Why is Being Nuetral in GamerGate a bad thing?

[Albino Boo]

I came into this whole thing late, because of being deployed to fight against actual horrible people in the world, and didn't quite know where to start, or even understand what was happening.

I go through life avoiding group movements as they tend to be dangerous at falling out of hand, people get (butt)hurt and no one walks away with any differing opinion to what they started with.

None of the controversy has actually affected me personally as I have no idea who the people involved are, have never visited their sites or read their articles, and therefore I have remained neutral too. The best thing is just to ignore it. People who passionately care about it are best to argue the points, as they are affected and can possibly change things for the better for themselves. The rest of us should just let them get on with it and not get involved!

They sent you to Colchester or even worse, MOD main?

You succinctly, and a lot more politely, covered my position on this. My version is that I don't give flying fuck about any these distinctly trivial people. Islamic fanatics are cutting the head of people in the middle east a Russian demagogue is attempting redraw the borders of Europe by force and all this sound and fury about a women who had sex with people she knew socially and someone he gave a friend a good review. Sense of perspective needed.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

Annoyingly I can't get on Twitter at the moment (Military computers don't allow it) so I will have to check it out later, but thanks for that chap.

What kind of sentiment is it following? Personally I have been struggling to take the 'mysoganistic' opinions of children who think girls are icky seriously when I am against an enemy that literally would bury a woman alive, or stone her to death 'legally' if she leaves the house without males permission...

I know it's a perspective thing, and I am not saying that there arn't some horrible opinions coming from this mess, but I always think when I read them whether it's their actual opinion, or just empty words for effect.

That's the thing, isn't it. There are truly horrible things happening that deserve those words, but they are using them to blanket anything they don't like, and it takes away the power the words have when they're used on the really serious things. (The link included a tweet from another Soldier extremely pissed off that people were comparing Gamers to ISIS, because he has personal experience with ISIS and felt it was insulting hyperbole to him and anybody else who served.)

I'll tell you this. I'm not a child, I don't hate women, I don't find them icky; I'm a 25 year old man who lives in a senior/disabled apartment complex. There are women and people of all races and walks of life who are in solidarity against the denigration we are facing right now. We are all being painted with the same brush, and the paint is anybody who happens to make derogatory or threatening comments, whether they're part of #GG or not.

I am not saying you are chap. I was being deliberately flippant because that is how people seem to be when discussing this subject. I know that most of the people who are arguing in the other threads are not of the demographic I mentioned, but by hell some of them (again, not you) act that way. I was just pointing out that the extreme opinion presented by someone anonymously posting to strangers online has a chance (probably relatively high) of being a deliberate complete misrepresentation of their actual opinion on the matter.

I see your point... and it's what further compounds my point of staying out of it. When something like this happens with 2 opposing sides, arguing is usually a futile action. You get nowhere fast... and then further nowhere.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I came into this whole thing late, because of being deployed to fight against actual horrible people in the world, and didn't quite know where to start, or even understand what was happening.

I go through life avoiding group movements as they tend to be dangerous at falling out of hand, people get (butt)hurt and no one walks away with any differing opinion to what they started with.

None of the controversy has actually affected me personally as I have no idea who the people involved are, have never visited their sites or read their articles, and therefore I have remained neutral too. The best thing is just to ignore it. People who passionately care about it are best to argue the points, as they are affected and can possibly change things for the better for themselves. The rest of us should just let them get on with it and not get involved!

They sent you to Colchester or even worse, MOD main?

You succinctly, and a lot more politely, covered my position on this. My version is that I don't give flying fuck about any these distinctly trivial people. Islamic fanatics are cutting the head of people in the middle east a Russian demagogue is attempting redraw the borders of Europe by force and all this sound and fury about a women who had sex with people she knew socially and someone he gave a friend a good review. Sense of perspective needed.

God damn... Main Building... I'm pretty sure one of the levels of hell is actually modelled on it, just minus the flags on the roof!

I know we can't always compare everything to things that are worse in the world... otherwise you end up with that really annoying 'kids are starving in Africa' that gets attached to every moan and gripe. But in this case I couldn't help it. I think it's because of the sheer ammount of energy and passion involved with it... I could do with swathes of people who can put that ammount of effort into something so minor to work for me... I may get a day off then!

 

[Madame_Lawliet]

Honestly, I used to be seriously against Gamergate and those who supported it (and I wasn't, and am still not, afraid to say that this whole damn thing is nothing but a joke), but I'm so past caring at this point, I just want this stupid NONtroversy to end.

I don't see how you can blame anyone for not wanting to be involved with this stupid thing, I certainly wish I hadn't gotten involved.
The more people are neutral the faster Gamergate will thankfully fade into obscurity, die an unceremonious death, and we can all move on to the gaming community's next mass hissy fit.

What shocks me is that people fail to realize how bad this is or could get in the future.

Everyone just looks at where this started and seems to be stuck there. It's like not being able to get past the break-in at the Watergate Hotel when we're already at the point where Nixon White House tapes are starting to surface.

Just to put this in context: because of one insignificant indie developer's tabloid-esque private life, a bunch of gaming media sites conspired to censor as much of the Internet as they could, quashed all discussion of it, and engaged in a massive smear campaign on the people who realized something fishy was going on to cover their own asses.

I can't understand how people can not worry about this. What happens if it's something more important or serious that they try and cover up next time?

"Conspired to censor as much of the internet as they could."
What are you talking about?

What the hell was being "censored?" Discussion of a woman's personal life? That's not censorship, that's respecting someone's privacy, that's keeping the forums clean of the hateful dreck that has been dumped en mass upon her and her allies.
You want to talk about censorship? Censorship is when a governing body mandates an edit or ban upon a work of art or the press without the authors consent on grounds of imposed morality or political ideology.
A Governing body.
Last I checked, Kotaku was not a governing body.
Last I checked, Polygon was not a governing body.
Last I checked, Gamasutra was not a governing body.
They aren't, and can't, make public or private discussion of any of this illegal, and they are not infringing on your right to talk discuss it, they're just saying "don't do it here."
What they're doing is not censorship, it's moderation.
Just because they let you post on their forums does not mean you can say whatever the hell you want; if I invite you into my house and you say something rude I can tell you to shut up, and if you don't shut up I can tell you to leave. I'm not censoring you, I'm moderating what is said in my house. The same applies to this, if a website's moderators don't want you discussing Zoe Quinn's personal life then you can't discuss it, end of story. That's how commenting on a forum or other website works, if you break the rules you get kicked off.
And I know you gamergaters think you've uncovered some kind of mass conspiracy, you think you found the Illuminati, you think you found Elvis' secret underground Rock and Roll kingdom (except that's real, unlike any of the stuff Zoe supposedly did), but here's the thing, YOU HAVEN'T.
There was no "smear campaign," there was nothing "fishy" going on here, there was a bunch of people slut-shaming, harassing, and throwing hateful language at a bunch of other people, and when they were called out for being dicks they claimed censorship; there is no "conspiracy" here, just a bunch of professional and private acquaintances, and reality check: most people associate closest with their work related colloquies, this includes romantic and sexual relationships.

Not everything is a shadowy conspiracy, least of all any of this.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

Its weird to be "neutral" in GamerGate. The only way possible, it seems, is to not engage with it whatsoever, and shut all of it out. Nobody is "pro-corruption", nobody is "pro-harassment". Everybody here believes in journalistic integrity. Its just really coming down to two things, it seems.

1. What constitutes a violation of ethics.

2. What constitutes as evidence.

I'm ostensibly anti-GamerGate, even though I have a great interest in journalism (probably would be one if I didn't suck at socializing), because I have my standards of evidence are different from pro-GGers, and my views as to what constitutes a violation of ethics is different.

There's a lot of baggage unrelated to journalism both sides are bringing into this, and it hurts the credibility of both sides. I'm not anti-GG because I'm an SJW, I'm anti-GG because I think its disorganized, lacks vision, has a shitty standard for what constitutes as evidence, and has questionable ideas regarding journalistic ethics. There are anti-GG people who are anti-GG because they see it as an affront to social justice values, as championing bigotry. The reason why is because it was born out of the anti-Quinn hatred which was just that, and because, quite frankly, there's still quite a few people for whom GG is about pushing back against social climates they're opposed to, and its quite obvious when they can't seem to leave Anita Sarkeesian or go without saying "SJW" like its some sort of slur.

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"

I actually liked the video. And he's right, impartiality is bullshit. There's no such thing as an objective game review, and rather than pretend that objectivity exists, and pretend that the only thing that matters in every game is how it functions, and not how we react to it as human beings, we should embrace people for having opinions, for not giving GTA V a 10/10 because it checks all the boxes, yet was offputting for some reason or another. We should be welcoming people who will exercise their passion, and not bring down a firestorm of hate when they graded our favwoute gwame differently because they didn't like something about it that deviates from the checklist. "Where exactly do we expect the game industry to go if we let it grade its own damn papers?" is right, we should be welcoming vitriolic reviews tearing games apart. He, as a producer for a game, against the own best professional interest, wants to see games judged not as products, but as experiences because he wants to see the medium grow into something real.

The speech in the video does in no way discuss investigative journalism in games media, but rather, how we approach commentary and discourse. I certainly hope your intention wasn't to present the video as if its somebody championing on corruption and nepotism, because its not, and it would would be disingenuous to do so.

First of all, we are not talking about academic definitions of objectivity. We are talking about the most basic of journalistic ethics-- not accepting bribes for reviews, not colluding to produce blanket yellow journalism, not writing hit pieces against people with little to no evidence, etc. The objectivity in question is not Harold Bloom arguing about the difference between objectivity and deep subjectivity. Objectivity, in this particular context, means not putting yourself into a position where you can be influenced by the subject you are reporting on.

Conflating "nothing can be purely objective" with "I should be allowed to post slanderous hit pieces if I want" is intellectually dishonest.

Secondly, GamerGate is disorganized because it has no central leadership. Think about it this way, if you see people rioting in the streets of Rio, do you think it must be some union leaders who put them up to it? Or do you think the anger finally reached a breaking point and the people are pissed off? You can't put GamerGate people into a neat identity box, even though that's exactly what anti-GG people want. None of us have anything in common. I bet you couldn't even guess what ethnicity and gender I am just by the way I write.

Lastly, no decent person is against feminism or social justice. I wouldn't have given 120 dollars to fund a feminist campaign if that were the case. What we are adamantly against is feminist bullies who use inflammatory language and professional victimhood to inject their invective wherever they go. Look at the way anti-GG people treated the level-headed Christina Hoff Sommers, a woman with feminist credentials up to here. That is what I mean by bullying and inflammatory language.

 

[Velventian]

/snip

Being neutral in itself isn´t a problem, but like you said yourself, a lot of people that claim to be neutral still critizize either side but mostly gamergate(at least my impression). So we have gotten very weary about "neutral people". If someone is really neutral, cool, its their thing. But people bursting into the threads like "Yeah i really don´t care about all this and i am actually totaly neutral but gamergate is bullshit and all those who support it are harassers!"
The other side often claims neutrality to make us look worse.

But we have no problem with actual neutrality, i think JonTron could serve as an example.
He made some jokes about the mess and people started thinking he was actively pro GG, but the he said he just made a joke, he just wants to talk about games and not be dragged into this, so basically he wants to stand on neutral ground. And as far as i am aware people were ok with that.
Or Yahzee, aside from one small article thats basically said "yeah there´s corruption, so what?" not a peep, and people are fine with it.
We´ve just seen to many SJ-Chiwawas in neutrality sheep pelts.
So yeah, if someone comes in an claims they are neutral and just wanna share their opinion on the general situation they are free to do so, but people are free to be skeptical of said neutrality until proven.

 

[Scarim Coral]

Has there really been a specific example for being ridicule for being nuetral and should take a side?

I pretty much on the nuetral boat myself since I have not read in too deep on the matter itself to take a side nor do I feel I need to as I am perfectly fine and content playing my game or gaming related activities without knowing it

 

[Netrigan]

For me, it seems the big selling point we're being told it has is something gamers centers a subject many gaming journalists have been trying to get a call to arms against for ages... but I'd be surprised if the next big scandal featuring a major company gets much more coverage or outrage than all the previous big scandals featuring major companies, because everyone kind of knows who is supplying their favorite games and that sort of thing has a tendency to mute any criticism people might have.

The "Keep Politics Out Of Games" argument kind of falls flat for me, because there's always a some political aspects to entertainment (even if it's just a confused hodge-podge of issues), but there's usually a pretty good effort to integrate those politics into the narrative in a fairly invisible manner. To use one of my favorite shows as an example (which isn't Doctor Who this time), Orphan Black. It's not tough to see the politics behind their story telling choices, but its about the story and characters, not hitting those ideas with all the subtlety of a gong. The same can not be said for the more political elements of Grand Theft Auto V, which wears its anti-torture and anti-Protect Our Borders political agenda on its sleeve by giving the most immoral and violent character in the story freakin' speeches to make sure we know Rockstar isn't promoting the wrong political agenda... and even then most people don't bother to notice or care about those politics being overtly included in that game.

I did a forum search for Zoe Quinn and got back six hits. One was about the release of Depression Quest, basically saying "hey, isn't it cool that video games can do something like this", with no mention of Quinn's Feminist beliefs. The other five hits are all variations on "harassment isn't cool", and these are apparently these are the articles which are so politicized that enough is enough. I think only one of them had to be updated to fit the new ethical guidelines of The Escapists, because they reported the harassment as fact instead of an allegation.

And there's the little fact of the matter that I can see all sorts of Outside Agitators being drawn into #GamerGate to push their Anti-Feminist Agenda and Anti-SJW Agendas, so it's totally cool if Adam Baldwin shows up to bash SJWs, even if there's not terribly much to indicate he cares overly much about the state of gaming. Has Thunderb00t ever released a video about gaming which wasn't about criticizing the Feminists criticizing video games? Has Davus Aurini? It's clear looking at their web-site that gaming is nothing but a side-show for Breitbart and I seem to recall someone posting a Tweet from Milos Yiannopoulos that he doesn't even play video games. And these are among the loudest voices in the movement. Who's left? The Internet Aristocrat? MundaneMatt? TotalBisquit has already stated he agrees with you, but isn't standing anywhere near 4chan while it's firing indiscriminately and hitting everyone in the vicinity.

So, instead of de-politicizing gaming, they're just politicizing it even more. As their army of non-gaming enthusiasts roll in, so too does the army of non-gaming enthusiasts on the other side, and they're a whole lot bigger, more organized, and with louder voices than anything gaming has to offer... and none of them give one damn about making gamers look bad in the pursuit of their objectives.

 

[Ilovechocolatemilk]

For me, it seems the big selling point we're being told it has is something gamers centers a subject many gaming journalists have been trying to get a call to arms against for ages... but I'd be surprised if the next big scandal featuring a major company gets much more coverage or outrage than all the previous big scandals featuring major companies, because everyone kind of knows who is supplying their favorite games and that sort of thing has a tendency to mute any criticism people might have.

The "Keep Politics Out Of Games" argument kind of falls flat for me, because there's always a some political aspects to entertainment (even if it's just a confused hodge-podge of issues), but there's usually a pretty good effort to integrate those politics into the narrative in a fairly invisible manner. To use one of my favorite shows as an example (which isn't Doctor Who this time), Orphan Black. It's not tough to see the politics behind their story telling choices, but its about the story and characters, not hitting those ideas with all the subtlety of a gong. The same can not be said for the more political elements of Grand Theft Auto V, which wears its anti-torture and anti-Protect Our Borders political agenda on its sleeve by giving the most immoral and violent character in the story freakin' speeches to make sure we know Rockstar isn't promoting the wrong political agenda... and even then most people don't bother to notice or care about those politics being overtly included in that game.

I did a forum search for Zoe Quinn and got back six hits. One was about the release of Depression Quest, basically saying "hey, isn't it cool that video games can do something like this", with no mention of Quinn's Feminist beliefs. The other five hits are all variations on "harassment isn't cool", and these are apparently these are the articles which are so politicized that enough is enough. I think only one of them had to be updated to fit the new ethical guidelines of The Escapists, because they reported the harassment as fact instead of an allegation.

And there's the little fact of the matter that I can see all sorts of Outside Agitators being drawn into #GamerGate to push their Anti-Feminist Agenda and Anti-SJW Agendas, so it's totally cool if Adam Baldwin shows up to bash SJWs, even if there's not terribly much to indicate he cares overly much about the state of gaming. Has Thunderb00t ever released a video about gaming which wasn't about criticizing the Feminists criticizing video games? Has Davus Aurini? It's clear looking at their web-site that gaming is nothing but a side-show for Breitbart and I seem to recall someone posting a Tweet from Milos Yiannopoulos that he doesn't even play video games. And these are among the loudest voices in the movement. Who's left? The Internet Aristocrat? MundaneMatt? TotalBisquit has already stated he agrees with you, but isn't standing anywhere near 4chan while it's firing indiscriminately and hitting everyone in the vicinity.

So, instead of de-politicizing gaming, they're just politicizing it even more. As their army of non-gaming enthusiasts roll in, so too does the army of non-gaming enthusiasts on the other side, and they're a whole lot bigger, more organized, and with louder voices than anything gaming has to offer... and none of them give one damn about making gamers look bad in the pursuit of their objectives.

You forgot one of the most important voices of all, Christina Hoff Sommers, who rigorously debunks many of the claims that anti-GG people make:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w

 

[Jamieson 90]

I've been living under a rock for the past two months (real life has been really shit and busy), so could someone please explain what Gamer Gate is?

The only real way to explain Gamergate's current form is with a broad timeline of events.

1. Eron Gjoni, ex-boyfriend of controversial videogame developer Zoe Quinn, releases a blog alleging that she cheated on him with five other men, including a writer from Kotaku and her boss.

2. A group of reflexively anti-Quinn gamers discover the post, and start spreading it far and wide. They argue that her sleeping around with people from within the games journalism industry is proof that she was trading sex for good coverage, an accusation not even the ex-boyfriend leveled at her.

3. This sparks a movement known as Quinngate, along with widespread harassment of Zoe Quinn.

4. The Quinngate movement recieves widespread criticism from games journalists (much of it deserved). In addition, many websites refused to allow discussion of the movement entirely.

5. As Quinngate grows, it attracts many gamers completely disinterested in the Zoe Quinn side of the debate, and these people try to reconfigure the movement into one focused entirely on the various failings of games journalism. People start abandoning the term Quinngate and switch to the more neutral Gamergate name people use today.

6. The new members of Gamergate are hit with waves of misplaced condemnation that should have only been leveled at the truly distasteful members of the movement (who were at this point in the vast minority). The Gamergaters, understandably, condemned right back, leading to an endless shitstorm that raged and raged for WEEKS.

At this point, Gamergate is mostly a controversy about itself. People on the pro-Gamergate side say that the important part of the story is the criticism of games journalists, and any mention of Zoe Quinn is a smokescreen preventing us from dealing with the real issue. People on the anti-Gamergate side argue that the harassment is what's important, and the journalistic concerns are the smokescreen.

OT: I also find the criticism Jim Sterling's received to be bizarre. The entire Escapist crew (sans Moviebob) has been overwhelmingly respectful while still maintaining the Escapist's posting standards. I think many regulars stopped noticing how good we've got it here. Many sites I frequent had either banned Gamergate discussion or just given up on moderating it, letting it turn into a cesspool. This is really the best site on the web to discuss this issue.

Thank you for taking the time to write this post, I found it really informative and useful and therefore appreciate your time and effort. Cheers.

 

[Netrigan]

You forgot one of the most important voices of all, Christina Hoff Sommers, who rigorously debunks many of the claims that anti-GG people make:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9MxqSwzFy5w

I'll give her points for making a good defense of gamers and continuing to stress it throughout, but she does side-step the points being made in almost exactly the same manner as other people.

It's an old political trick where you answer a slightly different question, but one where you're arguably right. Here she defends the accusation that video games are making young men sexist... which isn't actually an accusation I've heard from the "feminist voices" (of which the only usual suspect is shown, so it's hard to hide behind "someone else made this assertion"). They're (or more accurately "she's") talking about perpetuating various sexist attitudes, which isn't incompatible with the notion that young men today are far less racist and sexist then they have been in the past. I'd argue that assertion kind of proves the effort to rid our media of overtly sexist and racist attitudes is creating less racist and sexist kids, and we should probably continue to urge people to keep moving in that general direction... and part of that process is identifying and talking about potentially troubling aspects within our media.

"The Gamer Is Dead" stuff... rather depends on how lucrative casual gaming is. There's no one talking about "this is probably the last generation of smart phones" as they do with consoles. You don't see the Windows sales falling as fewer and fewer PCs get bought every year, as Apple and Google are on an upward trajectory. The expensive AAA game market relies on a thriving console or PC scene to remain a mainstream concern. Meanwhile more and more people have a smart phone or tablet and the less expensive to produce casual games mean they can throw more product at the wall and make tons more money off the few which end up making truck-loads of money. If the casual market becomes a more lucrative market than the hardcore (with its huge production overheads), then Kim Kardashian might be the new Master Chief

But she does fly under the banner of Feminist, so this must be part of some master plan to take away our testicles, so I'd be wary of giving her too much power

 

[Random Gamer]

It's not. Despite what a very silly, very vocal minority of each side will have you believe.

Both sides have some valid arguments. Both sides have some bad arguments. Both sides have obnoxious agitaters egging the drama on.

Yup, that's quite a good opinion and goog overview of the situation.

On both sides, you have some radicals, who are just there to push their ideology by any means necessary, you have some abusing scumbags who don't care much about ideology and are here to harass, doxx and threaten the other side, and some who are quite ideology-driven and act like complete scumbags as well. I'd say anti-GG / SJWs side (well, we really should find a better monicker but I haven't visited Polygon forums long enough to guess how people want to be called) are more numerous in 1st category than GG people, GG people are obviously more numerous in 2nd category than anti-GG people, and both are equally represented in 3rd one - but that's just my impression. And then, there are troll scum on the side-lines that want to piss off everyone and see the world burn, and who attack, provoke, harass, doxx and threaten everyone.

I'd say, we should maybe discard all these people and their arguments/positions. Then we're left with a sizable majority on both sides, who can at times be vocal or insulting, but aren't inherently out to wipe out the other side.
And when we look at these people, I fully agree that on every side, there are valid arguments. Reflecting on it, though, I've the nagging feeling that there's something which might explain why this crap is going on for so long, why it doesn't get better, and why agit-prop and scum on both sides can push the struggle further:

Both sides don't make their good arguments on the same issues, and both sides' reasonable and valid complaints aren't addressing the same problems.

Now, I had far more elaborate post detailing my thoughts on this point, but that's wildly off-topic for here. I might post it here in a separate message, but that's probably food for thoughts in another topic - GG central thread, or the "What do we disagree on" one maybe...

 

[grassgremlin]

Its weird to be "neutral" in GamerGate. The only way possible, it seems, is to not engage with it whatsoever, and shut all of it out. Nobody is "pro-corruption", nobody is "pro-harassment". Everybody here believes in journalistic integrity. Its just really coming down to two things, it seems.

1. What constitutes a violation of ethics.

2. What constitutes as evidence.

I'm ostensibly anti-GamerGate, even though I have a great interest in journalism (probably would be one if I didn't suck at socializing), because I have my standards of evidence are different from pro-GGers, and my views as to what constitutes a violation of ethics is different.

There's a lot of baggage unrelated to journalism both sides are bringing into this, and it hurts the credibility of both sides. I'm not anti-GG because I'm an SJW, I'm anti-GG because I think its disorganized, lacks vision, has a shitty standard for what constitutes as evidence, and has questionable ideas regarding journalistic ethics. There are anti-GG people who are anti-GG because they see it as an affront to social justice values, as championing bigotry. The reason why is because it was born out of the anti-Quinn hatred which was just that, and because, quite frankly, there's still quite a few people for whom GG is about pushing back against social climates they're opposed to, and its quite obvious when they can't seem to leave Anita Sarkeesian or go without saying "SJW" like its some sort of slur.

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"

I actually liked the video. And he's right, impartiality is bullshit. There's no such thing as an objective game review, and rather than pretend that objectivity exists, and pretend that the only thing that matters in every game is how it functions, and not how we react to it as human beings, we should embrace people for having opinions, for not giving GTA V a 10/10 because it checks all the boxes, yet was offputting for some reason or another. We should be welcoming people who will exercise their passion, and not bring down a firestorm of hate when they graded our favwoute gwame differently because they didn't like something about it that deviates from the checklist. "Where exactly do we expect the game industry to go if we let it grade its own damn papers?" is right, we should be welcoming vitriolic reviews tearing games apart. He, as a producer for a game, against the own best professional interest, wants to see games judged not as products, but as experiences because he wants to see the medium grow into something real.

The speech in the video does in no way discuss investigative journalism in games media, but rather, how we approach commentary and discourse. I certainly hope your intention wasn't to present the video as if its somebody championing on corruption and nepotism, because its not, and it would would be disingenuous to do so.

As much as I disagree with certain parts of my vid, I think your explanation makes a lot of sense. However, it does paint a pretty good opinion of how each side views video games.

Anti-GG: They are fantastical experiences that will make you sit back and think about things
GG: They're just video games.

 

[grassgremlin]

Honestly, I used to be seriously against Gamergate and those who supported it (and I wasn't, and am still not, afraid to say that this whole damn thing is nothing but a joke), but I'm so past caring at this point, I just want this stupid NONtroversy to end.

I don't see how you can blame anyone for not wanting to be involved with this stupid thing, I certainly wish I hadn't gotten involved.
The more people are neutral the faster Gamergate will thankfully fade into obscurity, die an unceremonious death, and we can all move on to the gaming community's next mass hissy fit.

Also, out of curiosity what did Totalbiscuit say exactly? I heard that he tried to remain neutral on the matter but worded his response very poorly, I don't know exactly what he said though so I don't really have basis for an opinion yet.

This is what he wrote. http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s4nmr1/
Yeah, you're right, he worded it poorly and was misinterpreted. Really sucks. I like TB, he's one of the few gaming personalities I agree with most of the time. Funny cause Jim Sterling might not have the same opinions, but I agree with him too.

I've heard TB wants to do a roundtable and just have people from both sides having a rational discussion, but he's run into problems due to some controversial issue during these events that caused some people to back out.

It sucks. I wish we could see more discussions from both sides talking and just making sure we can find a logical middle ground in all of this.

. . . would be really nice to see Matt Lees and Bob Chipman there too, sense they are super vocal on the anti-gg side. I don't agree with bob, but I'm still curious about his points and how they mesh with the discussion.

Really, it just seems important to have these people talking so the audiences can have some rational point. I mean, shoot, get a few pro-gg people too and have them all talking to each other.

. . . I dunno, maybe it might end in disaster, we dont know, but it's better then nothing.