We Need To Talk: Volume Two

[Dragonlayer]

Does just being well informed as to the culture make you a gamer? There are several ways to define gamer, but if there is anything that can be said about identity it is that it is personal. An interest in gaming doesn't make you a gamer, membership of the fandom of video games makes you a gamer. If you don't want to be a member of that fandom, who can tell you that you are?

It's like me and my friend Dragonlayer here. We are at least topically both members in the furry and brony fandom (respectively) by the appearance of our avatars. We may even know the nomenclature of the fandoms, the seminal works, in jokes, etc. But, until we personally identify with the fandom it would be unfair to make that assumption. It may be likely, but we could just be pop culture critics with an academic interest in the respective subcultures.

This could very well be the case with Gamer as an identity. Perhaps we do not identify with Gamer because we project other aspects as inherent with the title. Perhaps like Yiff and Clop, Misogyny has too strong a connotation with Gamer for us to be comfortable identifying with it, and it would be unfair to have us take on that baggage just because one of our pastimes is gaming and we have an academic interest in the culture surrounding it.

As you have pointed out, being unfairly pigeon-holed is an issue. Distancing ourselves from the label of gamer while still participating in the culture and act of games seems like the easiest way to avoid this sort of prejudice. So why should we subject ourselves to the real disadvantages of the title just for the sake of categorical purity?

I wish I had the intellectual energy to contribute meaningfully to this post, but I'm exhausted from a week of university assignments, with yet another one due in on Monday, followed by exams. So all I can really offer is the opinion that while identifying people with certain labels is fair due to human nature (i.e. it's not unreasonable to assume someone is a gamer/Furry/Brony/whatever by their nametags/avatars/pornography collections/whatever), there is no real reason to drop ultimately shallow labels due to external disdain. For instance, I consider Gamer to mean "Person who plays games" - no more, no less - because it is a descriptive term of a very "physical" hobby, in that to be a gamer you must physically play games; someone who reads the relevant magazines and articles but doesn't play games themselves, is not a gamer. If someone considers such a term to be loaded with negative baggage, then it's on them to prove that such and such MUST be this as well, not on me to prove I am not such and such because as I have already stated, a gamer is someone who plays games. If on the other hand, I had a Return of Kings avatar and regularly posted about the problems caused by women, it would be on me to prove I do not have misogynistic tendencies.

That entire paragraph feels like I was rambling....
Irick

I know, it's far rational to make much of an impact and much like all my lifetime achievements, is destined to end up in the dustbin of history.

STOP PUSHING YOUR ANTI-PONY AGENDA!

NEVAH! DOWN WITH THE CORRUPT BRONY AND PEGASISTER ESTABLISHMENT! PARASPRITES FOR LIFE!

FUCK THE PARASPRITES! UP THE PEOPLE'S POPULAR PONY FRONT!

 

[Dragonlayer]

because nobody on this site should be labouring under the delusion that the gaming community can be divided and caricatured so easily. We're all 3-dimensional people, and that sentiment was obnoxious, schoolboy stuff that lowered the tone of the debate for no other reason than a few people getting to feel smug and superior for a few minutes.

See, that's what I was trying to say!

 

[Rellik San]

Pro-GG here and I take exception to this thread...


...Because I didn't write it.

To be clear, I'm pro-GG in principle, I took part in "Operation Disrespectful Nod" but beyond that, I don't really prade it around I don't want the hate and unless it's something objectively bad, I don't like judging people for their politics.

In practice however a lot of your points raised stop me from saddling up to the front lines and standing shoulder to shoulder. I decry the hatemongering when and where I can, I try to listen to both sides. Despite me not always agreeing with them, I usually find what both Jimothy Sterling and MovieBob interesting and at least worthy of discussion most of the time (Even if as a recovered Sega fanboy Moviebobs Nintendo bias and marginalisation of the 80's/90's EU audience that Big N lost out to Sega still makes me shudder).

Although when signing off with Anti-GGers, I love doing so with this: "See ya later, gonna co-op some Torchlight II with my Mother and get my 40k army ready for a battle with my sister." (both of which are things I do)

But yes in general, well written post, 9/10 because of a frame rate dip in the middle and no FoV slider.



Post script:
DOWN THE PARASPRITE-ARCHY AGENDA! VIVA LE PONY REVOLUTION! #PONYGATE

 

[Biran53]

Brilliant. When compared side to side, the dust settles.

There is a lot to learn from this. Lessons that may not stick, but the effort is still always worth it.
If there is a word to take away, it's "Listen."

 

[Suhi89]

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.

There's points I agree with and points I disagree with, but the former is far more present than the latter.
I won't bring them up here, there's the big thread for that and, frankly, you need to rest your fingers after writing that.

I just wanted to quote the last part because that?
That there is a message I sincerely hope penetrates through to as many people as possible involved in gg and on the periphery.
We are too eager to otherize people these days.
God knows where that came from, but it's here and it's pervasive.
So easy to slip into doing as well.

Thankyou for commenting in this way on the whole deal.

Well written and a balanced critique of all aspects of the gate.

Other people in the thread?
Whether you come away from this agreeing, disagreeing or falling with a mix of the two to some balance, this is worth reading.

If I had to guess, I'd say that it was 9/11 that first made the Western World so much more absolutist, and imbibed many of us with the sense that those who did not share are values must be The Enemy and must have some insidious goal to hurt us.

That's a whole other, bigger, debate though, and whatever may have begun it in our society, the rot has since been allowed to set in deep.

I disagree that it's got worse, although it's clearly a problem. Look throughout history. The Spanish Inquisition invovled othering non-Catholics, the troubles in NI involve(d) an othering between Catholics and Protestants, look at the othering in the Muslim world between different factions, it was othering that allowed the Rwandan and Darfour atrocities to happen.

There are numerous other examples from McCarthyism (othering the Communists), to Nazism (othering, amongst others, the Jews),to the slave trade, to the French revolution. It happens in liberal and conservative communities, religious and secular, western and eastern. It's happening in many countries with immigration today.

It appears to be a fundamental trait of human nature. And it sucks.

 

[Thorn14]

Great post. Great idea.

I'll address a few things you state, if thats okay? Just for some discussion.

- You cannot deny that the culture has serious problems with women

Oh yeah, there are definitely misogynistic assholes in #GG and all of gaming. But I just hate the fact we lump ALL gamers because of a few bad apples that scream and shout and harass. Its of my belief that the best way to promote women in gaming is to encourage female developers , there are many many many female developers are not the Twitter using indie devs who people tend to focus on. Like say, the female who designed Bayonetta, or Jade Raymond (who did not deserve harassment from trolls either.) Instead of attacking gamers and its culture as a whole. That digs people in deeper and creates boundaries that shouldn't exist. Maybe its a bad mindset, but when someone calls games "Sexist", it makes people get on the defensive because they like those games. No one should feel bad for enjoying DOA. If female developers want to make a beefcake game (JoJo is pretty close hah! And I love JoJo to death.) then by all means allow it!

- Zoe Quinn is still a factor in this equation

I still believe she is a spark to this whole mess and it is one of my biggest gripes about #GG, when the LW tag was made, it was an attempt by 4chan to try to just simply steer the conversation away. Instead it just turned into a "She who shall not be named" while everyone still spoke about her.

I'm well aware many on my side have a huge bone to pick with "SJW" and are lumping #GG into it, and it frustrates me to no end. However, there are many unethical journalists who do engage in SJW behavior (meaning those who engage in abuse and hostility all in the name of "social justice" or aka right for the wrong reasons/going about it wrong) so maybe there is overlap going on.

- Some allies are not worth having

This is something I agree with for the most part, another thing that is hard to deal with because when we've made it quite clear our enemies are THE MEDIA, getting loud voices is hard to find, so people latch onto anyone who supports our cause out of possibly desperation.

I don't call them Based Milo or whatever other people say, though even people with shady backgrounds have engaged in objectively okay behavior lately (Say what you will about Milo, there was nothing wrong about his trying to get a getogether with Wu, he even let her see the questions and said "You can pick some you don't want to do.) And seeing him blown off, money wasted, and decided to take a break was quite sad, if not for Milo, but for civility.

I do my best to promote TB (Our BEST advocate right now) and Erik Kain and the 3 women who spoke on HuffPo

- Having women and minorities who agree with you does not belie the arguments of those who don't

Of course not, but I believe #NotYourShield was made to simply prove that gamers who believe in this shit are not the stereotype of white male losers. Maybe its petty, but its great seeing people who push that stereotype be dead wrong.

- Your label-bombing only alienates and confuses people who might otherwise be sympathetic

This is a big carryover from chanculture, which constantly uses labels and nicknames for things. Probably right though. At the core of #GG is 2 sides being very emotional and attacking each other.

- Your movement needs leaders

First of all, #GG is a scandal, a consumer revolt, not a movement. If I've ever called it in my post history I've been mistaken. I still do on accident and I'm wrong. People don't want leaders because 1) They're afraid of hijacking or someone just using it to their benefit and 2) Having a leader means everyone will hold a magnifying glass to that person to discredit and smear them in any way possible.

GamerGate is about making noise and showing journalists that we won't stand up for shady practices. A leader may be able to funnel the movement in a direction somewhat, but a leader in an internet based movement isn't going to magically stop some troll or extremist from saying or doing stupid shit. If Civil Rights happened in the age of twitter, MLKJr wouldn't have been able to stop someone from going "KILL ALL WHITE PEOPLE" on twitter or something.

Though sometimes I do wonder if we should, for now I believe we should just support our squeaky clean allies, but not make them leaders

- TFYC haven't done anything yet

Just have to be optimistic now I guess, like all crowdfunded projects, eh?

- Nobody in this debate has the power to censor your games, even if they wanted to

Of course not, I don't believe we'll see outright censorship, but we may see a culture shift that shames smaller devs into not making the games they want, or a culture that shames gamers for enjoying a certain thing. And that scares people.

I know a number of people who get furious at people attacking them because they DARE to enjoy Neptunia or DOA or what the fuck ever, so it causes people to get angry over it.

A culture shift that promotes MORE games that have positive female roles and development is better than a culture shift that shames games. Jon McIntosh is starting to turn into Jack Thompson 2.0 with some of his language and I'll be honest with you, its quite scary.

- You can't have it both ways

I'd LOVE a debate, but have you seen all of the attack articles from Gawker lately? Its pretty clear that many sites don't want discussions or neutrality. They'd rather sit in their metaphorical high horse and attack us and mislabel our cause, so its pretty fucking difficult to "engage them in discussion"

Many in the movement on /gg/ at 8chan now believe in a "burn it to the ground" policy and want to see Gawker and Polygon and PCGamer and everyone else gone. I think its extreme but its gotten to that point now, with the other side saying the same thing (MovieBob saying he wants an Atlas Shrugged style leaving thing or whatever.)

Also, I'm fine with criticism, I just believe keep it out of reviews please. Someone showed something pretty funny, there's a site called ChristianGamer or ChristGamer or something along those lines, and it had a review of RDR, and it split its mechanics and story and sound and such in one category and a score of its "morality" or whatever in another, so I thought that was kind of interesting.

 

[Mikeybb]

*snipped for space*

If I had to guess, I'd say that it was 9/11 that first made the Western World so much more absolutist, and imbibed many of us with the sense that those who did not share are values must be The Enemy and must have some insidious goal to hurt us.

That's a whole other, bigger, debate though, and whatever may have begun it in our society, the rot has since been allowed to set in deep.

Well, with luck and effort it's something people will start trying to hold out against, but you're right.
It's bigger and far more depressing debate.

Thanks again for the epic length post.

 

[Irick]

snip

To tell the truth, I honestly don't give a damn what people want to call themselves either on these forums or in the outside world. My choice of wording in the title was supposed to reflect my general sentiment of 'Stop acting like you're better than everyone else here.'

Whether you like or dislike the term Gamer, you certainly wouldn't be on this site, reading my thread, if you weren't a bigger enthusiast than most people, so when some people on this site started turning round and saying 'Oh, we're not Gamers! It's only the smelly, insecure virgins who call themselves gamers!' (You people know exactly who you are), it left a bad taste in my mouth, because nobody on this site should be labouring under the delusion that the gaming community can be divided and caricatured so easily. We're all 3-dimensional people, and that sentiment was obnoxious, schoolboy stuff that lowered the tone of the debate for no other reason than a few people getting to feel smug and superior for a few minutes.

Eh... it's hard to keep up the devil's advocate here.

I don't agree with the generalization that occurs, but does that make the concern about being swept up in those sort of generalizations any less valid a reason not to associate with a group? I mean, any word is by its nature a symbol, and if that symbol becomes corrupted or otherwise no longer represents what we identify as, it seems only natural to distance ourselves and attempt to establish a new identity outside of the context of the old. Is it not a more useful reaction to instead of holding to a specific label, allow ourselves to instead separate from the old and embrace the new definition by identifying as something new and without negative preconception?

Could one not argue that the inevitable mass demonization of a word is reason enough to abandon it?

(seriously, this is hard because I know someone isn't going to realise I am arguing a position I don't necessarily hold, just to explore it more thoroughly)

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

snip

To tell the truth, I honestly don't give a damn what people want to call themselves either on these forums or in the outside world. My choice of wording in the title was supposed to reflect my general sentiment of 'Stop acting like you're better than everyone else here.'

Whether you like or dislike the term Gamer, you certainly wouldn't be on this site, reading my thread, if you weren't a bigger enthusiast than most people, so when some people on this site started turning round and saying 'Oh, we're not Gamers! It's only the smelly, insecure virgins who call themselves gamers!' (You people know exactly who you are), it left a bad taste in my mouth, because nobody on this site should be labouring under the delusion that the gaming community can be divided and caricatured so easily. We're all 3-dimensional people, and that sentiment was obnoxious, schoolboy stuff that lowered the tone of the debate for no other reason than a few people getting to feel smug and superior for a few minutes.

Eh... it's hard to keep up the devil's advocate here.

I don't agree with the generalization that occurs, but does that make the concern about being swept up in those sort of generalizations any less valid a reason not to associate with a group? I mean, any word is by its nature a symbol, and if that symbol becomes corrupted or otherwise no longer represents what we identify as, it seems only natural to distance ourselves and attempt to establish a new identity outside of the context of the old. Is it not a more useful reaction to instead of holding to a specific label, allow ourselves to instead separate from the old and embrace the new definition by identifying as something new and without negative preconception?

Could one not argue that the inevitable mass demonization of a word is reason enough to abandon it?

(seriously, this is hard because I know someone isn't going to realise I am arguing a position I don't necessarily hold, just to explore it more thoroughly)

Hey, whether you truly believe the position or not, I welcome people scrutinising my arguments... so long as they can do it calmly.

I would question just how many people really have a negative mental image of the term 'gamer'. Most people, I would imagine, are probably just too busy minding their own business to think much of us one way or the other, and nothing we do (within reason) is going to change that.

If there are people here who genuinely feel awkward or tainted by the term, then I personally think that's got more to do with their perception of themselves than any wider stereotype. On the other hand, if they just want to play the games they like when it suits them and not give a toss about being a 'Gamer', then it's no skin of my nose. I mean, I am happy to talk about games with people when it comes up as a topic of discussion, but otherwise it's a largely private thing for me, so I get it.

I just think that some people, in their efforts to get away from what they perceived as a negative stereotype, became guilty of perpetuating it and unfairly forcing it on other people, which was not cool.

 

[My name is JACK]

That was an absolutely glorious essay OP. You sir- have won a gold medal at internet.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

snip

Perhaps, though I'd wager there are peaks and valleys of the prevalence of this kind of mindset, depending on current affairs in that place and at that time.

There's definitely a sense to me that, for a while there, between the end of the Cold War and 9/11, people weren't quite so batshit crazy, on the whole.

 

[Thorn14]

Hey Ninja would you be willing to reply to my response? It was fun to type out.

Also I think people always focus too much on the negative aspects of the word Gamer and never the positive.

EVO? Gamers.

ChildsPlay? Gamers.

Gamescom? Gamers.

I'm not afraid to call myself a gamer because I surround myself with some excellent friends and we sit and play games and bond. We enjoy games, we talk about games, and we become closer to games.

And that I think is something worth keeping and celebrating.

 

[Caostotale]

For me, the rejection of the label 'gamer' has little to do with awkwardness or any negative social taint. Rather, I simply think that it's superfluous identity inflation and, in its worst sense, a shallow marketing term, sort of like the equally-dubious 'gaming culture' (I'd recommend the 'gaming culture' video made by Youtuber Al Russell for a better explanation than what I could provide on this subject).

In my opinion, it's a somewhat decadent term on the same order as 'foody', 'bookworm', 'movie buff', etc... identities that are all secondary characteristics of 'consumer', yet get thrust in peoples' faces as if they tell us as much as descriptors like 'chef', 'author', or 'filmmaker'. To be sure, I'm not advocating any sort of hierarchy between creators of things and consumers of things, merely suggesting that a more detailed taxonomy of the latter doesn't offer much utility. Games are so pervasive these days that saying one's a 'gamer' (even an enthusiastic one) is almost like saying 'yeah, I'm one of those people who breathes oxygen to live.'

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

snip

It's a very hectic weekend for me. I will get to your post, hopefully tomorrow, but it's a long one and I want to give it its due.

 

[Thorn14]

snip

It's a very hectic weekend for me. I will get to your post, hopefully tomorrow, but it's a long one and I want to give it its due.

No rush. I enjoy discussing the things GG does wrong because it helps me to try to steer us away from it.

Actual criticism is welcomed. "You're all a bunch of misogynists smokescreening behind ethics" is not.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

I remember your earlier thread. Can't remember if I posted or not, but it was good to see we weren't all going to lose our heads in the upcoming storm. Just most of us it seemed.

OT-Couldn't disagree with a single point you made. While I put myself in the neutral leaning against gamergate (because I feel they target the wrong targets, and are filled with a lot of undesirables), the criticisms of both sides seemed absolutely appropriate and well thought out. Bravo sir. Bravo.

 

[aliengmr]

- Your movement needs leaders

First of all, #GG is a scandal, a consumer revolt, not a movement. If I've ever called it in my post history I've been mistaken. I still do on accident and I'm wrong. People don't want leaders because 1) They're afraid of hijacking or someone just using it to their benefit and 2) Having a leader means everyone will hold a magnifying glass to that person to discredit and smear them in any way possible.

GamerGate is about making noise and showing journalists that we won't stand up for shady practices. A leader may be able to funnel the movement in a direction somewhat, but a leader in an internet based movement isn't going to magically stop some troll or extremist from saying or doing stupid shit. If Civil Rights happened in the age of twitter, MLKJr wouldn't have been able to stop someone from going "KILL ALL WHITE PEOPLE" on twitter or something.

Though sometimes I do wonder if we should, for now I believe we should just support our squeaky clean allies, but not make them leaders

This I disagree with. Before I kind of thought you had a point with this but it sort of dawned on me yesterday that not having a unified message or leader ultimately means you can't actually pursue any real change. It has also given legitimacy to the worst among you. Aurini speaks for GG just as much as you do, so long as there isn't a clear line between you.

Polygon had what I considered "the" response to gamergate. You may not agree or might take exception, but which part should they listen to? If indeed the goal is to clean these sites up, at what point are they going to be satisfied?

I've seen the transparency stuff being address on multiple sites. Kotaku is getting much better in certain areas as a result of GG. They, like RPS flatout refuse to police their opinions, but its something. At a certain point there's only so much change an angry mob can effect.

GG is like a wild beast that is on the attack. Once people run out of ways to get in under control or the beast itself loses its interest, they are only left with putting it down for good. GG runs the risk of "living long enough to see itself become the bad guy."

As far as I can tell this is what is on the table:

1. Transparency.

2. General ethical standards. encompassing shady deals with money, advertising, patreon. etc. (Gertsmanngate and Doritogate stuff)

3. Political bias'

4. personnel fired

The first 2 are going to need some amount of engagement and discussion and these sites need a clear understanding of what you want. They can't bargain with a mob.

The third thing will likely be dismissed. Sure you might get some major sites to discuss i, but again they need a clear understanding of what exactly they can or cannot say. I maintain that you have no right to even ask that of anyone, but if you were engaged you need to be able to bargain.

The fourth is again something that is unlikely, although should it even be considered, they are going to need to clearly know who and why. and its going to have to be debated with someone representing what GG wants.

What is the point beyond that? Why actually continue?

Intending to destroy the websites has seem too far in my opinion. That's just revenge. Really, its just noise right now and the more time it continues the more the extreme side of GG will start to take over. The moderate side just isn't going to hang around if nothing can be done because you can't engage.

Final thought; A consumer revolt still needs to be specific about what its revolting against. A particular product, a certain policy, etc.. "Corruption" just doesn't cut it. Honestly as far has a consumer revolt is concerned you've achieved just about all you can achieve.

 

[My name is JACK]

I'd recommend the 'gaming culture' video made by Youtuber Al Russell for a better explanation than what I could provide on this subject.

Thanks for recommending the video, it's really got a good point.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Okay, let's do this...

Oh yeah, there are definitely misogynistic assholes in #GG and all of gaming. But I just hate the fact we lump ALL gamers because of a few bad apples that scream and shout and harass. Its of my belief that the best way to promote women in gaming is to encourage female developers , there are many many many female developers are not the Twitter using indie devs who people tend to focus on. Like say, the female who designed Bayonetta, or Jade Raymond (who did not deserve harassment from trolls either.) Instead of attacking gamers and its culture as a whole. That digs people in deeper and creates boundaries that shouldn't exist. Maybe its a bad mindset, but when someone calls games "Sexist", it makes people get on the defensive because they like those games. No one should feel bad for enjoying DOA. If female developers want to make a beefcake game (JoJo is pretty close hah! And I love JoJo to death.) then by all means allow it!

No real disagreement here. I just think that, if people involved in this debate really want to see a solution any time soon, then the first thing that should be done upon encountering harassment, no matter who it's coming from/directed towards, should be to cross the fence and stand against it together, rather than take turns to hold up examples of GG/anti-GG being the 'real harassers'.

It depends on where you live, I suppose, but I'm from the UK, a (supposedly) developed country where women are liberated and empowered. However, your average girl on a night out is still far more at risk of falling victim to the most disgusting remnants of sexism in our society, than one going to a gaming convention. So it's not like I believe gaming culture is some kind of Last Bastion of misogyny. That would be nonsense.

That said, I really, really don't get why some people (not all, but their presence is clearly observable) are so quick to lose their heads and lash out at the mere mention of women's issues within gaming. It's got to a point where it would be farcical if it wasn't so depressing.

People shouldn't be guilt-tripped for enjoying a game, granted. However, when someone's first response to criticism of a game they enjoy (especially if it's criticism that they didn't even have to know existed of they didn't go looking for it) is hostility, then are they really secure in what they like?

I don't call them Based Milo or whatever other people say, though even people with shady backgrounds have engaged in objectively okay behavior lately (Say what you will about Milo, there was nothing wrong about his trying to get a getogether with Wu, he even let her see the questions and said "You can pick some you don't want to do.) And seeing him blown off, money wasted, and decided to take a break was quite sad, if not for Milo, but for civility.

I'll admit I don't really know enough about that particular incident to comment. However, I still believe that, whatever the behaviour of certain people might be lately, their track-records are still a cause for concern, whether that's entirely fair or not.

I'd wager that there are probably lots of (relatively speaking) high-profile people out there who have at least some sympathies with GamerGate, but it's possible they might not want to be public about it right now, because it would be forcing them into some company they'd rather not keep. Just speculation on my part, of course, but it wouldn't surprise me.

In the mean time, the best you can do is, as you say, promote the advocates who put GamerGate's best foot forward as widely as you can.

Of course not, but I believe #NotYourShield was made to simply prove that gamers who believe in this shit are not the stereotype of white male losers. Maybe its petty, but its great seeing people who push that stereotype be dead wrong.

I have no doubt that the intentions of at least most of the people who started it were honest. However, I think other people then got somewhat carried away with it, usually not the people for whom the hashtag was actually for.

I saw a lot of posts promoting #NotYourShield tweets with lines like 'I can't wait for the accusations of internalised mysogyny/racism etc.' That left a similar taste in my mouth to the neckbeard stereotypes, because it's being presumptuous about your opposition, instead of arguing what they actually say. In some cases, it almost seemed like they were daring anyone to claim that their demonstrated support hadn't just won them the argument; and if people are gonna use their minority allies as mascots, then that fundamentally undermines the point of #NotYourShield, doesn't it?

First of all, #GG is a scandal, a consumer revolt, not a movement. If I've ever called it in my post history I've been mistaken. I still do on accident and I'm wrong. People don't want leaders because 1) They're afraid of hijacking or someone just using it to their benefit and 2) Having a leader means everyone will hold a magnifying glass to that person to discredit and smear them in any way possible.

GamerGate is about making noise and showing journalists that we won't stand up for shady practices. A leader may be able to funnel the movement in a direction somewhat, but a leader in an internet based movement isn't going to magically stop some troll or extremist from saying or doing stupid shit. If Civil Rights happened in the age of twitter, MLKJr wouldn't have been able to stop someone from going "KILL ALL WHITE PEOPLE" on twitter or something.

As far as how it started, I agree with you. GamerGate certainly wasn't 'planned', at least not broadly. It was a slogan that a lot of people chose of their own fruition to attach themselves to, without anybody recruiting them. A consumer revolt, as you say.

However, when I look at what GamerGate is now, I see it being moulded in terms, largely from the inside, that would give the impression that it has evolved into something more. People talk about "gamergaters", in a way closer to how you would refer to members of a specific club, than any other random protest out on the streets. Places like 8chan, and to a lesser extent the megathread here, act as headquarters, from which "operations" are launched. Alright, only a relatively small number will participate in those, but my point remains the same. While I think GamerGate lacks a structure that can be properly interpreted from the outside, it does demonstrate a level of organisation that I think merits the term 'movement'.

In any case, the momentum of a revolt can only carry so far. People have got the message that you're not happy, and some may choose to take their own actions in response to that (such as The Escapist's ethics overhaul). However, if such measures are to have a hope of being implemented unilaterally, there needs to be a more official dialogue.

Also, while the Black Civil Rights Movement was before the age of social media, that doesn't mean Martin Luther King Jr wasn't at the time competing with more extreme voices on his side. However, he was elevated above them because the people supporting him understood that extreme voices are great for preaching to the choir, but more moderate voices are good for more than that.

A culture shift that promotes MORE games that have positive female roles and development is better than a culture shift that shames games. Jon McIntosh is starting to turn into Jack Thompson 2.0 with some of his language and I'll be honest with you, its quite scary.

Agreed, and where I see examples where I truly believe someone is saying 'You are bad for liking this', then I will respectfully disagree. However, my fear remains that, because of the aggression and paranoia of a certain sub-set of the community, games that look to break the mould in terms of race, gender, and sexual orientation will be seen as magnets for trouble for mainstream publishers, who, love them or hate them, are the people with the resources to get games like that out beyond the indie-sphere which is increasingly becoming, in its own way, a different kind of toxic. Would they anyway? Hard to say, but I'm pretty sure convincing them that legions of fans would go rabid at the thought won't make them come around any faster.

I'd LOVE a debate, but have you seen all of the attack articles from Gawker lately? Its pretty clear that many sites don't want discussions or neutrality. They'd rather sit in their metaphorical high horse and attack us and mislabel our cause, so its pretty fucking difficult to "engage them in discussion"

Many in the movement on /gg/ at 8chan now believe in a "burn it to the ground" policy and want to see Gawker and Polygon and PCGamer and everyone else gone. I think its extreme but its gotten to that point now, with the other side saying the same thing (MovieBob saying he wants an Atlas Shrugged style leaving thing or whatever.)

Also, I'm fine with criticism, I just believe keep it out of reviews please. Someone showed something pretty funny, there's a site called ChristianGamer or ChristGamer or something along those lines, and it had a review of RDR, and it split its mechanics and story and sound and such in one category and a score of its "morality" or whatever in another, so I thought that was kind of interesting.

Well, if nothing else, all that's happened has affirmed in me the belief that Twitter is to honest and reasoned debate what napalm is to a matchstick factory. xD

In all seriousness. I'm not going to defend places like Gawker and Kotaku, because, even before GamerGate, I avoided Gawker and Kotaku like the plague! My personal opinion of them is that they have, at best, pretty shoddy general standards; and at worst, can be just as bad as 4chan, when it comes to being deliberately provocative just to increase their traffic.

When I say GamerGate needs to work harder to meet their opponents halfway, I don't necessarily mean that you'll have a chance with all of them, or that they're all worth bothering with. That said, a 'burn it down!' attitude is a bad idea, mostly just because it gives the hacks more attention than they deserve, but also because it leaves GamerGate open to accusations of trying to silence opposition, which is about the most fatal accusation that can be made of a group of people who's main call is for openness and honesty.

There are plenty of things GamerGate can do to present a more friendly face. Beyond that, when it comes to outlets who aren't willing to budge an inch in your direction, your best course of action is just to not give them your patronage, or even increase their profile by-proxy by giving them attention.

 

[aliengmr]

In all seriousness. I'm not going to defend places like Gawker and Kotaku, because, even before GamerGate, I avoided Gawker and Kotaku like the plague! My personal opinion of them is that they have, at best, pretty shoddy general standards; and at worst, can be just as bad as 4chan, when it comes to being deliberately provocative just to increase their traffic.

I somewhat disagree about Kotaku at least in a post GG sense. I don't care about Gawker though.

When it comes to covering games, I've seen improvements with Kotaku. The shift away from preview coverage to post launch coverage is very positive in my opinion. As is their scoring system that doesn't pander to Metacritic. I have more of a problem with Metacrtic than any of these sites.

Honestly Kotaku's review of Shadow of Mordor was one of the best reviews I've ever read.

I guess my point is that maybe in some instances we all (GG and everyone else) could show a willingness to call out the positives when its well deserved. Just my opinion though.