Introduction:
So, back what feels like far longer ago than it actually was, before the term 'GamerGate' had been coined, and the stirrings of speculation around the personal life of a certain game developer where still in their infancy, I made a thread on this forum, attempting to appeal ahead of time for calm and civility. I was young then, and I thought that if I could strike a chord with people, inspiring them to populate the forum with a supply of calm, remedial threads, that we might avoid turning that particular debate, no matter what stances people held on it, into another great rift on the now increasingly scarred visage of gaming culture.
So, how's that working out for us so far? Anyone?
Now, at that time, I expressly didn't want to discuss the debate directly. There was already a thread about the issue at hand growing at a rate of knots, and I didn't feel that I (nor anyone else for that matter) knew enough of the facts at the time to add anything more. My goal was to try and prevent the girding loins of righteous anger from escalating out of control, not to fan the flames myself. However, we've come a long way since then, and I feel compelled to speak my mind; perhaps because I don't feel anything I say can make things worse at this point, or perhaps just because a sudden and aggressive bout of toothache is filling me with the desire to scold everyone around me.
As I have watched this battle rage, largely from the sidelines, I have gathered my own little collection of opinions regarding the foundations and general conduct of what I am loathe to call the two 'sides' of the argument. While I'm sure I likely won't escape this thread without being labelled as a shill for one side by the other, I will state categorically now that I am neither pro nor anti GamerGate. If I have any positive or negative stances surrounding this discussion, then I am Pro-Sanity, and Anti-People Who Care More About Being Victorious Than Being Decent. I have points of admonishment for all parties, some quite localised to this particular issue, and others that have been a sore spot for me in other places as well; and if I haven't managed to alienate everyone who started reading this already, then you're gonna sit down, shut up, and fucking listen for once. Got it?
For The Attention Of GamerGate:
- You cannot deny that the culture has serious problems with women
BEFORE ANYONE STARTS WITH ME! ... This is far from a problem exclusive to GamerGate, and this is not all that GamerGate stands for. Nor is this even in specific reference to a certain female games developer who This Isn't About (we'll get to HER later, you can count on it). This is a bone I've had to pick with my fellow gamers for a while, and GamerGate is little more than the straw that broke the camel's back in this regard. Nonetheless, I think it is important to make this quite plain to start with. No matter what it was that drew you to the GamerGate banner, and no matter what you want to see achieved by the time it has served its purpose, you help no-one, least of all yourselves, in feigning ignorance or making excuses for the truly disgusting behaviour that has dogged women (as well as other fringe groups) in both fandoms and the industry itself, for far too long. While many of these problems still exist in wider society outside of gaming, within gaming you can find a far more visible, vitriolic, and mean-spirited resistance towards these issues being discussed in any kind of open space.
Pin this behaviour on a shadowy, radical fringe if you must, but it keeps on happening, we see it happening on scales great and small every damn day, and it is plain. Fucking. Shitty. You don't have to agree with or care about what every feminist pundit says about games on Twitter, or Youtube, or wherever. If your stance is that you're too busy having fun playing the games you like to play to give a shit what they think, that's a valid stance. Hell, that's MY stance half the time. I'm no crusader. However, death threats are not a stance. Cyber-warfare is not a stance. These things are problems that we need to take a stand against no matter who they're happening to. You only embarrass yourselves when you make wild and baseless insinuations of 'Professional Victimhood' to avoid talking about what is the most vile, and clearly observable, instance of victimisation in our sub-culture.
- Zoe Quinn is still a factor in this equation
Yes she is. No, don't give me that look! She is. Now, this is not actually the same thing as saying that GamerGate is 'about' Zoe Quinn. GamerGate is about Zoe Quinn in the same way that World War One was about Archduke Franz Ferdinand. There are long term factors, that have been building up resentment and alienation between certain demographics and roles in the culture since long before most people on this forum had even heard of that name. Then, there are the post-Quinn factors, that have exacerbated and directed the rage that was birthed in the previous resentment. A spark means nothing if you have no kindling to light, and no-one to blow on the flame. However, Zoe Quinn is still very much the 'spark' of GamerGate. If Zoe had not happened, GamerGate would not exist in this form, in this place, at this time. What she did, what she didn't do, and how people conducted themselves in response to what she did and didn't do, are still very much woven into the fabric of this movement, and are still worthy topics of discussion. So shuffle those cards, 'cause you've just gotta deal, okay?
Tying back into point number one, it is conspicuous, and nothing short of embarrassing, when you try to claim to have 'moved on' from Quinn, by Not Talking About Her so hard that you go as far to invent code-names for her so you can talk about her while Totally Not Talking About Her. You want to actually move on from Quinn? Address the issues that her role in this raised!
- Some allies are not worth having
Baldwin? Yannopoulos? Aurini? Really guys? Fucking really?! You want these people to speak for you?! Because let me tell you, the negative reputation of GamerGate as seen by outsiders is coming just as much from the ignorant, sometimes deranged rantings of its best known cheerleaders, than it is from anonymous death threats coming from what you insist (and I believe you, by the way) is a tiny minority.
I think part of the temptation to get behind these recognised voices that are coming out of the crowd, lies in GamerGate not really having much of a hierarchy of its own. That's another problem that I'll explore in its own time. In the mean time, it doesn't wash when you say that the hateful voice of one shouldn't reflect badly on others, when you gave that voice a megaphone! Nor does it wash to claim that it doesn't matter what views certain people express outside of GamerGate, so long as they're 'right on this one.' If the real world worked like that, the poster boy for animal rights would be Heinrich Himmler.
As the saying goes: 'Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?' When a group of people stand under one banner, they are saying to everyone else that they are a united front. That's what banners are for. Every individual has their own voice, but the voices that rise above the crowd will be seen as coming from the crowd. You don't think that's fair? Tough! That's how these things work.
- Having women and minorities who agree with you does not belie the arguments of those who don't
Ah, #NotYourShield... What a delightful little exercise in irony you turned out to be. Now, I'm not going to make any kind of accusations of a 'smoke-screen', being used to 'deflect' accusations of misogyny or what ever away from the Black Heart Of GamerGate. I find such rhetoric ridiculous and insulting no matter what side it comes from. People of all colours, genders, and sexual orientations can think and speak for themselves, and if Woman X, Homosexual Y, and Black Person Z don't believe that the pundits in games media speak for them, then they are more than welcome to say so.
HOWEVER, stop treating every voice that appears at your side in this fashion like a victory, because it isn't. X, Y, and Z think gamers have had a raw deal, and don't feel marginalised in the spaces they occupy, well bully for them. Voices A, B, and C still very much do though, and who the hell knows what all the letters in between think! X, Y, and Z are legitimate voices in their respective debates who deserve to be heard. What they are NOT, is proof that the debate doesn't need to be had.
- Your label-bombing only alienates and confuses people who might otherwise be sympathetic
SJW? GTP? Literally Who? Professional Victims? I have to ask, to some of you at least... are you listening to yourselves? Do you stop to consider before posting what this stuff sounds like to moderates who watch from the sidelines, and maybe don't spend all of their spare time following what people in gaming culture say on the internet? You should, because these are the people who you actually have to win over, and make care about your cause, if you really want to be the masses of Ordinary Gamers versus The Establishment that no longer represents them, as you would like to be.
If you want people to understand you, you have to speak their language.
- Your movement needs leaders
What does every mass movement in history that has ever delivered on its mission statement have in common? Guns? No. Rich backers? Not necessarily. Leadership? DING DING DING DING DING!
For those already inside a movement, leaders are an inspiring voice to recruit and rally more followers, and an organisation tool to deliver the largest, most targeted impact possible in its public presence. They are a unifying voice, representative enough of the core ideal of the movement, that every passionate, but not always articulate member, can point to and say: "Yeah, what that guy said!" Just as, if not more importantly, they are to those on the outside a conduit through which communication with a movement can be achieved. They are the channel through which governments, journalists, or anyone else who's interested can ask: "Why are you here?", "What are you about?" and "What do you want us to do about it?" Crucially, they are recognised as having the authority to provide binding answers to those questions, on behalf of everyone. They are the only device through which real change and workable compromise can be achieved.
GamerGate has no leadership, and therefore GamerGate is floundering. While I've already mentioned that some voices within GamerGate are louder than others, the missing piece of the puzzle is that none of these voices, not even Baldwin, who coined the hashtag, can claim to be an authority one what GamerGate stands for, because nobody appointed them to that position. When I have raised this point before, I have been told by supporters that appointing leaders would slow GamerGate's 'momentum'. I thought about this for a while, and here's the thing... 'Momentum' implies that you are moving cohesively in one specific direction, and you're not. GamerGate has energy, sure, but that energy is static, and nobody on the outside can interpret a thousand voices talking at once, even if they are listening. This is a problem, because as I've said, you will never get what you want without the support of the middle ground.
You need leaders, and those leaders need to be squeaky clean.
- TFYC haven't done anything yet
I believe there are deep-seated problems with the way the games industry at large views women and women's problems. I believe That the only way to ultimately fix these problems is for women's voices within the games industry itself to get louder and more numerous. Therefore, you can be damn sure that I approve of the mission statement of The Fine Young Capitalists.
However, at time of writing, TFYC have not fixed any problems. Hell, they haven't even taken a step in the right direction. They are a crowdfunding campaign, in a sea of crowdfunding campaigns that fall though more often than not. What they have done, so far, is to point at a spot on the ground, one step away from them, in the right direction, and say "I will go there... maybe... if I get enough money."
That is still, admittedly, better than nothing, and better in my opinion that all the opinion pieces about sexism in games from pundits on the internet. Let's just not get ahead of ourselves. TYFC is a crowdfunding campaign that has so far produced no results. Vivian James is a doodle that is yet to have been made into a character. Stop holding them up as symbols of something that does not, as of yet, exist.
- Nobody in this debate has the power to censor your games, even if they wanted to
There has been a lot of criticism directed at how games portray certain issues and certain groups. I don't agree with all of it. I can't bring myself to care all that much about most of it. The internet has never been short of pundits giving their two cents after all. For the most part, it's all just piss in the wind unless we choose to give it the attention worthy of something greater.
In all of this, however, I have heard no-one, and I mean no-one, say the words "This should be banned/should no longer exist." That is what censorship sounds like, and if those words are not being said, the person speaking is not advocating censorship. Please, for the love of God, understand this.
Let's say I'm wrong, however, or at least that there is a voice that I have not heard that is saying those words... What power do they have? None. We already had the debate on whether game makers should feel free to make whatever they want without fearing some kind of government-sponsored Thought Police, and we won! Anyone still trying to fight that battle, on any side, is barking up the wrong tree. No matter what Miss Sarkeesian, Mr. Chipman, Mr. Sessler, or any of the other numerous voices on these issues has to say about the games you like, you will continue to be able to play those games, and you will continue to see similar games being sold on the shelves. They are not under threat.
In fact, you know who actually censors games in the year 2014? I'll tell you... it's the publishers. Every game developer working in the increasingly nebulous 'AAA' industry, is restricted in terms of what they can and can't put in a game, by the corporate voices from on high. What I fear, more than anything, is that our vicious, knee-jerk response to the imaginary enemy, will make the real censors, who are motivated only by what they think we'll buy from them, afraid of games that want to present a welcoming face to fringe audiences, and that we will end up being complicit in the censorship that we all fought against.
- You can't have it both ways
You can't laud games as the fastest growing artistic medium, and then try and stifle artistic criticism. You can't revel in the freedom of creators, and then wail and gnash your teeth over the freedom of journalists, critics and commentators. You can't claim to be about 'integrity', while excusing and ignoring racism and misogyny coming from voices who support you. You can't exist as a directionless, anarchic movement, and then try and tell me that voices coming out of said movement are unrepresentative. You can't take offence over a label, and then label your opponents. You can't complain about cherry-picking, and then engage in 'But they said...' deflection. You can't 'simply ask for evidence' of someone being harassed, while jumping to conclusions supported by no evidence whatsoever that someone traded sex for the purposes of positive press. Finally, you can't be By The People, For The People, when you are blacklisting sites and individuals instead of engaging them, continuing to cultivate your own impenetrable cocoon, that you refuse to leave in order to meet anyone halfway.
Have an honest, inclusive, and constructive discussion, that reaches out beyond your power base, or continue to 'control the tone of the debate'. Take responsibility, or don't get taken seriously. Pick one!
For The Attention Of Those Opposed To GamerGate:
- You cannot deny that games media has serious problems with it's place in the industry
As this whole thing was beginning to explode, a lot of people on the inside of games media were quick to explain away a lot of the things the first thrust of what would later become GamerGate were getting angry about. 'Of course journo's get close to developers!' they cried 'It's how we get our sources. It's part of the job; and of course we're excited to be around these people... It's enthusiast press. We're all fans too, just like you!'
Only they're not. Not any more.
The game industry is changing, and on the whole, games media has done a pretty woeful job of changing with it. I look at the alumni of sites like Kotaku, IGN, Destructoid, GameInformer, and, at times, The Escapist, and I can't help but see a lot of star-struck hangers-on who have forgotten their roots, many choosing to overcompensate for their own sense of irrelevance in the face of PR juggernauts and Youtubers who reach a wider audience than they ever could, with a lot of condescending "me-too" puff pieces about hot-button social issues. People who, somewhere along the line, forgot, if they ever truly knew, what their job was. They are there to represent the consumer, to be the ear to the ground for the average gamer in a chaotic sea of hype machines competing for their attention. They do not have to treat the customer like they're always right, but they crossed a line, and did everyone involved a disservice, when they laughed at and belittled their own audience. They may have to get close to people in the industry, but 'close' and 'chummy' are two different things.
However GamerGate started, and whatever shit some people within it have tried to pull, the main thrust of its mass appeal is the growing sense that people are done being talked down to; and whatever my differences may be with GamerGate (You just read 3,000 words of it, after all), I can have A LOT of sympathy with that. Journalists having opinions isn't a problem. Contempt is a problem.
Solutions going forward? Well, in the film press, the people who get to interview the stars on the red carpet on Oscar night, are not the same people who then write the articles about the event, who in turn are not the same people who are reviewing the films that have been nominated. In games media, the equivalent lines are far more blurred, and I don't think that's a good thing.
- Misogyny/racism etc. are powerful words with distinct applications, so handle them with care
I'd like to ask a favour of you all now. Next time you wind up in a fight on the internet, and are about to submit a comment where you have called someone a name that accuses them of having a deep seated and noxious prejudice, take a moment and ask yourself... "Just what am I trying to achieve by doing this?"
If the person who you are fighting with is genuinely bigoted, then they're not going to care if you think they are. They have already rationalised their bigotry to themselves, and simply calling it that is not going to change their minds. On the other hand, if they are not bigoted. If they spend their day rubbing shoulders with people of different genders and backgrounds to them, and get along just fine, then your insinuations to the contrary will be interpreted as incredibly offensive and patronising to boot. Neither of these possibilities scores you any points or brings the two sides any closer together. It must be concluded then, that you are doing it to reinforce your own sense of superiority, and that you should become better acquainted with the Backspace button, if you really want to achieve something constructive.
- This was never just about Zoe Quinn
As I explained before... Kindling->Spark->Yada yada yada. Zoe Quinn still needs discussing, in my opinion. However, that doesn't mean that GamerGaters are wrong to say that this movement is not about her. It is also about how the fallout to the allegations made against her was handled. However, perhaps more so even than that, it is about the growing rift between different parts of game culture, especially industry commentators and their audience, that has been happening almost since the beginning of the seventh generation. If you want to put your finger on the true genesis of GamerGate, the first flutter of the butterfly's wing, as it were, you have to go back a hell of a lot further than a couple of months. This boil of resentment and estrangement has been festering for a long time, and now it has burst. Trying to claim the many legitimate grievances of individuals are null and void, because it was burst by some admittedly very tenuous allegations from an untrustworthy source, is not going to help clean the wound.
- Inflammatory articles pronouncing the death of Gamers, and cheap shots on Twitter comparing them to actual murderous psychopaths were in poor taste
Yes, they were. I don't think this is something that can be reasonably denied at this point. Oh, and I'm going to go further. Whatever the people writing those articles may have "actually meant", according to you anyway, is less important than how they were interpreted!
You want to know why it's less important? Because these are smart people who knew what they were saying, how they were saying it, and exactly who it was going to offend. They knew exactly how loaded the statements they were making were, and what the reaction of Gamers would be, regardless of whether or not they were only really talking about the few arseholes. The pilots who firebombed Dresden didn't then get to turn around and say 'We were only aiming for the train station! Honest!'
You burned down Dresden. Deal with it.
- You are a Gamer too, whether you like it or not.
This is not a well-known site guys. I'd say perhaps the only 'well-known' site that deals with games media as the main thrust of is content is IGN. Even then, we're still fairly niche even by enthusiast media standards. Simply put, if you are here, reading this, then you are far more embedded in the culture than the vast majority of people. It's not all that you are, of course its not, but just because you don't go to work in a T-shirt that reads 'Gamer and Proud!' does not mean that it washes with me or anyone else, when you distance yourself and try to act like one of the Cool Kids who isn't afraid of women and gays, like those smelly neckbeards over there. It's obnoxious. Stop doing that.
If you read those articles and didn't find that they were talking about you? Good. Bully for you, just like I said bully for all the women earlier who don't feel marginalised by gaming and gamers. Just as with them though, the fact that it didn't bother YOU doesn't negate the feelings of those who did feel that they were being unfairly pigeon-holed. They were made to feel like they were being punished by association, and they have a legitimate grievance.
- It's time to end the petty name-calling and caricatures
In this I have no problem including myself. I have, in the past, had a good old self-satisfied chortle at the neckbeards; the fedoras; the cargo shorts; the waifu T-shirts; the overweight, insecure, basement dwelling virgins... yeah you get the picture. I was wrong. I was a dick. I had no right to pass baseless judgements on the character of those who I disagreed with online when I didn't even know them. To then link those personal judgements to imagined, superficial, mean-spirited characteristics that don't matter was just plain infantile.
You can't expect your opponents to take the idea of civility and progress seriously if you don't. It's time to stop the insults. They're not helpful, and they're no longer funny.
- 'They started it!' is not a fast track to the moral high ground
It doesn't matter if we're talking about doxxing, death threats, or whatever the fuck kind of shitty behaviour has been fed as ammunition to both sides. You do not 'win' by claiming that your opponent started it, or has done it more than you, or has done it worse that you. All of that is fucking irrelevant. To argue on those terms is to immediately lower the debate to the level of a red-faced, snot-dribbling slap-fight in a Primary School playground. Be better than that. Please.
- GamerGate has achieved positive change
No matter what you may think about the origins of the movement (and I suspect I share much of the skepticism), bear in mind that, if we come to the end of this with nothing having been improved in the sphere of games media, then we all will have lost. Over the last few weeks, The Escapist has made a massive and necessary overhaul to its code of ethics. They have brought in voices from the industry that most of us don't get to hear, to provide refreshing perspectives on the issues at hand. They have gone above and beyond to take this discussion out of the realm of merry-go-round slap fights on the forums, to engage a wider audience more directly. I confess, sometimes I still wish GamerGate had never happened, at moments when the nastiness seems overwhelming, but these are all good things. They are things that were a long time coming in games media regardless of the more recent controversies, and yet they are also things that can be directly attributed to GamerGate.
I only hope that other sites will eventually prove willing to take a leaf out of The Escapist's book, because we all need this.
- You can't have it both ways either
You can't advocate 'insightful, thoughtful' journalism, when the journalists in question refuse to think before they speak in public spaces. You can't champion maturity in gaming when you tease and belittle like children. You can't turn your back on a culture, referring to it in terms of disdain, and then not expect to alienate said culture. You can't say you want a more open and inclusive industry... but only for the newcomers who agree with you.
Open and constructive discourse, or an irrelevant, elitist echo-chamber. Pick one!
A Final Word For Everyone:
I know this has been a slog to read. It was a slog to write, especially seeing as I'm finding it hard to concentrate through intense physical pain right now. However, I decided if I was going to say anything about GamerGate, I was going to say everything about GamerGate. If you have any questions or any bones of contention with anything that I've said, then quote the passages in question specifically to me, and state your feelings in a calm and clear way, and I'll do my best to elaborate further on what has brought be to this view, to see if we can't reach an understanding. That's what I'm after, at the end of the day... understanding. I know that, while I am talking about one argument, there are many groups within that argument, and within those groups many more individual points of view. No-one, from any side, is guilty of every complaint I have made, I am sure. I am equally sure, however, that no-one can claim total innocence for all of it, myself included. At the end of the day, I trust that, if something I've highlighted has nothing to do with you as an individual, it should be obvious; and that, where you are guilty, most of you know exactly who you are, and what you have done.
As dominant as it has been in our culture for weeks, GamerGate is a drop in the ocean. Half of what concerns me most about it, is less to do with anything strictly about the debate at hand, but more to do with the attitudes that have been demonstrated through it, that I think tell a depressing story about how the way we approach each-other is changing.
Across society, we appear to be becoming more partisan, more absolutist, and far, far more defensive. We seem to care more now about clinging on to our stick in he mud, than achieving a synthesis with our opposition. We are becoming aggressively tribal, seeing compromise as a weakness, an admission of unilateral defeat, rather than what it is. i.e. The only way in which the vast majority of disputes are resolved. We are far more comfortable slapping a label on those who disagree with us, so we can file them away under a category of people we don't feel are worthy of our attention, than actually taking a moment to stand in their shoes. I do not feel that these are good omens, and a fear for how far we might fall.
I'm still young. I'm going to be 21 in a matter of days. I can't have that rose tinted a view of the way things used to be! I don't know where we went wrong, but this tribal mentality, this 'with us or against us' close-mindedness, will not help anyone in the long run.
So, back what feels like far longer ago than it actually was, before the term 'GamerGate' had been coined, and the stirrings of speculation around the personal life of a certain game developer where still in their infancy, I made a thread on this forum, attempting to appeal ahead of time for calm and civility. I was young then, and I thought that if I could strike a chord with people, inspiring them to populate the forum with a supply of calm, remedial threads, that we might avoid turning that particular debate, no matter what stances people held on it, into another great rift on the now increasingly scarred visage of gaming culture.
So, how's that working out for us so far? Anyone?
Now, at that time, I expressly didn't want to discuss the debate directly. There was already a thread about the issue at hand growing at a rate of knots, and I didn't feel that I (nor anyone else for that matter) knew enough of the facts at the time to add anything more. My goal was to try and prevent the girding loins of righteous anger from escalating out of control, not to fan the flames myself. However, we've come a long way since then, and I feel compelled to speak my mind; perhaps because I don't feel anything I say can make things worse at this point, or perhaps just because a sudden and aggressive bout of toothache is filling me with the desire to scold everyone around me.
As I have watched this battle rage, largely from the sidelines, I have gathered my own little collection of opinions regarding the foundations and general conduct of what I am loathe to call the two 'sides' of the argument. While I'm sure I likely won't escape this thread without being labelled as a shill for one side by the other, I will state categorically now that I am neither pro nor anti GamerGate. If I have any positive or negative stances surrounding this discussion, then I am Pro-Sanity, and Anti-People Who Care More About Being Victorious Than Being Decent. I have points of admonishment for all parties, some quite localised to this particular issue, and others that have been a sore spot for me in other places as well; and if I haven't managed to alienate everyone who started reading this already, then you're gonna sit down, shut up, and fucking listen for once. Got it?
For The Attention Of GamerGate:
- You cannot deny that the culture has serious problems with women
BEFORE ANYONE STARTS WITH ME! ... This is far from a problem exclusive to GamerGate, and this is not all that GamerGate stands for. Nor is this even in specific reference to a certain female games developer who This Isn't About (we'll get to HER later, you can count on it). This is a bone I've had to pick with my fellow gamers for a while, and GamerGate is little more than the straw that broke the camel's back in this regard. Nonetheless, I think it is important to make this quite plain to start with. No matter what it was that drew you to the GamerGate banner, and no matter what you want to see achieved by the time it has served its purpose, you help no-one, least of all yourselves, in feigning ignorance or making excuses for the truly disgusting behaviour that has dogged women (as well as other fringe groups) in both fandoms and the industry itself, for far too long. While many of these problems still exist in wider society outside of gaming, within gaming you can find a far more visible, vitriolic, and mean-spirited resistance towards these issues being discussed in any kind of open space.
Pin this behaviour on a shadowy, radical fringe if you must, but it keeps on happening, we see it happening on scales great and small every damn day, and it is plain. Fucking. Shitty. You don't have to agree with or care about what every feminist pundit says about games on Twitter, or Youtube, or wherever. If your stance is that you're too busy having fun playing the games you like to play to give a shit what they think, that's a valid stance. Hell, that's MY stance half the time. I'm no crusader. However, death threats are not a stance. Cyber-warfare is not a stance. These things are problems that we need to take a stand against no matter who they're happening to. You only embarrass yourselves when you make wild and baseless insinuations of 'Professional Victimhood' to avoid talking about what is the most vile, and clearly observable, instance of victimisation in our sub-culture.
- Zoe Quinn is still a factor in this equation
Yes she is. No, don't give me that look! She is. Now, this is not actually the same thing as saying that GamerGate is 'about' Zoe Quinn. GamerGate is about Zoe Quinn in the same way that World War One was about Archduke Franz Ferdinand. There are long term factors, that have been building up resentment and alienation between certain demographics and roles in the culture since long before most people on this forum had even heard of that name. Then, there are the post-Quinn factors, that have exacerbated and directed the rage that was birthed in the previous resentment. A spark means nothing if you have no kindling to light, and no-one to blow on the flame. However, Zoe Quinn is still very much the 'spark' of GamerGate. If Zoe had not happened, GamerGate would not exist in this form, in this place, at this time. What she did, what she didn't do, and how people conducted themselves in response to what she did and didn't do, are still very much woven into the fabric of this movement, and are still worthy topics of discussion. So shuffle those cards, 'cause you've just gotta deal, okay?
Tying back into point number one, it is conspicuous, and nothing short of embarrassing, when you try to claim to have 'moved on' from Quinn, by Not Talking About Her so hard that you go as far to invent code-names for her so you can talk about her while Totally Not Talking About Her. You want to actually move on from Quinn? Address the issues that her role in this raised!
- Some allies are not worth having
Baldwin? Yannopoulos? Aurini? Really guys? Fucking really?! You want these people to speak for you?! Because let me tell you, the negative reputation of GamerGate as seen by outsiders is coming just as much from the ignorant, sometimes deranged rantings of its best known cheerleaders, than it is from anonymous death threats coming from what you insist (and I believe you, by the way) is a tiny minority.
I think part of the temptation to get behind these recognised voices that are coming out of the crowd, lies in GamerGate not really having much of a hierarchy of its own. That's another problem that I'll explore in its own time. In the mean time, it doesn't wash when you say that the hateful voice of one shouldn't reflect badly on others, when you gave that voice a megaphone! Nor does it wash to claim that it doesn't matter what views certain people express outside of GamerGate, so long as they're 'right on this one.' If the real world worked like that, the poster boy for animal rights would be Heinrich Himmler.
As the saying goes: 'Who's the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows him?' When a group of people stand under one banner, they are saying to everyone else that they are a united front. That's what banners are for. Every individual has their own voice, but the voices that rise above the crowd will be seen as coming from the crowd. You don't think that's fair? Tough! That's how these things work.
- Having women and minorities who agree with you does not belie the arguments of those who don't
Ah, #NotYourShield... What a delightful little exercise in irony you turned out to be. Now, I'm not going to make any kind of accusations of a 'smoke-screen', being used to 'deflect' accusations of misogyny or what ever away from the Black Heart Of GamerGate. I find such rhetoric ridiculous and insulting no matter what side it comes from. People of all colours, genders, and sexual orientations can think and speak for themselves, and if Woman X, Homosexual Y, and Black Person Z don't believe that the pundits in games media speak for them, then they are more than welcome to say so.
HOWEVER, stop treating every voice that appears at your side in this fashion like a victory, because it isn't. X, Y, and Z think gamers have had a raw deal, and don't feel marginalised in the spaces they occupy, well bully for them. Voices A, B, and C still very much do though, and who the hell knows what all the letters in between think! X, Y, and Z are legitimate voices in their respective debates who deserve to be heard. What they are NOT, is proof that the debate doesn't need to be had.
- Your label-bombing only alienates and confuses people who might otherwise be sympathetic
SJW? GTP? Literally Who? Professional Victims? I have to ask, to some of you at least... are you listening to yourselves? Do you stop to consider before posting what this stuff sounds like to moderates who watch from the sidelines, and maybe don't spend all of their spare time following what people in gaming culture say on the internet? You should, because these are the people who you actually have to win over, and make care about your cause, if you really want to be the masses of Ordinary Gamers versus The Establishment that no longer represents them, as you would like to be.
If you want people to understand you, you have to speak their language.
- Your movement needs leaders
What does every mass movement in history that has ever delivered on its mission statement have in common? Guns? No. Rich backers? Not necessarily. Leadership? DING DING DING DING DING!
For those already inside a movement, leaders are an inspiring voice to recruit and rally more followers, and an organisation tool to deliver the largest, most targeted impact possible in its public presence. They are a unifying voice, representative enough of the core ideal of the movement, that every passionate, but not always articulate member, can point to and say: "Yeah, what that guy said!" Just as, if not more importantly, they are to those on the outside a conduit through which communication with a movement can be achieved. They are the channel through which governments, journalists, or anyone else who's interested can ask: "Why are you here?", "What are you about?" and "What do you want us to do about it?" Crucially, they are recognised as having the authority to provide binding answers to those questions, on behalf of everyone. They are the only device through which real change and workable compromise can be achieved.
GamerGate has no leadership, and therefore GamerGate is floundering. While I've already mentioned that some voices within GamerGate are louder than others, the missing piece of the puzzle is that none of these voices, not even Baldwin, who coined the hashtag, can claim to be an authority one what GamerGate stands for, because nobody appointed them to that position. When I have raised this point before, I have been told by supporters that appointing leaders would slow GamerGate's 'momentum'. I thought about this for a while, and here's the thing... 'Momentum' implies that you are moving cohesively in one specific direction, and you're not. GamerGate has energy, sure, but that energy is static, and nobody on the outside can interpret a thousand voices talking at once, even if they are listening. This is a problem, because as I've said, you will never get what you want without the support of the middle ground.
You need leaders, and those leaders need to be squeaky clean.
- TFYC haven't done anything yet
I believe there are deep-seated problems with the way the games industry at large views women and women's problems. I believe That the only way to ultimately fix these problems is for women's voices within the games industry itself to get louder and more numerous. Therefore, you can be damn sure that I approve of the mission statement of The Fine Young Capitalists.
However, at time of writing, TFYC have not fixed any problems. Hell, they haven't even taken a step in the right direction. They are a crowdfunding campaign, in a sea of crowdfunding campaigns that fall though more often than not. What they have done, so far, is to point at a spot on the ground, one step away from them, in the right direction, and say "I will go there... maybe... if I get enough money."
That is still, admittedly, better than nothing, and better in my opinion that all the opinion pieces about sexism in games from pundits on the internet. Let's just not get ahead of ourselves. TYFC is a crowdfunding campaign that has so far produced no results. Vivian James is a doodle that is yet to have been made into a character. Stop holding them up as symbols of something that does not, as of yet, exist.
- Nobody in this debate has the power to censor your games, even if they wanted to
There has been a lot of criticism directed at how games portray certain issues and certain groups. I don't agree with all of it. I can't bring myself to care all that much about most of it. The internet has never been short of pundits giving their two cents after all. For the most part, it's all just piss in the wind unless we choose to give it the attention worthy of something greater.
In all of this, however, I have heard no-one, and I mean no-one, say the words "This should be banned/should no longer exist." That is what censorship sounds like, and if those words are not being said, the person speaking is not advocating censorship. Please, for the love of God, understand this.
Let's say I'm wrong, however, or at least that there is a voice that I have not heard that is saying those words... What power do they have? None. We already had the debate on whether game makers should feel free to make whatever they want without fearing some kind of government-sponsored Thought Police, and we won! Anyone still trying to fight that battle, on any side, is barking up the wrong tree. No matter what Miss Sarkeesian, Mr. Chipman, Mr. Sessler, or any of the other numerous voices on these issues has to say about the games you like, you will continue to be able to play those games, and you will continue to see similar games being sold on the shelves. They are not under threat.
In fact, you know who actually censors games in the year 2014? I'll tell you... it's the publishers. Every game developer working in the increasingly nebulous 'AAA' industry, is restricted in terms of what they can and can't put in a game, by the corporate voices from on high. What I fear, more than anything, is that our vicious, knee-jerk response to the imaginary enemy, will make the real censors, who are motivated only by what they think we'll buy from them, afraid of games that want to present a welcoming face to fringe audiences, and that we will end up being complicit in the censorship that we all fought against.
- You can't have it both ways
You can't laud games as the fastest growing artistic medium, and then try and stifle artistic criticism. You can't revel in the freedom of creators, and then wail and gnash your teeth over the freedom of journalists, critics and commentators. You can't claim to be about 'integrity', while excusing and ignoring racism and misogyny coming from voices who support you. You can't exist as a directionless, anarchic movement, and then try and tell me that voices coming out of said movement are unrepresentative. You can't take offence over a label, and then label your opponents. You can't complain about cherry-picking, and then engage in 'But they said...' deflection. You can't 'simply ask for evidence' of someone being harassed, while jumping to conclusions supported by no evidence whatsoever that someone traded sex for the purposes of positive press. Finally, you can't be By The People, For The People, when you are blacklisting sites and individuals instead of engaging them, continuing to cultivate your own impenetrable cocoon, that you refuse to leave in order to meet anyone halfway.
Have an honest, inclusive, and constructive discussion, that reaches out beyond your power base, or continue to 'control the tone of the debate'. Take responsibility, or don't get taken seriously. Pick one!
For The Attention Of Those Opposed To GamerGate:
- You cannot deny that games media has serious problems with it's place in the industry
As this whole thing was beginning to explode, a lot of people on the inside of games media were quick to explain away a lot of the things the first thrust of what would later become GamerGate were getting angry about. 'Of course journo's get close to developers!' they cried 'It's how we get our sources. It's part of the job; and of course we're excited to be around these people... It's enthusiast press. We're all fans too, just like you!'
Only they're not. Not any more.
The game industry is changing, and on the whole, games media has done a pretty woeful job of changing with it. I look at the alumni of sites like Kotaku, IGN, Destructoid, GameInformer, and, at times, The Escapist, and I can't help but see a lot of star-struck hangers-on who have forgotten their roots, many choosing to overcompensate for their own sense of irrelevance in the face of PR juggernauts and Youtubers who reach a wider audience than they ever could, with a lot of condescending "me-too" puff pieces about hot-button social issues. People who, somewhere along the line, forgot, if they ever truly knew, what their job was. They are there to represent the consumer, to be the ear to the ground for the average gamer in a chaotic sea of hype machines competing for their attention. They do not have to treat the customer like they're always right, but they crossed a line, and did everyone involved a disservice, when they laughed at and belittled their own audience. They may have to get close to people in the industry, but 'close' and 'chummy' are two different things.
However GamerGate started, and whatever shit some people within it have tried to pull, the main thrust of its mass appeal is the growing sense that people are done being talked down to; and whatever my differences may be with GamerGate (You just read 3,000 words of it, after all), I can have A LOT of sympathy with that. Journalists having opinions isn't a problem. Contempt is a problem.
Solutions going forward? Well, in the film press, the people who get to interview the stars on the red carpet on Oscar night, are not the same people who then write the articles about the event, who in turn are not the same people who are reviewing the films that have been nominated. In games media, the equivalent lines are far more blurred, and I don't think that's a good thing.
- Misogyny/racism etc. are powerful words with distinct applications, so handle them with care
I'd like to ask a favour of you all now. Next time you wind up in a fight on the internet, and are about to submit a comment where you have called someone a name that accuses them of having a deep seated and noxious prejudice, take a moment and ask yourself... "Just what am I trying to achieve by doing this?"
If the person who you are fighting with is genuinely bigoted, then they're not going to care if you think they are. They have already rationalised their bigotry to themselves, and simply calling it that is not going to change their minds. On the other hand, if they are not bigoted. If they spend their day rubbing shoulders with people of different genders and backgrounds to them, and get along just fine, then your insinuations to the contrary will be interpreted as incredibly offensive and patronising to boot. Neither of these possibilities scores you any points or brings the two sides any closer together. It must be concluded then, that you are doing it to reinforce your own sense of superiority, and that you should become better acquainted with the Backspace button, if you really want to achieve something constructive.
- This was never just about Zoe Quinn
As I explained before... Kindling->Spark->Yada yada yada. Zoe Quinn still needs discussing, in my opinion. However, that doesn't mean that GamerGaters are wrong to say that this movement is not about her. It is also about how the fallout to the allegations made against her was handled. However, perhaps more so even than that, it is about the growing rift between different parts of game culture, especially industry commentators and their audience, that has been happening almost since the beginning of the seventh generation. If you want to put your finger on the true genesis of GamerGate, the first flutter of the butterfly's wing, as it were, you have to go back a hell of a lot further than a couple of months. This boil of resentment and estrangement has been festering for a long time, and now it has burst. Trying to claim the many legitimate grievances of individuals are null and void, because it was burst by some admittedly very tenuous allegations from an untrustworthy source, is not going to help clean the wound.
- Inflammatory articles pronouncing the death of Gamers, and cheap shots on Twitter comparing them to actual murderous psychopaths were in poor taste
Yes, they were. I don't think this is something that can be reasonably denied at this point. Oh, and I'm going to go further. Whatever the people writing those articles may have "actually meant", according to you anyway, is less important than how they were interpreted!
You want to know why it's less important? Because these are smart people who knew what they were saying, how they were saying it, and exactly who it was going to offend. They knew exactly how loaded the statements they were making were, and what the reaction of Gamers would be, regardless of whether or not they were only really talking about the few arseholes. The pilots who firebombed Dresden didn't then get to turn around and say 'We were only aiming for the train station! Honest!'
You burned down Dresden. Deal with it.
- You are a Gamer too, whether you like it or not.
This is not a well-known site guys. I'd say perhaps the only 'well-known' site that deals with games media as the main thrust of is content is IGN. Even then, we're still fairly niche even by enthusiast media standards. Simply put, if you are here, reading this, then you are far more embedded in the culture than the vast majority of people. It's not all that you are, of course its not, but just because you don't go to work in a T-shirt that reads 'Gamer and Proud!' does not mean that it washes with me or anyone else, when you distance yourself and try to act like one of the Cool Kids who isn't afraid of women and gays, like those smelly neckbeards over there. It's obnoxious. Stop doing that.
If you read those articles and didn't find that they were talking about you? Good. Bully for you, just like I said bully for all the women earlier who don't feel marginalised by gaming and gamers. Just as with them though, the fact that it didn't bother YOU doesn't negate the feelings of those who did feel that they were being unfairly pigeon-holed. They were made to feel like they were being punished by association, and they have a legitimate grievance.
- It's time to end the petty name-calling and caricatures
In this I have no problem including myself. I have, in the past, had a good old self-satisfied chortle at the neckbeards; the fedoras; the cargo shorts; the waifu T-shirts; the overweight, insecure, basement dwelling virgins... yeah you get the picture. I was wrong. I was a dick. I had no right to pass baseless judgements on the character of those who I disagreed with online when I didn't even know them. To then link those personal judgements to imagined, superficial, mean-spirited characteristics that don't matter was just plain infantile.
You can't expect your opponents to take the idea of civility and progress seriously if you don't. It's time to stop the insults. They're not helpful, and they're no longer funny.
- 'They started it!' is not a fast track to the moral high ground
It doesn't matter if we're talking about doxxing, death threats, or whatever the fuck kind of shitty behaviour has been fed as ammunition to both sides. You do not 'win' by claiming that your opponent started it, or has done it more than you, or has done it worse that you. All of that is fucking irrelevant. To argue on those terms is to immediately lower the debate to the level of a red-faced, snot-dribbling slap-fight in a Primary School playground. Be better than that. Please.
- GamerGate has achieved positive change
No matter what you may think about the origins of the movement (and I suspect I share much of the skepticism), bear in mind that, if we come to the end of this with nothing having been improved in the sphere of games media, then we all will have lost. Over the last few weeks, The Escapist has made a massive and necessary overhaul to its code of ethics. They have brought in voices from the industry that most of us don't get to hear, to provide refreshing perspectives on the issues at hand. They have gone above and beyond to take this discussion out of the realm of merry-go-round slap fights on the forums, to engage a wider audience more directly. I confess, sometimes I still wish GamerGate had never happened, at moments when the nastiness seems overwhelming, but these are all good things. They are things that were a long time coming in games media regardless of the more recent controversies, and yet they are also things that can be directly attributed to GamerGate.
I only hope that other sites will eventually prove willing to take a leaf out of The Escapist's book, because we all need this.
- You can't have it both ways either
You can't advocate 'insightful, thoughtful' journalism, when the journalists in question refuse to think before they speak in public spaces. You can't champion maturity in gaming when you tease and belittle like children. You can't turn your back on a culture, referring to it in terms of disdain, and then not expect to alienate said culture. You can't say you want a more open and inclusive industry... but only for the newcomers who agree with you.
Open and constructive discourse, or an irrelevant, elitist echo-chamber. Pick one!
A Final Word For Everyone:
I know this has been a slog to read. It was a slog to write, especially seeing as I'm finding it hard to concentrate through intense physical pain right now. However, I decided if I was going to say anything about GamerGate, I was going to say everything about GamerGate. If you have any questions or any bones of contention with anything that I've said, then quote the passages in question specifically to me, and state your feelings in a calm and clear way, and I'll do my best to elaborate further on what has brought be to this view, to see if we can't reach an understanding. That's what I'm after, at the end of the day... understanding. I know that, while I am talking about one argument, there are many groups within that argument, and within those groups many more individual points of view. No-one, from any side, is guilty of every complaint I have made, I am sure. I am equally sure, however, that no-one can claim total innocence for all of it, myself included. At the end of the day, I trust that, if something I've highlighted has nothing to do with you as an individual, it should be obvious; and that, where you are guilty, most of you know exactly who you are, and what you have done.
As dominant as it has been in our culture for weeks, GamerGate is a drop in the ocean. Half of what concerns me most about it, is less to do with anything strictly about the debate at hand, but more to do with the attitudes that have been demonstrated through it, that I think tell a depressing story about how the way we approach each-other is changing.
Across society, we appear to be becoming more partisan, more absolutist, and far, far more defensive. We seem to care more now about clinging on to our stick in he mud, than achieving a synthesis with our opposition. We are becoming aggressively tribal, seeing compromise as a weakness, an admission of unilateral defeat, rather than what it is. i.e. The only way in which the vast majority of disputes are resolved. We are far more comfortable slapping a label on those who disagree with us, so we can file them away under a category of people we don't feel are worthy of our attention, than actually taking a moment to stand in their shoes. I do not feel that these are good omens, and a fear for how far we might fall.
I'm still young. I'm going to be 21 in a matter of days. I can't have that rose tinted a view of the way things used to be! I don't know where we went wrong, but this tribal mentality, this 'with us or against us' close-mindedness, will not help anyone in the long run.
