Gamergate, No "Right Side." - We Should Avoid Picking Sides

[Calbeck]

Unless the official manifesto of a movement is founded in hate, it?s ridiculous to argue that misogynistic statements alongside a popular hashtag on Twitter amounts to organized discrimination?even more so when anyone can tweet "#GamerGate" and the argument is based solely on the cherry-picked statements of a minority of participants.

Thank you, Blake Callens. Some brilliant reporting, and not all favorable to Gamergate, either --- we have our bad eggs --- but he correctly identifies that continuous overreaction and hyperbole by our opposition has been our greatest recruiting tool.

 

[JimB]

"...Throughout the day, USU police worked to assess the level of threat with other local, state and federal agencies, including the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit. After a careful assessment of the threat, law enforcement officials determined that it was similar to other threats that Sarkeesian received in the past."

Okay, but I remember that mass killing in California over the summer (you know, the one committed by the misogynist whose name I forget, the one whose father is a movie director or something). The police investigated that threat before it happened too, and they found there was no cause for action in that case either.

No, I'm not saying the failure of a law enforcement organization in one state means the judgment of another law enforcement agency in a completely different state under very different circumstances is also a failure. I'm just saying that some of us live in a world where the police are not worthy of the trust it would take for us to stake our lives on their judgment, let alone the lives of hundreds of people at a speaking appointment, particularly when the threat in issued in a state whose laws favor the rights of people with guns over people without guns. If your experience with the police is that they deserve that kind of trust and will not drop the ball, then I am utterly serious when I say good for you. I'm glad that has been your experience, and I wouldn't want to take it away from you even if I could. It's not the experience all of us have had, though, and I absolutely refuse to condemn someone who chose to protect her own safety and the safety of her crowd over taking police at their word that nothing will go wrong.

 

[Calbeck]

"...Throughout the day, USU police worked to assess the level of threat with other local, state and federal agencies, including the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit. After a careful assessment of the threat, law enforcement officials determined that it was similar to other threats that Sarkeesian received in the past."

Okay, but I remember that mass killing in California over the summer (you know, the one committed by the misogynist whose name I forget, the one whose father is a movie director or something). The police investigated that threat before it happened too, and they found there was no cause for action in that case either.

Or, to put it in the words of Donald Rumsfeld: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Which, purely semantically, is true.

In the specific case you cite, however, they at least had a person whom they could identify and go interview. It was because they interviewed him and he seemed normal --- thus contradicting his online appearance --- that they decided it was nothing. That's not apparently the case here, where we don't even have an ID on who made the threats and the police aren't reporting that they interviewed anyone.

So in this instance, there's no "we met the guy and he seems fine so we're not going to bother with getting a search warrant because we have no legal grounds".

 

[Akjosch]

(...) I'm just saying that some of us live in a world where the police are not worthy of the trust it would take for us to stake our lives on their judgment, let alone the lives of hundreds of people at a speaking appointment, particularly when the threat in issued in a state whose laws favor the rights of people with guns over people without guns.

Frankly, at least in my case, it's not that I necessarily trust the police.

It's that I trust all the sympathetic members of the audience who, as is not unusual in the area, are also armed. In addition, they are warned of the potential threat and so can react appropriately and quickly should the need arise.

 

[maffgibson]

Having spent a LOT of time lurking in the GG-related threads (what other type is there now?) trying to pick a side, I am also of the opinion that there is no right side. Figureheads on both sides are using it as a vehicle for some weird right vs. left culture war, when the most serious corruption (e.g. Shadow of Morrrrrdooorrrrr) is apolitical and profit focused, and the most serious harassment is very clearly trolls using the conflict as an opportunity to entertain themselves.

Both sides are equally guilty of using crappy arguments while calling out the exact same arguments being used by the other side. Too many times, I have seen people without any sense of irony claim simultaneously that the doxxing/threats aimed at their side are both genuine and indicative of the attitude of the entirety of the "other side", but also that there is not enough evidence that the attacks aimed AT the "other side" were 100% legit, and they should be assumed to be fake or "false flags". That is some high-quality cognitive dissonance right there.

In terms of specific flaws that crop up frequently (oh yes, now for the juicy stuff):

*Disclaimer: I do not believe that the below applies to all, or even most of the membership of the groups. Just some of things that have encouraged me to keep clear of the whole mess*

Pro-GG: Claiming that GG "is/isn't" something. Over the past few weeks, I have seen people make all sorts of "authoritative" claims about GG. The fact is, it is just a hashtag. It is open to everyone who identifies with it. You can say (or rather, "one can say") that to you it is about ethics, but there are quite clearly a lot of people who see it as a war against any and all "feminists", and actively want them removed from society. And because of the free nature of the hashtag, they are just as correct as you in their interpretation. Sure, in your experience most people might see it as purely about ethics, but unless you have a way to distinguish your subgroup, you can't claim that GG "is" anything in particular.

Anti-GG: As a left-leaning person myself, this is arguably the camp I am most disappointed in. For a group allegedly keen on ensuring good treatment for the downtrodden in society, nothing is more disgusting to see than members physically and sexually shaming people that they disagree with (what else is "fat, virgin neckbeards"?)This group claims to be better educated and more "aware", but many individuals are incredibly prone to dehumanising any and everyone "not on side", blind and deaf to any degree of nuance. Oh, and often a refusal to consider hate of a whole gender a bad thing unless it is aimed at women: thus giving some pretty awful people a platform and pouring fuel onto the fire of "far-right" GGers' feminism paranoia.

Twitter: In my eyes, the prime culprit. 140 characters are not enough to convey nuance, and hashtags are open to use by anyone and everyone. Add anonymity to that mix, and you have a pretty toxic mixture.

While acknowledging that neither of these are representative of the whole, it is enough for me to decide not to pick either side. Earlier, someone on this thread said that staying out of this is "sitting on the fence". This is wrong, because it implies that we might at this point come down on one side of the other. We are actually "sitting on the bench". On the sidelines. Shaking our heads.

However, I want to end this by acknowledging that there are some really good hearts and clear heads on both sides of the debate: people who really want to sort this out. GamerGaters who want to end backroom deals and conflicts of interest, and anti-GamerGaters who just want harassment to end. Maybe there is some way these people can come together, if only they stop demonising one another. For my money, it ain't gonna happen on twitter though. Wise words from a GamerGater on this very thread:

Seriously: The "no middle ground!" rhetoric has to go. It's not helping. Most people want to just live their lives in peace and maybe play some video games. Let's just leave them.

 

[Popido]

People seem to misunderstand what Social Justice is.

Social Justice is about putting labels on things and then attacking those labels. They're "strawman makers". Its not about feminism, albeism, racism, sexist etc. The idea is to abuse labels and use them to attack different subjects.

For example;
White man is racist, because he either accepts or denies to live in white man's world.
Black man is internally racist, because he either accepts or denies to live in white man's world.
Boys are born misogynist, because of the patriachy.
Girls are born internally misogynist, because of the patriachy.
Video games are white hetero sexuals man's hobby, therefore they're sexist, misogynist, women objecting production. As long you deny this, women cannot feel save in video game industry.

If you haven't yet noticed, it is very bigoted view. When you meet up with a person, you make a note of their skin color, gender, sexual preference, class status. All of it, to put labels on them. You can then abuse those labels either to support or to attack that person's self-identity.

Here's the big deal with this. Social Justice is not based on any research or facts. There is no foundation or rules on what Social Justice is for or against, other than attaching and attacking labels. Everything is based on the self-identified SJW's personal opinion. Good example of this is the discrimination law for trans. Questioning someones trans status is discrimination. But there are no rules on being trans. Anyone can step up and declare to be trans, and if anyone dares to question it, they're breaking the law.

This is the true face of Social Justice. I should know, because I'm a Social Justice Warrior.

 

[Sutter Cane]

They legitimately were concerned about journalists accepting sexual favors for reviews at the start, seen as a sign of corruption in the industry but it was vastly overshadowed by the vitriol thrown at Quinn at the time.

Don't forget that the review they claimed they were getting in an uproar about never existed and there was zero evidence of Quinn granting sexual favours to any journalists for gain.

That, coupled with the "SJW" comments (and a whole bunch of other stuff), made everyone see right through the "Journalistic ethics" smokescreen.

The reason I did not mention that is that it did not come out that all of that were lies made up by the aforementioned ex boyfriend until a week or so later. It is interesting to note, however, that GG was born in an act of harassment of a woman (by the ex boyfriend). This article has a good look at how all of this happened, and how well intentioned people have been mislead over time by the message of the movement, despite its behavior: http://jezebel.com/gamergate-trolls-arent-ethics-crusaders-theyre-a-hate-1644984010


Captcha: She sells

No, Captcha she does not. Depression Quest is free to play.

Eron never claimed that Zoe slept with journalists for the purpose of getting good game reviews as far as I'm aware. He mentioned a couple of the people she cheated with and the internet inferred the rest when they saw the names. On top of that thezoepost documents numerous instances of Zoe displaying abusive patterns of behavior, and I've never bought the whole "he's just a jilted ex boyfriend and what happened between them is just a private matter" line when the behavior described is very clearly emotionally abusive.

 

[grassgremlin]

"...Throughout the day, USU police worked to assess the level of threat with other local, state and federal agencies, including the Utah Statewide Information and Analysis Center, the FBI Cyber Terrorism Task Force, and the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit. After a careful assessment of the threat, law enforcement officials determined that it was similar to other threats that Sarkeesian received in the past."

Okay, but I remember that mass killing in California over the summer (you know, the one committed by the misogynist whose name I forget, the one whose father is a movie director or something). The police investigated that threat before it happened too, and they found there was no cause for action in that case either.

No, I'm not saying the failure of a law enforcement organization in one state means the judgment of another law enforcement agency in a completely different state under very different circumstances is also a failure. I'm just saying that some of us live in a world where the police are not worthy of the trust it would take for us to stake our lives on their judgment, let alone the lives of hundreds of people at a speaking appointment, particularly when the threat in issued in a state whose laws favor the rights of people with guns over people without guns. If your experience with the police is that they deserve that kind of trust and will not drop the ball, then I am utterly serious when I say good for you. I'm glad that has been your experience, and I wouldn't want to take it away from you even if I could. It's not the experience all of us have had, though, and I absolutely refuse to condemn someone who chose to protect her own safety and the safety of her crowd over taking police at their word that nothing will go wrong.

Oh, guys. Sure, we can rationalize shit all we like, but we forgot one important detail.
THEY ALLOW GUNS ON THE CAMPUS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhjFarhm2Jo

Screw Gamergate, let's talk about the fact that they have laws that allow any asshat to carry a gun to a school campus.
Sorry, this is a real issue right here!

To be fair though, the shooter would be basically going up to a place where other people are allowed to carry guns. It wouldn't be a massacre it be a shoot out . . . and honestly, that's just as unsettling, what the actual fuck?

 

[know whan purr tick]

People seem to misunderstand what Social Justice is.

Social Justice is about putting labels on things and then attacking those labels. They're "strawman makers". Its not about feminism, albeism, racism, sexist etc. The idea is to abuse labels and use them to attack different subjects.

For example;
White man is racist, because he either accepts or denies to live in white man's world.
Black man is internally racist, because he either accepts or denies to live in white man's world.
Boys are born misogynist, because of the patriachy.
Girls are born internally misogynist, because of the patriachy.
Video games are white hetero sexuals man's hobby, therefore they're sexist, misogynist, women objecting production. As long you deny this, women cannot feel save in video game industry.

If you haven't yet noticed, it is very bigoted view. When you meet up with a person, you make a note of their skin color, gender, sexual preference, class status. All of it, to put labels on them. You can then abuse those labels either to support or to attack that person's self-identity.

Here's the big deal with this. Social Justice is not based on any research or facts. There is no foundation or rules on what Social Justice is for or against, other than attaching and attacking labels. Everything is based on the self-identified SJW's personal opinion. Good example of this is the discrimination law for trans. Questioning someones trans status is discrimination. But there are no rules on being trans. Anyone can step up and declare to be trans, and if anyone dares to question it, they're breaking the law.

This is the true face of Social Justice. I should know, because I'm a Social Justice Warrior.

I disagree, social justice can be understood through the lenses of the -isms. A humanist take will be different than that of a more specific population espousing social justice. There isn't a codified listing of what constitutes the aims for all forms of social justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/] is a social justice document.

 

[Calbeck]

Here's a key excerpt from Samantha Allen, circa 2013:

http://www.reactionzine.com/an-open-letter-to-games-media/

When few people besides straight men feel automatically safe on your sites, it?s not our responsibility to come in and change your communities for you. It?s your responsibility to take a bold stand for what?s right.

This was, as the link suggests, a call to Gaming Media to crack down on what Allen considered "unsafe" for anyone OTHER than "straight men". LGBT, minorities, straight women --- all, in Allen's view, were subject to "feeling unsafe" on any given gaming website.

That was over a year before "Gamers Are Dead". Allen's work comes across as a straight-up manifesto:

You will anger readers by taking a stand. Some of them will leave. Some of their threats to leave forever are not, in fact, empty. You?ll get flak from NeoGaf and Reddit. 4Chan will make the same ugly threads about you as they do about me and my friends.

Do it. Piss them off. Take the risk. Make a decision now that they are not worth your time and that the ad revenue they provide is not worth the toxic atmosphere they bring to your sites. They?re not worth continuing to bear the reputation of being an unsafe place for people who are not straight men.

Allen argued that straight men inherently posed some sort of danger to anyone on a gaming site who wasn't also a straight man. And that's not surprising, given:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140701225929/http://unpitchable.tumblr.com/post/79931857273/what-misandry-means-to-me

i?m a misandrist. that means i hate men. i?m not a cute misandrist. i don?t have a fridge magnet that says, ?boys are stupid, throw rocks at them.? my loathing cannot be contained by a fridge magnet.

i am not an equality feminist. i don?t believe that an asymmetrical world will be cured by polite obsequence to male-dominated systems. i am not a liberal humanist. i don?t believe that i need to stand up for men when they?ve been standing on top of everyone else.

misandry is not a political program; it?s a stance. i don?t care whether hating men is a good or bad feminist strategy (and i care even less what men think about misandry). i don?t think i have a responsibility to change the world. i think i have a responsibility to survive.

Allen considers straight males her literal, not figurative, enemy, in a world where she is a Social Warrior who does not even concern herself with the concept of Justice. It was she who wrote the game plan for attacking "straight white males", the demographic targeted by "Gamers Are Dead", which itself was spearheaded by her good friend Leigh Alexander. Everyone else (with the possible exception of Patricia Hernandez, who was already essentially on board anyways) simply followed the Extremist Rhetoric Trainwreck right off the cliff.

Gamergate wasn't created from misogyny. Its roots are in reaction to co-opted misandry.

 

[Popido]

I disagree, social justice can be understood through the lenses of the -isms. A humanist take will be different than that of a more specific population espousing social justice. There isn't a codified listing of what constitutes the aims for all forms of social justice. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights [http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/] is a social justice document.

That's just some fancy righteous text to make us sound like the good guys. You should look more into the actions of Social Justice than mere words. Social justice wasn't anything until it was put in use to scam people. People leave themselves open when you state to fight for the justice.

It doesn't really matter what you think Social Justice is about. What matters is who uses it and how.

 

[Akjosch]

People seem to misunderstand what Social Justice is.

"Justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society" (New Oxford American Dictionary).

In other words: The goal is for everyone, without exceptions, to have the same opportunities and privileges (and with them, rights, obligations and limits to what they can do) under the law, and are entitled to a fair and just share of the society's wealth based on their performance alone. This rules out any form of discrimination, nepotism or corruption. This also means that upholding basic human rights like freedom of speech and expression is of the highest priority. People's feelings about it don't matter. If you feel offended by someone exercising their right to be a human, the problem is yours alone.

The "social" part comes in where it applies to people who have a hard life due to no fault of their own, like because they suffer from an untreatable genetic defect or are victims of an accident - we need to ensure they can lead a decent life.

That's my take on it, that's what I stay for, and that's the world I'd like to help build.

 

[Popido]

People seem to misunderstand what Social Justice is.

"Justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society" (New Oxford American Dictionary).

In other words: The goal is for everyone, without exceptions, to have the same opportunities and privileges (and with them, rights, obligations and limits to what they can do) under the law, and are entitled to a fair and just share of the society's wealth based on their performance alone. This rules out any form of discrimination, nepotism or corruption. This also means that upholding basic human rights like freedom of speech and expression is of the highest priority. People's feelings about it don't matter. If you feel offended by someone exercising their right to be a human, the problem is yours alone.

The "social" part comes in where it applies to people who have a hard life due to no fault of their own, like because they suffer from an untreatable genetic defect or are victims of an accident - we need to ensure they can lead a decent life.

That's my take on it, that's what I stay for, and that's the world I'd like to help build.

And to do that, we must destroy the white man's regime. Attack anyone who doesn't fall under our narrative and push them out of this industry. All for the sake of justice. Gamer culture must die. Gamers are over.

Label your enemies and take them down with any means necessary. Anyone who isn't for us is wrong. Anyone who denies our message will be condemned. Stand on the right side of the history.

 

[Akjosch]

People seem to misunderstand what Social Justice is.

"Justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society" (New Oxford American Dictionary).

In other words: The goal is for everyone, without exceptions, to have the same opportunities and privileges (and with them, rights, obligations and limits to what they can do) under the law, and are entitled to a fair and just share of the society's wealth based on their performance alone. This rules out any form of discrimination, nepotism or corruption. This also means that upholding basic human rights like freedom of speech and expression is of the highest priority. People's feelings about it don't matter. If you feel offended by someone exercising their right to be a human, the problem is yours alone.

The "social" part comes in where it applies to people who have a hard life due to no fault of their own, like because they suffer from an untreatable genetic defect or are victims of an accident - we need to ensure they can lead a decent life.

That's my take on it, that's what I stay for, and that's the world I'd like to help build.

And to do that, we must destroy the white man's regime. Attack anyone who doesn't fall under our narrative and push them out of this industry. All for the sake of justice. Gamer culture must die. Gamers are over.

Label your enemies and take them down with any means necessary. Anyone who isn't for us is wrong. Anyone who denies our message will be condemned. Stand on the right side of the history.

Nope.

First of all, history takes no sides. There is no fate, no outcome is inevitable, nothing which can't be changed. In the end, only death is constant - ours, our planet's, our universe's. The only future is the one we'll build ... or others will build their version of the future for us.

And to the main point: I don't believe that ends justify the means.

Sometimes things, organisations, structures need to be destroyed in order to make space for a better version. That's just how the world rolls. But always, always second-guess your chosen methods, your motives, yourself. Never assume you're right, never assume you'll stay right, never assume whoever opposes you is wrong, and above all: Concentrate on the "rebuilding" part, not the "destruction" part.

And never, ever justify the means you take by the ends you hope to achieve.

In the end, the only thing which can justify the means is the results - and those you'll only know when you get to see them.

 

[Popido]

Nope.

First of all, history takes no sides. There is no fate, no outcome is inevitable, nothing which can't be changed. In the end, only death is constant - ours, our planet's, our universe's. The only future is the one we'll build ... or other will build their version of the future for us.

And to the main point: I don't believe that ends justify the means.

Sometimes things, organisations, structures need to be destroyed in order to make space for a better version. That's just how the world rolls. But always, always second-guess your chosen methods, your motives, yourself. Never assume you're right, never assume you'll stay right, never assume whoever opposes you is wrong, and above all: Concentrate on the "rebuilding" part, not the "destruction" part.

And never, ever justify the means you take by the ends you hope to achieve.

In the end, the only thing which can justify the means is the results - and those you'll only know when you get to see them.

And yet again, none of that matters, because people like me are in charge of deciding what Social Justice means.

The media and academics are on my side and they support my crusade. The only thing necessary for the evil to triumph is that all the good men do nothing. I am Social Justice.

 

[maffgibson]

People seem to misunderstand what Social Justice is.

"Justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society" (New Oxford American Dictionary).

In other words: The goal is for everyone, without exceptions, to have the same opportunities and privileges (and with them, rights, obligations and limits to what they can do) under the law, and are entitled to a fair and just share of the society's wealth based on their performance alone. This rules out any form of discrimination, nepotism or corruption. This also means that upholding basic human rights like freedom of speech and expression is of the highest priority. People's feelings about it don't matter. If you feel offended by someone exercising their right to be a human, the problem is yours alone.

The "social" part comes in where it applies to people who have a hard life due to no fault of their own, like because they suffer from an untreatable genetic defect or are victims of an accident - we need to ensure they can lead a decent life.

That's my take on it, that's what I stay for, and that's the world I'd like to help build.

And to do that, we must destroy the white man's regime. Attack anyone who doesn't fall under our narrative and push them out of this industry. All for the sake of justice. Gamer culture must die. Gamers are over.

Label your enemies and take them down with any means necessary. Anyone who isn't for us is wrong. Anyone who denies our message will be condemned. Stand on the right side of the history.

Nope.

First of all, history takes no sides. There is no fate, no outcome is inevitable, nothing which can't be changed. In the end, only death is constant - ours, our planet's, our universe's. The only future is the one we'll build ... or others will build their version of the future for us.

And to the main point: I don't believe that ends justify the means.

Sometimes things, organisations, structures need to be destroyed in order to make space for a better version. That's just how the world rolls. But always, always second-guess your chosen methods, your motives, yourself. Never assume you're right, never assume you'll stay right, never assume whoever opposes you is wrong, and above all: Concentrate on the "rebuilding" part, not the "destruction" part.

And never, ever justify the means you take by the ends you hope to achieve.

In the end, the only thing which can justify the means is the results - and those you'll only know when you get to see them.

This reminds me of a something Aldous Huxley wrote:

As though you could use violent, unjust means and achieve peace and justice! Means determine ends; and must be like the ends proposed. Means intrinsically different from the ends proposed achieve ends like themselves, not like those they were meant to achieve.

A little more on-topic: Popido, it sounds like you are painting with a very broad brush. I ask you this: would you accept someone painting all of GamerGate with the tar of a minority of trolls? I feel like you wouldn't. Describing "Social justice" in terms of the worst abuse of the term that you have perceived is pretty similar.

 

[Netrigan]

I'll happily join the on-the-fencers if it stops hogging forums. Doubt it will though.

I just wish they'd stop dragging their Twitter/Tumblr bullshit to places where actual conversations can happen.

Look, I'm sorry you think arguing about stuff on Twitter and Tumblr matter, but it's fucking gibberish to anyone who wasn't part of the conversation. No, I don't care if the Evil SJW was being mean to you, because the only way I can figure out exactly what happened is if you link the discussion and I can determine whether or not you were being mean to them first... so your little screen captures don't mean terribly much to me without the context.

And since I feel my brain cells committing suicide every time I try to follow one of those idiotic conversations, I have absolutely zero interest in doing so.

Feels like they constantly want me to be the judge in their Asshole Olympics.

 

[Verlander]

I'll happily join the on-the-fencers if it stops hogging forums. Doubt it will though.

I just wish they'd stop dragging their Twitter/Tumblr bullshit to places where actual conversations can happen.

Look, I'm sorry you think arguing about stuff on Twitter and Tumblr matter, but it's fucking gibberish to anyone who wasn't part of the conversation. No, I don't care if the Evil SJW was being mean to you, because the only way I can figure out exactly what happened is if you link the discussion and I can determine whether or not you were being mean to them first... so your little screen captures don't mean terribly much to me without the context.

And since I feel my brain cells committing suicide every time I try to follow one of those idiotic conversations, I have absolutely zero interest in doing so.

Feels like they constantly want me to be the judge in their Asshole Olympics.

I can't read Twitter, it logistically does not make any sense in my mind.

 

[Deckard Kain]

After much research, I can safely declare that everyone is wrong.

What I have seen is that this gaming war has become too radical on both sides.

Extremists overgeneralizing movements.
Misinformation and a Lack of Understanding.

The only choice for us as the fence sitters is to not pick a side.

This issue has devolved to the point of slinging mud. Children in the playground shouting insults to one another then crying saying "we're not poopy heads." as they shout "you are poopy heads."

Can we all just agree, Gamergate will not solve anything? Can we all agree StopGamergate will not solve anything.

The truth has always been that there is room for both.
There is room for gone home and call of duty.
There is room for Bayonetta getting a 7.5 on Polygon and 10 out of 10s from other respectable sites.

There is room for us all. We should all be gaming. We don't need a label. And if we have a label we give ourselves then so what.

The truth is, there is no "True Gamers." There is no "fake gamers". Gaming has reached the mainstream in ways we could only dream of in the 90s.

How can we save gaming? If we embrace our fellow men and women with controller in hand passing off to each other in glorious play.

For peep-sakes, can we be adults? Let's have the games the way we want it.
The truth is, your games aren't going anywhere.
You experiences will not end.
New Experiences will be created and will be accepted.

That's the truth.

If gamergate wants to truly make a difference then create a consumer group. Create a website. Rally the hundreds, thousands who pledge the hashtag. The talents they have. Rally together and create something new.

Why do we always have to keep fighting when most games come with two, four, sixteen players?
Can't we just play?

Just let them walk all over you? No thanks, I rather pick a side and defend it. I don't want to see this great hobby of mine be dictated from some group that have no business in gaming.