Why is Being Nuetral in GamerGate a bad thing?

[Random Gamer]

People understandably write most of this stuff off as simply being lies; it after all is coming from a movement that is known, directly and from its own words, to have been a deliberate smokescreen for vicious misogyny, so there's no reason to believe its adherents have stopped lying despite their deceptions having been exposed.
No doubt this isn't always fair and it leads to some more well-meaning people getting dismissed unfairly... but frankly it's an understandable skepticism, and I have little doubt that there's quite a bit of just outright lying and deception still going on, so it makes sense to conduct yourself accordingly.
there are very obvious reasons why people have lost patience, justifiably so, with the #GamerGate crowd, or indeed never had it to begin with.
Disputes like this are often not symmetrical affairs where you can come in and declare that both sides have some great points and both sides could put their points a little better and expect to have that treated as profundity

So, are you basically telling him that nope, if you're a decent human being, you should rather be against Gamergate than neutral? Except it's better not to say it so bluntly.

The toxicity hasn't gone anywhere [https://twitter.com/alexlifschitz/status/513101732134797312], by the way. Not by a long shot [https://twitter.com/alexlifschitz/status/513119821098020864]. Just in case you're tempted to buy into any of the more anodyne rhetoric they're trying to put about here.

That point is off-topic, sorry for this...
Problem is, how can you fully believe someone who's basically said in a conference that "having bias isn't a bad thing".

 

[Random Gamer]

Has nothing to do with being "decent," actually, just with having a factually defensible stance. That the GGers were caught lying and that's the reason their opponents do not respect them is simply a fact.

If the other side is caught lying as well, what do we do then? Heads or tails?
But you still imply that being neutral shouldn't be a good position, and people should rather declare against Gamergate, don't you?

As for bias, well, here's a video that everyone should watch; it is really interesting (and I'm not ironical here):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWw7LwIYHbA
4'45" "Impartiality is bullshit"
7'54" "Don't see bias as a bad thing"

 

[grassgremlin]

Zoe Quinn, continuing to tweet about Gamer's Gate even after the group says they won't be talking about her.

Come on. Zoe Quinn is under no obligation to stay silent so that assholes won't talk about her. If the assholes are really moving on, they have it in their power to do so no matter what she tweets or doesn't tweet.

Of course they're not really moving on, because harassing Zoe was what a bunch of them signed up for and shifting gears to talking convincingly about "ethics" isn't in their repertoire. But she's under no obligation to stay silent on account of those fools either.

The toxicity hasn't gone anywhere [https://twitter.com/alexlifschitz/status/513101732134797312], by the way. Not by a long shot [https://twitter.com/alexlifschitz/status/513119821098020864]. Just in case you're tempted to buy into any of the more anodyne rhetoric they're trying to put about here.

What in the actual hell . . .
. . . what's even real anymore?
What is right, again?

I'm shaking right now, literally freaking shaking.

For fuck sakes, what's this all about anymore?

Evil Social Justice cabal!?

WHEN.THE.FUCK.HAS.SOCIAL.JUSTICE.BEEN.EVIL!?
Not every fucking website is tumblr.

Look, I've seen the extreme social justice side, and some of those folks need to chill out, but not it seems like they just sling the term around anyone who so much as breaths the word inclusive.

 

[Michel Henzel]

Please define what you consider neutral cause from what you just typed I cannot say that you are neutral in any way. But I guess your definition might differ from mine.

 

[grassgremlin]

Has nothing to do with being "decent," actually, just with having a factually defensible stance. That the GGers were caught lying and that's the reason their opponents do not respect them is simply a fact.

If the other side is caught lying as well, what do we do then? Heads or tails?
But you still imply that being neutral shouldn't be a good position, and people should rather declare against Gamergate, don't you?

As for bias, well, here's a video that everyone should watch; it is really interesting (and I'm not ironical here):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWw7LwIYHbA
4'45" "Impartiality is bullshit"
7'54" "Don't see bias as a bad thing"

wow, that was awful.
I understand the parts about critizing the game for having some awful stuff in it. I mean, sure, but well . . .
. . . he acts like the game killed his dog.

If the people complaining about it recieving 9/10, it's just a game.
But the games content? It's just a freaking game still.

It's not for him. He doesn't have to play GTA 5 at all.
The last part with the millions of people was unsettling.
He condemned all the people that bought the game with his tone, that's what unsettled me.

It's like he's saying "fine, but hope you can live with yourselves."

. . . does he want Grand Theft Auto to stop being made?
I'm confused, I thought we were pushing for more diverse games, not killing off franchises people happen to like.
I mean, I don't like GTA either, but I'm not saying it shouldn't exist.

 

[grassgremlin]

Please define what you consider neutral cause from what you just typed I cannot say that you are neutral in any way. But I guess your definition might differ from mine.

I don't fight for Gamer Gate and I'm not to fond of people's comments and actions on the anti-gamergate side.

I'm neutral, cause I'm just interested in my indie games, anime and cartoon action games.

 

[Michel Henzel]

Please define what you consider neutral cause from what you just typed I cannot say that you are neutral in any way. But I guess your definition might differ from mine.

I don't fight for Gamer Gate and I'm not to fond of people's comments and actions on the anti-gamergate side.

I'm neutral, cause I'm just interested in my indie games, anime and cartoon action games.

So neutral as in not picking a side. That makes things somewhat clearer though I defined it as also being unbiased and objective. A definition that does not fit with your post. So that's why I wanted some clarification on it.

 

[grassgremlin]

Please define what you consider neutral cause from what you just typed I cannot say that you are neutral in any way. But I guess your definition might differ from mine.

I don't fight for Gamer Gate and I'm not to fond of people's comments and actions on the anti-gamergate side.

I'm neutral, cause I'm just interested in my indie games, anime and cartoon action games.

So neutral as in not picking a side. That makes things somewhat clearer though I defined it as also being unbiased and objective. A definition that does not fit with your post. So that's why I wanted some clarification on it.

Oh, pfft. I don't deny bias. I'm bias as hell. But I also believe that the things I'm bais against should be allowed to exist anyways. I mean, I honestly would hate a world that bent to my will and ideals.

I like an unpredictable world. Keeps me on my toes. I discover new things to broaden my scope.

Bias though? Yeah, I hate realistic games no matter how "good" people say they are.

 

[RealRT]

People are always "With or against us" - they feel that even if you don't support the other side, not supporting their side is just as bad, if not worse. Being neutral and not giving a damn is the only way to win here.

 

[DC_78]

Zoe Quinn, continuing to tweet about Gamer's Gate even after the group says they won't be talking about her.

Come on. Zoe Quinn is under no obligation to stay silent so that assholes won't talk about her. If the assholes are really moving on, they have it in their power to do so no matter what she tweets or doesn't tweet.

Of course they're not really moving on, because harassing Zoe was what a bunch of them signed up for and shifting gears to talking convincingly about "ethics" isn't in their repertoire. But she's under no obligation to stay silent on account of those fools either.

The toxicity hasn't gone anywhere [https://twitter.com/alexlifschitz/status/513101732134797312], by the way. Not by a long shot [https://twitter.com/alexlifschitz/status/513119821098020864]. Just in case you're tempted to buy into any of the more anodyne rhetoric they're trying to put about here.

What in the actual hell . . .
. . . what's even real anymore?
What is right, again?

I'm shaking right now, literally freaking shaking.

For fuck sakes, what's this all about anymore?

Evil Social Justice cabal!?

WHEN.THE.FUCK.HAS.SOCIAL.JUSTICE.BEEN.EVIL!?
Not every fucking website is tumblr.

Always people take away what they want from any conversation. Social justice is not evil. I believe in equality. Does that make me less of a Social Justice person than someone that attacks someone else not to educate or even debate but to silence or shame them because they said something hurtful? No, because I also believe in free speech and listening to every side of something even if you do not like it.

So people like Sargon and Bob there have their opinions and I doubt they would claim to speak for either side's majority, but they also have facts they are presenting with a bias. So as an informed individual it is my responsibility to sift through the bias and discover the plain facts.

Bob is correct Gamergate started as people discussing (often crudely and cruelly) Zoe's sex life as it was an industry tabloid scandal with ramifications of cronyism and quid-pro-qou in both games journalism and the indie dev scene. Her Ex decided to air her dirty laundry for the internet to see not gamers. The game journalists decided en mass in secret because Zoe was in the scene that they would, out of respect for her wishes, not report on it. Despite the consumer demand that it be reported on, and counter intuitively against their own reporting on other (male centered) sex scandals in the industry before.

Then the game websites that had often allowed forum goers to speak freely about most any topic started shutting down all discussion on this in their forums. Instead of moderating it hey deleted every comment across the entire spectrum of gamer's typical web forums. As is their right, but this is still censorship. These individual game's media personalities decided what we should know, what we should talk about, and how and where we should talk about it.

That caused the Streisand effect and now after 5 weeks of this Gamergate is uncovering more and more cronyism, agendas driven journalism, and quid-pro-qou allegations. Look at the facts or do not it is up to you. My final thought is something I will paraphrase from a better writer than myself:

You can ignore the rose because it's roots are in the dirt if you want to but it does not cancel out the rose's existence.

 

[Random Gamer]

So neutral as in not picking a side. That makes things somewhat clearer though I defined it as also being unbiased and objective. A definition that does not fit with your post. So that's why I wanted some clarification on it.

That's usually what neutral means - you don't pick sides. Otherwise, OP would just ask "Why is being objective a bad thing?" - which would be another amusing discussion, though I think there was a thread about it at some time.

Whatever people think of being neutral, we have to be realistic, in most debates or struggles, the majority of the people as a whole will be neutral, and only minorities will truly pick a side. Heck, people doing the American, French or Russian revolutions were a minority.
Really, one might wish that some neutral people would join his side, but trying to zealously preach the cause to try to convert them is foolish, probably quite unethical, and usually counter-productive.
What slightly annoys me is people pretending to be neutral and stealthily promoting a side.

captcha says: vocal minority
Yup, sounds like a fair description of both sides of the discussion.

 

[The Wykydtron]

I... don't even know what this stuff is and I don't really care to find out. I have no intention of fighting over ethics or whatever out in the comments because it's just not fun. Something to do with like this Zoe Quinn person I guess, I dunno, wake me up when all this blows over i'll just be over here actually playing games instead of arguing about them 24/7 mmk?

It's kind of why i've been a bit inactive around here lately, everything tends to relate to all these volatile subjects like Gamergate and Social Justice Warriors (which I find to be a pretty funny title and I cannot take anyone seriously when they use it i'm sorry, it just seems absurd to me) so I glaze over it all in search of something not toxic.

All this has risen to the ranks of the old racism and sexism threads in which I would never ever post in. It never helps that nobody can take a joke in these threads so that fucks my posts over because I cannot help but try to be humourous in every post. It's a curse really, I don't really notice i'm doing it >.<

The SJW comment was a joke by the way. You see how some people might jump the gun at me after misinterpreting my words?

 

[Nirallus]

Because of the positions taken by each side in this argument.

To the pro-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against collusion in media, censorship, and the efforts by far-left academia to push their agenda.
To the anti-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against misogyny, harassment, entitlement, and the patriarchal hegemony.

 

[Michael Tabbut]

I've more or less kept myself away from this debacle hoping that this doesn't turn into some sort of literal gamer war. I'm neutral in this fight.

 

[DC_78]

Because of the positions taken by each side in this argument.

To the pro-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against collusion in media, censorship, and the efforts by far-left academia to push their agenda.
To the anti-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against misogyny, harassment, entitlement, and the patriarchal hegemony.

That is only possible if you ascribe to feminist ideas. Many do not, like myself. I am liberal, but find feminist theories as diverse as they are to carry to much baggage, and often are used to promote a victim narrative and sex negative ideas that are not healthy to self esteem. I prefer equality theory, or at the very least sex positive empowering feminism.

Many GG'ers have spoken out against harassment. They even signed their own petition for it on change.org started by Boogie2988 a Youtuber.

 

[Zontar]

Because of the positions taken by each side in this argument.

To the pro-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against collusion in media, censorship, and the efforts by far-left academia to push their agenda.
To the anti-GG side, you're refusing to speak out against misogyny, harassment, entitlement, and the patriarchal hegemony.

I think you have the two sides mixed up there, and I neither remember entitlement nor patriarchal hegemoney being brought up by the anti-GG side (I mean hell, you have to bend over pretty far backwards to make the claim that the latter even exists in the West outside of small niche markets).

 

[EyeReaper]

Because, in a war like this, people will seek comrades-in-arms. When you claim neutrality, that means you aren't helping them. If you aren't helping them, you aren't hurting the enemies. You know who else doesn't harm the enemy? THE ENEMY!

It's kinda like being Switzerland in WW2, except here, there really isn't a team delegated to being the "Bad Guy." Both teams are the Nazis, according to the other team, and they're the shining forces of Justice. Honestly, the best way to remain neutral in this case is just avoid everything GG altogether. This is the first "-gate" thread I've posted in, and will definitely be the last. I have more important things to do than worry bout Indie developers or Game Journalists, two things I've never cared about anyways. I'm so out of it in the Indie scene that I haven't even beaten the first level of Cave Story, and not played Minecraft (although, is that still indie now that it's owned by Microsoft) once.