[karajorma]

If someone wants to talk about corruption, yay! But GG is a name birthed in harassment and still being run in its main part as a harassment movement out of 4/8chan. If you get a new name, one without all the history and connotations gg has picked up, you'll be able to get out from the shadow of everything in gg that isn't about corruption. You won't have to say that you're a 'moderate' that doesn't like doxxing and death threats. You'll be able to focus on what actually matters to you, for real. As for us anti-GGers, it would really help if the reasonable ones would separate yourself from the 8channers so we could talk to you without waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Again, we're asking them to drop a name. If they say the name doesn't matter to them, why won't they ditch it if it's so toxic to so many people? I'd like to see actions line up with words, that's all I'm asking.

You could say something similar about Feminism though. While I'm no particular fan of the people who say it, it's quite clear that there are quite a few people who view feminism as basically being RadFem. Rebranding under a name such as equalism or some such would help with that. There would be no need to explain that you're a moderate feminist and not one of those RadFem nutcases. It would help if the reasonable ones would separate themselves from the idiots who believe that only lesbians can truly be feminists or the other nonsense I've heard from RadFem.

Hell, you could say much the same thing about almost any group which has extremists in it. Why don't Muslims rebrand so that everyone knows they aren't connected to ISIS?

Or Christians?

Or Bronies?


Rebranding may make it much easier for the people on the outside to box up people and decide who really is the enemy but is it really a sensible choice for the people in that group? If so, why hasn't anti-GG come up with their own classifications so that everyone knows who are the people that think gamers are neckbeards living in their mother's basements?

Whether or not Gamergate initially started out as a bunch of absolute tossers involved in hacking and trolling, that might not be all it is now. At the moment there are probably a lot of reasonable people in the GG movement who think it easier to take over the existing movement and make it into a useful tool for changing the way the gaming companies deal with the press than it ever would be to start from scratch. Engaging with them is a far more reasonable thing to do than to assume that everyone in the group must be a sexist arsehole simply because they won't change their name. I'm not saying that they shouldn't distance themselves from the name, just that I can see good reasons why they aren't willing to do so.


In the end, I'm fairly neutral on the whole picking sides thing because to be honest, I think both sides are claiming to have goals I support. I just wish they'd both put the energy they're putting into misunderstanding each other and arguing the same stupid talking points into something productive.

[Lorric]

On the subject of online trolling and abuse, this might be of interest:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29678989

They're trying to change the laws in Britain on this, including quadrupling the maximum jail sentence from 6 months to 2 years.

[swashmebuckle]

As for impartiality, really all websites can (and should) do outside of basics like "don't take a bribe for a good review" is ensure that ads for the exact product being reviewed don't surround the review itself. I'm sure that's the most coveted spot to advertise in and therefore where the best money is at, but sharing the stage/screen like that turns the review into an explicit extension of the ad IMO, even if the reader knows that the critic has no control over what ads run. Outside of that, it's up to consumers to understand that critics are basically advocates for the media they discuss and that their livelihood depends on how good a job they can do of advocating for them. That's just a conflict that comes with the territory.

Speaking of critics, here's Sarkeesian working her star power at Rolling Stone. Normally comments are horrible, but in this case the interview is like the perfect setup and bait for her haters to come immediately annihilate their own their credibility in the comment section. Moths to the flame

[Mr. Vega]

If someone wants to talk about corruption, yay! But GG is a name birthed in harassment and still being run in its main part as a harassment movement out of 4/8chan. If you get a new name, one without all the history and connotations gg has picked up, you'll be able to get out from the shadow of everything in gg that isn't about corruption. You won't have to say that you're a 'moderate' that doesn't like doxxing and death threats. You'll be able to focus on what actually matters to you, for real. As for us anti-GGers, it would really help if the reasonable ones would separate yourself from the 8channers so we could talk to you without waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Again, we're asking them to drop a name. If they say the name doesn't matter to them, why won't they ditch it if it's so toxic to so many people? I'd like to see actions line up with words, that's all I'm asking.

You could say something similar about Feminism though. While I'm no particular fan of the people who say it, it's quite clear that there are quite a few people who view feminism as basically being RadFem. Rebranding under a name such as equalism or some such would help with that. There would be no need to explain that you're a moderate feminist and not one of those RadFem nutcases. It would help if the reasonable ones would separate themselves from the idiots who believe that only lesbians can truly be feminists or the other nonsense I've heard from RadFem.

Hell, you could say much the same thing about almost any group which has extremists in it. Why don't Muslims rebrand so that everyone knows they aren't connected to ISIS?

Or Christians?

Or Bronies?


Rebranding may make it much easier for the people on the outside to box up people and decide who really is the enemy but is it really a sensible choice for the people in that group? If so, why hasn't anti-GG come up with their own classifications so that everyone knows who are the people that think gamers are neckbeards living in their mother's basements?

Whether or not Gamergate initially started out as a bunch of absolute tossers involved in hacking and trolling, that might not be all it is now. At the moment there are probably a lot of reasonable people in the GG movement who think it easier to take over the existing movement and make it into a useful tool for changing the way the gaming companies deal with the press than it ever would be to start from scratch. Engaging with them is a far more reasonable thing to do than to assume that everyone in the group must be a sexist arsehole simply because they won't change their name. I'm not saying that they shouldn't distance themselves from the name, just that I can see good reasons why they aren't willing to do so.


In the end, I'm fairly neutral on the whole picking sides thing because to be honest, I think both sides are claiming to have goals I support. I just wish they'd both put the energy they're putting into misunderstanding each other and arguing the same stupid talking points into something productive.

What is the threshold between "it may have started out bad but it has potential" and "it's hopelessly infested with misogynistic  scumbags"? What would have to happen for you to consider the latter to be the case?

[AdmiralRalwood]

If someone wants to talk about corruption, yay! But GG is a name birthed in harassment and still being run in its main part as a harassment movement out of 4/8chan. If you get a new name, one without all the history and connotations gg has picked up, you'll be able to get out from the shadow of everything in gg that isn't about corruption. You won't have to say that you're a 'moderate' that doesn't like doxxing and death threats. You'll be able to focus on what actually matters to you, for real. As for us anti-GGers, it would really help if the reasonable ones would separate yourself from the 8channers so we could talk to you without waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Again, we're asking them to drop a name. If they say the name doesn't matter to them, why won't they ditch it if it's so toxic to so many people? I'd like to see actions line up with words, that's all I'm asking.

You could say something similar about Feminism though.

You could say it, but it would be stupid and have no basis in the real world and be a logical fallacy to boot.

[Grizzly]

Feminism didn't start with... well what I posted above. That being said, "Feminism" is a broad ideology - Gamergate is *not* an ideology, it's a campaign, similar to how "Yes All Women" and "He for She" are campaigns.

Anyway, I came here to post this interesting storify on Gater's wishes for objective reviews.

[An4ximandros]

Saying something is invalid because a fallacy was made and thus all other points are invalid is also a fallacy.

Let me ask you, shouldn't communists and socialists drop their names for non-politically charged ones due to the history with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

[Mr. Vega]

Saying something is invalid because a fallacy was made and thus all other points are invalid is also a fallacy.

Let me ask you, shouldn't communists and socialists drop their names for non-politically charged ones due to the history with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics?

You're making a comparison between gamergate and the entire socialist tradition?

[AdmiralRalwood]

Saying something is invalid because a fallacy was made and thus all other points are invalid is also a fallacy.

And amazingly enough, nobody made that argument. Did you know that demonstrating that something that someone never said is fallacious is also a fallacy?

[AtomicClucker]

As for impartiality, really all websites can (and should) do outside of basics like "don't take a bribe for a good review" is ensure that ads for the exact product being reviewed don't surround the review itself. I'm sure that's the most coveted spot to advertise in and therefore where the best money is at, but sharing the stage/screen like that turns the review into an explicit extension of the ad IMO, even if the reader knows that the critic has no control over what ads run. Outside of that, it's up to consumers to understand that critics are basically advocates for the media they discuss and that their livelihood depends on how good a job they can do of advocating for them. That's just a conflict that comes with the territory.

Speaking of critics, here's Sarkeesian working her star power at Rolling Stone. Normally comments are horrible, but in this case the interview is like the perfect setup and bait for her haters to come immediately annihilate their own their credibility in the comment section. Moths to the flame

Well, if her recent videos are any consideration, Anita has gotten a lot more "perceived" acumen under her belt. But I'm still amused she finds it "dire" that Bayonetta is being lauded as a "powerful" character. I'm waiting for the point where Anita outs herself as a prude, or decides she can attempt a moral crusade against Pr0n... and dash her reputation and credibility like Don Quixote charging windmills. I've said a number of times that Anita likes to talk tough, but when it comes to "dividing" issues, such as self-sexual expression and Bayonetta, that she falls back on old formulaic opinions that came from Second Wave. I'm sincerely interested on her stances of self-sexual expression, but that's a defining feature of 3rd wave Feminism and an issue that bitterly divides Feminists circles.

Frankly, that's why I tend to call her a "Prude," because she seems more interested in repressing or confining female sexuality (outside of her normal criticism of Male Gaze, objectification, etc which do have grounding, surprise) when it comes to women looking at it. Some Feminists are finding Bayonetta "dangerous" because sexuality is turned into a literal weapon, while others find it liberating, or breaking new territory. Bayonetta was designed as a sexual message, I'll argue what's groundbreaking about her is that Bayonetta is "Sex: I'm gonna stab you my way, my time, my schedule."

We haven't encountered a character quite like her.

@Karajorma: Problem is both sides are prideful and stubborn, as I said, I'm burnt out on both sides to an extent because they quickly push information and claims, facts, websites, that it does take a toll to try and deal with all of it. Though as a few others point out, GG has developed from a "mob" into an organized faction, but I still argue that despite the talking heads, it lacks a firm central figure or authority but is driven by a common sentiment fueled by frustration and anger. As for Anti-GG, it's like a collection of hens strutting together before going back the henhouse. They refuse to step down or "dirty" themselves, and I find it stupid that the Journalists, while trying to condemn and reshape "Gamers" into their image, failed to notice that quite a few gamers are actually aware our audience and market has expanded.

As for the doxxing and harassing? That's a big problem, and this is where I disagree with Vega firmly, but GG/Anti-GG can't control the Trolls, and frankly after GG decided to start compiling info on some of ZQs and Anita's harassers, I think it was a big step towards trying to clear up the flak. Many members of GamerGate have been harassed and doxxed in turn, and I don't see Anti-GG bashing an eye to that.

[Flipside]

Feminism was actually viewed as a kind of 'Terrorism' during the time of the suffragettes etc, the common view was that they were women who had a taste of 'entitlement' and were now throwing a hissy fit because they 'had to deal with the reality' of men returning from War and going back into the workplace.

We all know that was complete rubbish now, but that was how they were largely portrayed at the time as well.

For a more extreme example, take the IRA in Northern Ireland back in the late 20th Century, I would never, ever condone their methods for pushing their point of view, but that did not mean that, eventually, the UK had to accept that the heart of the complaint itself had merit, even if the methods used did not. Disclaimer, I'm not comparing either side to Terrorists before anyone starts, I'm trying to explain how genuine concerns can give birth to methods that are totally at odds at what is trying to be achieved. Remember the suffragettes were considered 'Terrorists' themselves at the time.

Another example might be the Luddites, people with a genuine concern about their jobs and their futures who managed to address that concern in the silliest way possible, by physically attacking the machinery that they perceived as that source of their concern, many were motivated for the wrong reasons, having been told horror stories that weren't actually true, the similarities are many, but at the core of Luddite behaviour was a real concern that is still being addressed today.

This doesn't justify the way that members of GG have behaved over this, their reaction to the problem was wholly and unconditionally wrong, and there lay the heart of the problem, impartiality in gaming publications has nothing to do with Feminism in any form, and should not have been made into such, in fact, there were opportunities for the two sides to work together, since that bias in reporting also, at times, includes the attitudes of these reviews towards women characters in those games.

Gamergate is silly, but the core issue being raised by those who aren't busy making threats and hurling insults is something that is worthy of consideration, because the ones that actually care aren't involved with the part of the debate that is making the news, problem is, they are being drowned out by all the noise.

[AtomicClucker]

Gamergate is silly, but the core issue being raised by those who aren't busy making threats and hurling insults is something that is worthy of consideration, because the ones that actually care aren't involved with the part of the debate that is making the news, problem is, they are being drowned out by all the noise.

Yeah, and its very frustrating. Outsiders and neutral parties that are willing to look can find that message.

But there's way too much **** and vitriol to find it. Common ground is minimal, and the majority of GG/Anti-GG are too blind and rabid to actively pick up on it.

Vega constantly harps about threats to women, and I find it both funny and entertaining that's pretty much ALL he does. It's a one trick pony. I've repeatedly stated that it is a major problem in the issue, but at the same time, it's also a distraction because we're quite not sure who's controlling it. But I give a little credit to GG for actually beginning to help oust the stupid trolls, and that's one major concession that Anti-GG isn't willing to see: doing so would deprive them of their precious hobby horse. Diplomacy is the art of making gestures and concessions to reach common and sensible ground.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Gamergate is silly, but the core issue being raised by those who aren't busy making threats and hurling insults is something that is worthy of consideration, because the ones that actually care aren't involved with the part of the debate that is making the news, problem is, they are being drowned out by all the noise.

The problem is that the "moderate" GamerGaters aren't complaining about the major, obvious ethics violations that are actually a problem; they complain about reviews not being "objective" and that game journalism is "pushing a feminist agenda" (just look at 666maslo666 in this very thread), when the first claim is patent nonsense and the second claim is equally laughable when a study of how often the subject actually comes up is performed (as demonstrated here, for example, linked earlier in the thread by -Joshua-).

The "core issue" here is that GamerGate was organized by misogynists as a campaign of harassment using the fig leaf of justification that corruption exists. Yes, corruption exists. GamerGaters aren't doing anything about it, however; instead, they're insulting and slandering people (women and men, but mostly women) in the tech industry for either disagreeing with them or daring to be female and unapologetic of that fact.

But I give a little credit to GG for actually beginning to help oust the stupid trolls, and that's one major concession that Anti-GG isn't willing to see: doing so would deprive them of their precious hobby horse. Diplomacy is the art of making gestures and concessions to reach common and sensible ground.

"#GamerGate does't tolerate harassment", says the creator of Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian. In fact, why don't you just read this whole thing for all the examples of bigotry at the heart of GamerGate you could possibly want? GamerGaters may be scapegoating some individual trolls, but it doesn't change the fact that the people at the heart of the movement, who aren't being "ousted" in any way, are misogynists.

[SypheDMar]

Let's stop the strawmanning and actually discuss what we think the GGers are concerned about. All I know about them is the threats they made because that's all that has been reported in the media. Reading through this thread has not helped me in understanding the concern at all, unless it boils down to:

Anita Sarkeesian is not qualified to do anything.
Anita Sarkeesian wants to repress sexuality.

So what is the issue that GamerGate wants to address?

[Lorric]

Gamergate is silly, but the core issue being raised by those who aren't busy making threats and hurling insults is something that is worthy of consideration, because the ones that actually care aren't involved with the part of the debate that is making the news, problem is, they are being drowned out by all the noise.

Yeah, and its very frustrating. Outsiders and neutral parties that are willing to look can find that message.

But there's way too much **** and vitriol to find it. Common ground is minimal, and the majority of GG/Anti-GG are too blind and rabid to actively pick up on it.

And the likes of this:

Speaking of critics, here's Sarkeesian working her star power at Rolling Stone. Normally comments are horrible, but in this case the interview is like the perfect setup and bait for her haters to come immediately annihilate their own their credibility in the comment section. Moths to the flame

That opens up with

How a video game fan weathered a misogynist backlash to become pop culture's most valuable critic

bigging her up like some sort of messiah, and then proceeds to give Anita a platform to basically dismiss all opposition as misogynists and trolls while pushing her own agenda.

The thing is, we're all gamers here. But take a step back and think how that looks to the outsider who isn't steeped in this like we are. It makes gamers look like really scary people. And Anita gets column inches on a lot of non-gaming publications.

[SypheDMar]

But none of this tells me what GamerGate is actually concerned about. If Anita Sarkeesian plopped out of existence, what is GamerGate's agenda?

[AtomicClucker]

Gamergate is silly, but the core issue being raised by those who aren't busy making threats and hurling insults is something that is worthy of consideration, because the ones that actually care aren't involved with the part of the debate that is making the news, problem is, they are being drowned out by all the noise.

The problem is that the "moderate" GamerGaters aren't complaining about the major, obvious ethics violations that are actually a problem; they complain about reviews not being "objective" and that game journalism is "pushing a feminist agenda" (just look at 666maslo666 in this very thread), when the first claim is patent nonsense and the second claim is equally laughable when a study of how often the subject actually comes up is performed (as demonstrated here, for example, linked earlier in the thread by -Joshua-).

The "core issue" here is that GamerGate was organized by misogynists as a campaign of harassment using the fig leaf of justification that corruption exists. Yes, corruption exists. GamerGaters aren't doing anything about it, however; instead, they're insulting and slandering people (women and men, but mostly women) in the tech industry for either disagreeing with them or daring to be female and unapologetic of that fact.

But I give a little credit to GG for actually beginning to help oust the stupid trolls, and that's one major concession that Anti-GG isn't willing to see: doing so would deprive them of their precious hobby horse. Diplomacy is the art of making gestures and concessions to reach common and sensible ground.

"#GamerGate does't tolerate harassment", says the creator of Beat Up Anita Sarkeesian. In fact, why don't you just read this whole thing for all the examples of bigotry at the heart of GamerGate you could possibly want? GamerGaters may be scapegoating some individual trolls, but it doesn't change the fact that the people at the heart of the movement, who aren't being "ousted" in any way, are misogynists.

Well this is why I do distance myself with the movement: it was founded by a coalition of strange bedfellows. From Adam Baldwin, Breitbard, to individual users, it carries a very loaded message. The fact they haven't imploded in the last three months is a strange story of somehow co-existing with so many crazies in a single cult following.

Edit:

Anita Sarkeesian is not qualified to do anything.
Anita Sarkeesian wants to repress sexuality.

Now, it's just me, but I vigorously protest Anita (and my erstwhile opinions) is that we deserve a better, more cultured commenter. A lot of her points have been brought up about various critics, but... without the nuance. I feel she is a "cause celebre," that actually has little to add to the conversation now and her last set of videos is emboldened by an agenda and less an honest attempt at a cultural critique. My two problems are: she's isn't of an artistic background and she doesn't seem to know her art history too well. We've of people arguing that games are now art, somehow mature and now ripe for cultural criticism. My argument is that most of the "cultural critique" is without the actual artistic merits and hobnobbing.

I've dished out lots of harsh critique in my time, but even now I still wonder how much is actually justified. One problem is that many critics ignore "over-criticism" and "constructive" and charge after a single point instead of trying to assemble a wholesome and earnest attempt at it. I can easily point out most of the critiques in Tropes vs Women (and most of us agree lazy writing and pandering are too blame). One problem as a critic is to measure the constructive elements, and I'm glad people like Totalbiscuit have acknowledged that as a problem in cultural criticism... which is something I've yet to see Anita and other self-espoused Feminists do.

We need to rebuild our tools we use to critique, measure, and judge games in an artistic medium. Because it combines several forms in one and is, at its heart, an interactive medium.

[AdmiralRalwood]

The thing is, we're all gamers here. But take a step back and think how that looks to the outsider who isn't steeped in this like we are. It makes gamers look like really scary people. And Anita gets column inches on a lot of non-gaming publications.

No, it doesn't make gamers look like really scary people. It makes "a reactionary community of hardcore gamers" look like... a reactionary community of hardcore gamers full of misogynists. It doesn't make "everyone who plays games" look bad because of the very point that the much-maligned-but-apparently-not-very-well-read "'Gamers' are Dead" articles were trying to make: lots of people play video games nowadays. An ever-increasing percentage of the general population plays games in the same way that a large percentage of the general population watches moves, and we don't call them "filmers" and they don't self-identify as "moviegoers"; they're just "people who happen to watch movies". If "a reactionary community of hardcore cinephiles" started harassing a movie critic for, shock and amazement, criticizing the content of movies, nobody would be worried that it "makes moviegoers look bad to outsiders". And you shouldn't be worried about how this makes "people who play video games" look to outsiders for exactly the same reasons.

[Flipside]

The problem is that Gamergate jumped the rails. There is an air of concern that has been simmering since the Kane and Lynch controversy on Gamespot, about the links between developers and gaming publications, but Gamergate, as the world sees it, didn't start there, it started later over a pointless post by a bitter ex-boyfriend who decided to wash his dirty laundry in public for some reason.

Forget 'Gamergate', there never was one, it's just a home for people who want something to shout about, but for those who do have concerns about the links between publisher and publication, this mustn't be allowed to prevent them from voicing that concern.

[AdmiralRalwood]

Forget 'Gamergate', there never was one, it's just a home for people who want something to shout about, but for those who do have concerns about the links between publisher and publication, this mustn't be allowed to prevent them from voicing that concern.

And the people who actually have those concerns are generally the most annoyed with GamerGate, for distracting public attention.