

[EviLore]

GG performed an organized harassment campaign against me the moment I called out the initial movement for being dumb (being based on a salty ex's blog post about serial seduction for a non-profit game), and never really stopped. My initial comments were mostly joking and satirical, too, as per my usual way of things, but that didn't stop the barrage of hundreds of hateful tweets, the death threats, the obsessive full-time bloggers and redditers trying to dig up dirt on me for years afterwards, and even a criminally defamatory article posted by Slate (via an alt-right mouthpiece) targeting me and NeoGAF.

Spare us the virtuous BS and maybe pick a different subculture to fly a flag for. I'm anti-censorship and very much against the ridiculous tumblr Problematic brigade, but GG is a poisoned well if I've ever seen one.