Everyone is a gamer

[Belaam]

One of my problems with #gamergate is that it is a meaningless name.

The hashtag activism is inherently idiotic unless it is tied to a real world movement, fundraiser, or something that actually does something. And the -gate part is just stupid on all levels. At best, it's an indicator of someone watching too much FOX. At worst, it's an appalling lack of knowledge of history. But the main problem is the "gamer" part of the title.

"Gamer" is easily one of the most useless terms around. From some quick googling, 67% of people go to movies. 82% have cable tv. 90% play video games. Gamer isn't dying as an identify because the GG crowd are making people associate it with being a misogynistic jerk. It's dying because it's a useless quantifier. I would never think to identify myself as a "movie theater-goer", because I kind of assume everyone goes. Likewise gaming. I would ask what kind of games they play and assume that they play something.

Again, 90% play video games. Which means you're more likely to encounter someone who doesn't approve of inter-racial marriage, or that Obama is the Anti-christ, goes to work stoned, think HTML is an STD, or countless other fun things you can discover by googling what low percentage of Americans believe. I'm assuming most developed nations are along these lines, though it might be a fun xkcd of "what 5% of believe".

As such, the rallying cry of "Gamers, unite against our oppression at the hands of journalists" is just absurd. 90% of Americans do not think this is an issue, so attempting to play identity politics with such an overly broad identifier is meaningless. It's like saying "Right-handed people of the world, we are being oppressed!"

We are all gamers. Gamers who like critical analysis of games. Gamers who think existing game journalism has problems. Gamers who see feminism as a personal attack. Gamers who see attacks on feminism as a personal attack. But mostly Gamers who don't care about any of the debate so long as they get the occasional good game. Attempting to speak for all gamers is absurd. And I say so as one of the 90% of Americans who don't think Obama's election has improved race relations in America, so I must be right.

 

[Thaluikhain]

It's like saying "Right-handed people of the world, we are being oppressed!"

Not that outlandish, though. Members of the majority will often fear minorities to some extent, and claim oppression. Gay people are taking over TV, for example, in that not everyone on TV is straight. Not everyone in politics is male, which is strange and disturbing. In most parts of the west, Asians aren't in charge, but they are taking over...apparently.

Now, of course, that's not to say that everyone will harbour irrational fears like that to any great degree, but there's always enough to make that sort of scaremongering worthwhile. Not everyone reads the sort of tabloids will are built on this, but enough do for them to be profitable.

 

[gamer_parent]

f*** this is exactly how I felt about this whole debacle. The entire GG thing has become a monumental mess that I honestly don't even think it's worth saving from the heap.

I mean, hey, if you feel passionate about something, fine, feel free to figure out ways to enact real changes. If that thing happens to game journalism, far be it for me to judge you for trying to change it.

But the way people have gone after it during this whole GG thing has been one train wreck after another. Gamer is not a minority group. It is an activity that everyone I know has enjoyed in some form or another. As such, you can't frame this as a "us vs. them" issue, and bandying hobbyists under that banner. It needs to be a case of "consumer vs. company" instead. And instead of railing against the journalists, who frankly have very little power in the industry, why aren't people going after the companies themselves? Why aren't they going after the publishers, organizing boycotts / coalitions / actions? You want this issue to change? go after the bottom line.

That is probably the only way this will change. Otherwise, it's just a bunch of guys bellyaching about nothing.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

One of my problems with #gamergate is that it is a meaningless name.

The hashtag activism is inherently idiotic unless it is tied to a real world movement, fundraiser, or something that actually does something. And the -gate part is just stupid on all levels. At best, it's an indicator of someone watching too much FOX. At worst, it's an appalling lack of knowledge of history. But the main problem is the "gamer" part of the title.

"Gamer" is easily one of the most useless terms around. From some quick googling, 67% of people go to movies. 82% have cable tv. 90% play video games. Gamer isn't dying as an identify because the GG crowd are making people associate it with being a misogynistic jerk. It's dying because it's a useless quantifier. I would never think to identify myself as a "movie theater-goer", because I kind of assume everyone goes. Likewise gaming. I would ask what kind of games they play and assume that they play something.

Again, 90% play video games. Which means you're more likely to encounter someone who doesn't approve of inter-racial marriage, or that Obama is the Anti-christ, goes to work stoned, think HTML is an STD, or countless other fun things you can discover by googling what low percentage of Americans believe. I'm assuming most developed nations are along these lines, though it might be a fun xkcd of "what 5% of believe".

As such, the rallying cry of "Gamers, unite against our oppression at the hands of journalists" is just absurd. 90% of Americans do not think this is an issue, so attempting to play identity politics with such an overly broad identifier is meaningless. It's like saying "Right-handed people of the world, we are being oppressed!"

We are all gamers. Gamers who like critical analysis of games. Gamers who think existing game journalism has problems. Gamers who see feminism as a personal attack. Gamers who see attacks on feminism as a personal attack. But mostly Gamers who don't care about any of the debate so long as they get the occasional good game. Attempting to speak for all gamers is absurd. And I say so as one of the 90% of Americans who don't think Obama's election has improved race relations in America, so I must be right.

You're arguing from a particular stance on the term, and on the articles referenced and its colouring the conclusions that you make about the people on the other side of several different (but somewhat related) debates.

For starters, Gamer as a term is being used currently (with the argument that this is how it ought to be used) to refer to enthusiasts. By this definition, someone who occasionally plays games, or who has a basic understanding of games and nothing more, is not a "Gamer". This stems from a lack of distinction that is present in other media (Cinephile, Audiophile etc.). Previously, "Core" and "Hardcore" have been used but very few people outside of the 1337 Fr@gz bro crowd seemed to like using them.

As for the articles, people aren't concerned that they're driving away potential gamers, as these are matters occuring on sites read by enthusiasts (either on the consumer or developer end). What they see it as is an attack on the population using the actions of a very small portion of that population. The same frustration many feminists feel when people call out the movement for housing people like Dworkin and Dines is the same frustration that led to a lot of people joining #GG and the surrounding groups. This is also seen as a smokescreen to distract from the real issue, which stems from a perceived lack of journalistic integrity and the pushing of particular ideological narratives to the detriment of factual and unbiased reporting. These issues, for the record, aren't at all limited to gaming, but people see a chance to change at least one portion of the media and they're going to take it.

As far as real world movements go, a lot of what's been happening can be traced back to OWS, Atheism+ and a number of Wikileaks incidences, etc. if we're just going off of recent events. There's absolutely been a downward trend in consumer trust when it comes to 'the media' and this is symptomatic of a lot of the unrest that stems from that and a number of cultural trends that have been prominent on the internet and elsewhere in the past few years. Real world actions have included boycotts, the formation of new news sources, and the promotion of news sources that fit the requirements of the consumer revolt. Goodgamers.us, Techraptor, Nichegamer, Gamesnosh, Gatheryourparty etc. have been used as examples of sites that "get it right". Additionally, fundraising has been done for relevant causes considered to be positive by participants.
You can disagree with the suggestions, the results, and the stated motivation, but you wont get very far building strawmen

And finally, as far as the wider implications of this, there's a number of groups watching these events unfold and the efficacy of both the revolt and its targets. Anarchists are interested in the efficiency of the revolt as a non-hierarchal movement, right wing activists are taking notes on how to combat left wing activists, certain left wing and feminist advocates are now able to see what issues people have with their statements and how their ideologies are perceived due to the platform many of these sentiments have been incidentally given, the list goes on.

Again, feel perfectly free to argue any of the actual points made, just don't make stuff up and misappropriate positions if you want to get a good discussion out of it or make a point people will actually listen to outside of the choir you appear to currently be preaching to, intentionally or otherwise.