jademunky said:
I think the biggest thing we disagree on is how important we judge the issues either side is coming from.
This is pretty much the core of the debate here.
This will allow me to elaborate on my recent thinking on this whole mess of a struggle. Bear with me if you want, it's way too long than it should be.
If people fight for a full month on an issue, they have to deeply care or have a strong interest in it; if one side has barely any interest in the main issue, the feud lasts a few days then is over. Here, we have each side stating the other side's issues aren't actually the real ones, that they're liying or misleading on their true aims, and what the other side say the debate is about doesn't matter. So, that's the problem:
Both sides don't express good arguments on the same issues, and both sides' reasonable and legitimate complaints aren't addressing the same points.
Anti-GG crowd makes many good points and addresses valid complaints on issues where GG crowd has some good arguments but a lot of weak and sometimes really dubious ones. I'd say sexist insults, harassment, more diversity in gaming, overall mood in parts of online gaming, and the like; valid concerns overall.
GG crowd makes many good points and addresses valid complaints on issues where anti-GG crowd has some good arguments, but a lot of weak or dubious ones. As in taking game journalism more seriously, changing relations between media and game producers (both indie and AAA), not moderating/censoring forums due to mere ideological differences, not butchering existing franchises and genres for the sake of social engineering.
When looking at debates (or shooting contests, too often), it's clear that both sides see some concerns as paramount, and others as secondary issues at best, and the real problem is that these barely overlap; basically, most people on a side care far more deeply about their core issues and don't care much about the other side's core issues, so when they have to address what's for them a side-issue, but is key issue to the other side, they have trouble addressing it properly, arguing well or in good faith, and the other side concludes they are indeed wrong on the whole debate. It ends up with people shouting at each other, but they're usually not even talking about the same thing; you end up with people arguing "You want/did XX, which is bad" / "You promote YY, which is awful". As usual when things are tense, people barely listen to anything that doesn't deal with what they want to talk about, and you have accusations of derailing, lying, chaning the topic of discussion and the like.
To plagiarize Paul Newman, what we have here is mosly a failure to communicate.
One which is increased and worsened by the numerous trouble-makers above, who are mostly here to promote their own agenda and get their place in the sun, and benefit (or get a kick) from controversy and bigger infighting.
Yet when looking at both side's good points and justified complaints, I have another nagging feeling: the cannon fodder on both sides, the lay posters/gamers, aren't inherently opposed on these issues, they just don't care enough about them to get into a hissy fit and grab pitchforks. That's not a bad thing - it means that, if each side could actually deal with the radicals and jerks, things might go forward.
Majority of people on both sides, I'd bet, would agree that the valid points and legitimate complaints of the other side should be addressed - because the valid points aren't opposed to what the other side actually wants, they're not opposite goals because they don't address the same issues.
Heck, for instance, GG side would have no issue with reducing harassment, since some were obviously on the receiving end as well. Complaints about how media relates to game devs isn't limited to a few indies; assuming anti-GG crowd has any complaint in this matter, it's obviously with the media-AAA relationship and not with the indies, but GG side obviously would like to deal with that wider and even bigger side of the issue.
Real problem is implementation, because it would mean making some house-cleaning. Pushing to the side-lines the genuine misogynists, MRA and right-wing extremists on GG's side, smashing the head of the harassing insulting twats; on anti-GG's side, this would also mean side-lining and relegating to the shadows several prominent gaming media figures and actually curbing the influence of the cultural warriors.
Alas, tough if not downright impossible task for both sides. Which is sad because this would benefit nearly everyone, but the trouble-makers would do anything to avoid it, and are ready to put more gazoline on the fire to make sure they can keep doing their damaging shit. Let's get real, some of the thinkers/leaders/ideologues on both sides don't want any settlement, they either want statu quo (as in: current state of war) or to wipe out the opposition from any presence in the video game industry; that's obviously the case, among others, for the MRA extremists on GG side and for some groups of radicals on SJW front (many anti-GG people have pointed to the fact there are some people of dubious reputation in Gamergate and that these aren't here to discuss matter but to crush people - all this is quite correct, but the anti-GG crowd must also see that a few in their midst have far-reaching goals than a mere "Leave Britney alone", they aim for radical reshaping). These few people, on both sides, might even try to derail any attempt at discussion and indulge in blatant provocations to make sure the shit goes on. Common people on both sides have to be aware of that, and that they might have to overrule some of their most prominent figures to get some settlement.
