Remove ads

GamerGate general discussion.

Which side are you on?

  • Pro GamerGate

    Votes: 111 41.0%

  • Anti GamerGate

    Votes: 82 30.3%

  • I'm staying out of this whole thing

    Votes: 32 11.8%

  • A pox on both your houses

    Votes: 37 13.7%

  • Little-Endian

    Votes: 4 1.5%

  • Big-Endian

    Votes: 5 1.8%
  • Total voters
    271
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a pretty good open letter on the topic.

Here is a small but relevant quote:
It is, at any rate, imperative that you recognize not only that others are using #GamerGate to do exactly the things you claim to revile, but also that they've been more effective at achieving their goals than you've been at achieving yours. That, in no small part, is why you're all being lumped together. You may think that you represent #GamerGate more truly than the harassers, but the public can't help but see successful attacks as a kind of ownership. That may be unfair, but you'd be foolish to ignore it. At this point, the harassers have done so much damage that your best recourse may be to simply abandon the #GamerGate umbrella altogether, in favor of a rallying call that's harder to co-opt. Every time they successfully run someone out of their home or damage the reputation of a potential ally, they take a stronger hold on the names under which you've rallied, and you lose a little bit more.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
 
Rufus Shinra said:
Thanks, but I asked because I wanted a quick answer, which has been provided. :) I have frankly no interest into getting in what looks like to be some circle-jerk of trolls, self-entitled idiots, delusionals fools of all ways of life, social justice warriors, neckbeards, attention-whores, MRA and rabid hamsters glued in front of a computer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Did you even read the OP?
 
...Is there any chance we could get back on the topic of ethics and away from attacks on both sides?
 
Last edited:
cB557 said:
I mean, it's still a point of contention whether this is actually about ethics, sooo
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
No because we both know this will go nowhere. You say GG should be dismissed because we have idiots using the tags in theirs stunts? I say we dismiss anti-GG for doing the same. Arguing on this will get nowhere at all.

There's a reason Squishy strongly suggested to get back on ethics.
 
Just something that I feel this thread won't go carry forth if not done: A few questions to those who argue that Gamergate is irrevocably "tainted", so to speak, due to the harassment and the like of prominent anti-GG figures*:

Do you believe that prominent GG supporters, like TotalBiscuit, Milo or even the creator of "#NotYourShield", have been in fact harassed as they have claimed?

If so, do you think that the "anti-GG" side have been somehow "tainted" by said harassment?

If not, why is that you think that GG is tainted by said actions?

* To those of you who are anti-GG but don't think that the actions of a vocal minority of idiots and trolls have automatically tainted the whole movement, that's perfectly okay. I just have a beef with differing standards.

TL,DR: Please let's discuss the subject matter instead of just claiming GG is full of terrible people. If harassment makes a side automatically wrong then neither side have any grounds to argue and everyone who is in favor of any is a terrible person by asossication.
 
Felius said:
Who? And what he allegedly did?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

You know how ZQ allegedly slept with a journalist for a good review? Nathan Grey is the journalist in question.

Megaolix said:
Do you really have to ask a loaded question on purpose?

And hey, I'm pretty sure it would be illegal in the first place for the general public to do so. It's up to his employer to deal with it.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Gamergate has done letter and email campaigns, are one of those campaigns aiming to get Nathan fired?
 
Felius said:
Do you believe that prominent GG supporters, like TotalBiscuit, Milo or even the creator of "#NotYourShield", have been in fact harassed as they have claimed?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Undoubtedly so.

If so, do you think that the "anti-GG" side have been somehow "tainted" by said harassment?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
It is not possible to taint that which does not exist.

If not, why is that you think that GG is tainted by said actions?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because Gamergate claims a unified identity that the multitudinous organizations and groups that oppose it do not. Anti-Gamergate is a non-entity, sure the hashtag exists and some people use it, but the vast majority of people accused of being a part of Anti-Gamergate claim no such affiliation, beyond interacting with morons that think Anti-Gamergate exists. This should be a pretty easy concept to understand: Gators claim their movement shouldn't be condemned by the acts of those using the shared identity of Gamergate (even if the general misanthropes in the movement seem to be the ones achieving anything and the "anti-Gamergaters" appear to be doing what Gators say they're attempting to do), they should because Gamergate is a shared identity, people opposed to Gamergate don't even share this loose of an association. And when it's suggested that the Gators should disassociate themselves from vile miscreants they rant about "SJW infiltrators", which again should not be a concern for a movement devoted to combating bad ethics in gaming journalism. In order to convince me that there's some kind of moral equivalency between Gamergate and all the groups opposed to it you first need to convince me that the motivation is actually ethics in gaming journalism and not a reactionary counter to social and artistic critique of the medium, and the more I see people saying stupid shit about being a feminist is a bias or that reviews shouldn't have subjectivism or exploring themes the less inclined I become to change my mind.

I don't know about you but I remember the 90s and early 00s, I remember Gamers fighting to get the medium recognized as something more than childrens toys and struggling to be seen as a serious art form unto itself, and I see Gamergate as the antithesis of those laudable goals.
 
Last edited:
Felius said:
Just something that I feel this thread won't go carry forth if not done: A few questions to those who argue that Gamergate is irrevocably "tainted", so to speak, due to the harassment and the like of prominent anti-GG figures*:

Do you believe that prominent GG supporters, like TotalBiscuit, Milo or even the creator of "#NotYourShield", have been in fact harassed as they have claimed?

If so, do you think that the "anti-GG" side have been somehow "tainted" by said harassment?

If not, why is that you think that GG is tainted by said actions?

* To those of you who are anti-GG but don't think that the actions of a vocal minority of idiots and trolls have automatically tainted the whole movement, that's perfectly okay. I just have a beef with differing standards.

TL,DR: Please let's discuss the subject matter instead of just claiming GG is full of terrible people. If harassment makes a side automatically wrong then neither side have any grounds to argue and everyone who is in favor of any is a terrible person by asossication.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I'VE BEEN OVER THIS.

Kuja said:
Have I made my point clearly enough? Evidently not since this kind of hysterical wailing continues to haunt this thread two pages after I made it, so let me say my piece in no uncertain terms, and the next time one of you dorkwads tries to pull this "people just say Gamergate is nothing but misogynists" defense it will be abundantly clear that you're either too blind or too dishonest to continue this debate.

Here's the thing: I do not know the makeup of the gamergate movement. Nobody does. That's the problem. Gamergate refuses to classify itself, its leadership, its membership, or its message. In fact, it's so nebulous that all it takes to join the Gamergate movement is to say you have. Do you see the problem here? Someone genuinely furious about issues relating to media corruption and bias is no more or less a member of gamergate than someone acting alone sending hatemail and dox threats to female game developers and perceived SJWs. They are on exactly the same level. Because Gamergate continues to disavow any attempt at structuring itself, it can and will continue to be blamed for the worst actions of the worst people amongst it ranks. Because it won't get rid of them. No matter how large or small an actual percentage they are. I could fire off a nasty email to Bob Chipman right now, use the Gamergate hashtag, and say I belong to the GG movement. And I would be correct. Because there is no GG hierarchy. There is no badge. There is no members list. There is no attempt by the GG movement to distance itself from the hateful elements of the internet.

This, incidentally, is why I call the false-flag accusations laughable - while some of the attacks might even truly be fabricated - because by gamergate members' own admission, they don't know what their own members are doing or who they are, or what their agenda may be. You can't mimic the "we are anonymous, we are legion" credo and then suddenly turn around and say "Whoa, hey dude, that you can't pin that on us, it wasn't our guys." You cannot dismiss this or that incident as being caused by 'extremists' (a statement implying that most of the GG movement is, by contrast, reasonable) because you don't know that they're the outliers. As long as gamergate continues to permit the accumulation of filth, the movement as a whole will continue to be perceived as filthy.

I'll give you a moment to absorb that shocking revelation.

Now, on to the second point I'd like to address. Namely, the cries of "but both sides are just as bad!!!"

Firstly, trying to quantify the actions of thousands of people on the internet of all places is laughable to begin with. But there's a deeper problem here. You doorknobs talk about the gamergate "side" and the anti-gamergate "side" like you're envisioning Napoleonic armies lined up in opposition to one another lobbing volleys of lead back and forth. Except that's not how that works, like, at all. You would very much like to convince everyone that the gaming media is struck through with sinister anti-gamer conspiracies and bias (the most misused word in the entire gamersphere, closely followed by agenda and objective) but the fact is Gamergate is the 'positive' force at work, by which I mean the GG movement is the one that took initiative to try and push for change. Except that as discussed above, the Gamergate movement doesn't know its own ass from its elbow, and so blunders around the net yelling at everything and everyone. People react to whatever happens to come their way, and that's when the "circle the wagons" mentality I talked about in regards to gamers comes into play. Suddenly individuals are perceived as choosing sides and a mass of people who stand in opposition to gamergate (but are otherwise unconnected) are seen as this massive army to be defeated. And simultaneously, the gamergate movement proves reluctant to throw off those members that perpetrate the more disgusting behavior - because the wagons are circled, and having a terrible ally is better than being defeated by 'the enemy.'

All of these issues together is why the entire attempt to defend the Gamergate movement with 'but their side is just as bad!!!' is a total red herring. Firstly because gamergate itself doesn't know what the fuck gamergate is doing thanks to its own self-imposed refusal to vet its membership, secondly because there is no other side; there is no unified anti-gg movement, there's just a bunch of people who, for one reason or another, have had it up to here with the gamergate movement. Maybe for some of them it's because they have something to hide. Maybe some of them received enough spam campaigns that their patience has run out. Maybe they just read this very thread and think that the GG members have done an atrocious job of trying to paint their movement in a good light.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

For fuck's sake Felius, you were one of two people to whom I directly responded with this post TWENTY PAGES AGO.

WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS
 
Last edited:
Felius said:
Just something that I feel this thread won't go carry forth if not done: A few questions to those who argue that Gamergate is irrevocably "tainted", so to speak, due to the harassment and the like of prominent anti-GG figures*:

Do you believe that prominent GG supporters, like TotalBiscuit, Milo or even the creator of "#NotYourShield", have been in fact harassed as they have claimed?

If so, do you think that the "anti-GG" side have been somehow "tainted" by said harassment?

If not, why is that you think that GG is tainted by said actions?

* To those of you who are anti-GG but don't think that the actions of a vocal minority of idiots and trolls have automatically tainted the whole movement, that's perfectly okay. I just have a beef with differing standards.

TL,DR: Please let's discuss the subject matter instead of just claiming GG is full of terrible people. If harassment makes a side automatically wrong then neither side have any grounds to argue and everyone who is in favor of any is a terrible person by asossication.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Except for the problem that there is no anti-GG side. There are many, many factions which do not have an associated hashtag, which do not claim to be a movement, which are anti-GG. I'm against American support of Israel. So is ISIS. By the logic you're using, because we share one tangential point, despite not claiming to belong to ISIS, I am part of ISIS. If you're against something, anyone who's against it is part of your 'side.' That's not how it works.

But this doesn't apply to Gamergate. Gamergate is a movement. It claims to be a movement. It claims to be representative of its members and its views, because if it wasn't then it'd be 'astroturf.' By being a movement, by claiming to be acting towards a cause and having goals and demands, you are a movement. And you can be judged as a movement. So when people who are against the movement start getting harassment-that speaks ill of the movement. When people who are part of the movement get harassment-that's irrelevant. There is no Unified Anti-Gator Force. There is no unified ideology for being anti-Gamergate. Some people are anti-Gamergate because it threatens their jobs! Some people are anti-Gamergate because they dislike video gamers! Some people are anti-Gamergate because they think it's full of misogynists! Some people are anti-Gamergate because they think it's going after the wrong targets! Some people are anti-Gamergate because it's been hijacked by the right wing! Some people are anti-Gamergate because they think it's all useful idiots poisoning the well for their own personal aggrandizement!

You're the people taking collective action and claiming you have a single cause, it is absolutely your responsibility to restrain yourselves.
 
Aranfan said:
So... no then?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
We do not control Kotaku. We can raise awareness of the issue, we can talk with advertisers, but we can't force them to do anything.

Kuja said:
I'VE BEEN OVER THIS.

For fuck's sake Felius, you were one of two people to whom I directly responded with this post TWENTY PAGES AGO.

WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Because that's not a satisfactory answer. There's no leadership, no formal organization because GG is, in fact, a grassroots movement. Not only so, but those who are public and prominent suffer heavily from character assassination. Even ignorining Milo, who came with his character per-assassinated due his conservative worldviews, we have Hoff Sommers, a celebrated feminist author, being constantly labeled as a anti-feminist conservative, we have the creator of "NotYourShield", who got harassed out of his job, etc.

We do not have a leadership or a formal organization because we are a very diffuse and diverse "group", to which the only thing we are more or less guaranteed to agree upon is about GG itself. Trying to create a formal organization that encompasses from red communists to libertarians, from MRAs stereotyped activists to celebrated feminists, we are all over the spectrum. Not only so, but a good deal of GG-supporters have concerns that all any kind of such organization or figurehead would be creating a target to attack without considering the actual issues.

Wolf Ritter said:
It is not possible to taint that which does not exist.

Because Gamergate claims a unified identity that the multitudinous organizations and groups that oppose it do not. Anti-Gamergate is a non-entity, sure the hashtag exists and some people use it, but the vast majority of people accused of being a part of Anti-Gamergate claim no such affiliation, beyond interacting with morons that think Anti-Gamergate exists. This should be a pretty easy concept to understand: Gators claim their movement shouldn't be condemned by the acts of those using the shared identity of Gamergate (even if the general misanthropes in the movement seem to be the ones achieving anything and the "anti-Gamergaters" appear to be doing what Gators say they're attempting to do), they should because Gamergate is a shared identity, people opposed to Gamergate don't even share this loose of an association.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
MJ12 Commando said:
Except for the problem that there is no anti-GG side. There are many, many factions which do not have an associated hashtag, which do not claim to be a movement, which are anti-GG. I'm against American support of Israel. So is ISIS. By the logic you're using, because we share one tangential point, despite not claiming to belong to ISIS, I am part of ISIS. If you're against something, anyone who's against it is part of your 'side.' That's not how it works.

But this doesn't apply to Gamergate. Gamergate is a movement. It claims to be a movement. It claims to be representative of its members and its views, because if it wasn't then it'd be 'astroturf.' By being a movement, by claiming to be acting towards a cause and having goals and demands, you are a movement. And you can be judged as a movement. So when people who are against the movement start getting harassment-that speaks ill of the movement. When people who are part of the movement get harassment-that's irrelevant. There is no Unified Anti-Gator Force. There is no unified ideology for being anti-Gamergate. Some people are anti-Gamergate because it threatens their jobs! Some people are anti-Gamergate because they dislike video gamers! Some people are anti-Gamergate because they think it's full of misogynists! Some people are anti-Gamergate because they think it's going after the wrong targets! Some people are anti-Gamergate because it's been hijacked by the right wing! Some people are anti-Gamergate because they think it's all useful idiots poisoning the well for their own personal aggrandizement!

You're the people taking collective action and claiming you have a single cause, it is absolutely your responsibility to restrain yourselves.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Except the opinions are far more unified in anti-GG than in GG. I call Anti-GG a "side", because I'm yet to see someone that proposes to stand for anti-GG but still call out bad, unethical or otherwise unacceptable behavior against those who support GG. Sure, you are not responsible for these, but generally speaking, if you are going to call out harassment you might as well not ignore that which is against those you don't agree with.

Because, really, while I'll avoid citing names in here due to Lord's Squishy particularly strict rules about what can count as libel, it's a matter of public record a lot of the terrible behavior of many vocal and prominent anti-gg advocates, both where it concerns GG itself and in general matters (and if Milo's conservative views are fair to bring up, so are these).

Or TL,DR: Because really, active anti-GG is as much, if not more, as a group as GG.
 
If GG is really about ethics in game journalism, then why is the narrative that it started over ZQ (allegedly) sleeping with a reviewer for a good review? Why isn't the narrative that it started because Nathan Greyson (allegedly) gave a good review to a game after he slept with it's developer?

Narrative and presentation is incredibly important and powerful. The first focuses on a dev doing something wrong. The second focuses on a reporter doing something wrong. If GG is about journalistic ethics, why is it using the first narrative instead of the second?
 
Felius said:
-snip-
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Again because we do not claim association to a shared identity or affiliate ourself with a unified opposition movement. It's like trying to claim the White Army, Black Guard, and Green Army are all part of the Anti-Marxist side. Or that Golden Dawn and ISIS are part of the anti-Israel side and should have to disassociate themselves from one another. I don't feel the need to disassociate myself from the pond sucking cretins that harass members of Gamergate because I don't associate myself with them, I don't involve myself in collective actions with them, I don,t organize with them, and I don't in anyway identify with them.
 
Felius said:
Because that's not a satisfactory answer. There's no leadership, no formal organization because GG is, in fact, a grassroots movement. Not only so, but those who are public and prominent suffer heavily from character assassination. Even ignorining Milo, who came with his character per-assassinated due his conservative worldviews, we have Hoff Sommers, a celebrated feminist author, being constantly labeled as a anti-feminist conservative, we have the creator of "NotYourShield", who got harassed out of his job, etc.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Sommers has been discussed as anti-feminist conservative loooong before GamerGate was ever a thing, it's not something new that popped out whole cloth a month ago. There's a very deep divide between her and modern feminism and has been for a while. Whether that means she is or isn't a feminist depends on who you ask.
 
Rufus Shinra said:
Nah, as I said, an answer was provided just after my post, and was enough for me. I don't really care about the Anita, the Zoe, the 4chan and the various websites.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Why wouldn't you care? Gamergate started as harassment against Quin which spread to include others such as Zoe, and started in 4chan. What started something is a pretty major detail.

Felius said:
We do not control Kotaku. We can raise awareness of the issue, we can talk with advertisers, but we can't force them to do anything.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'd have to ask: what issue? These alleged reviews? They don't exist. The extent of that supposed corruption was a couple sentences mentioning a free game of Quin's.
 
cB557 said:
Why wouldn't you care? Gamergate started as harassment against Quin which spread to include others such as Zoe, and started in 4chan. What started something is a pretty major detail.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Said it already: I don't give a fuck about these media "celebrities". That shit flies just as high as the newest affair about some "famous actor" or "famous singer".
 
Carrnage said:
At they very least theres a dedicated anti subreddit.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Congrats. Some people against Gamergate are organized. I didn't say that the people against Gators didn't have subgroups, some of which may be organized. That does not mean that because there are organized groups which believe one thing that people who believe one thing are a coherent movement, any more than "disliking the US stance on Israel" makes me part of ISIS.
 
14 more messages…
Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads
Back
Top