Why is Being Nuetral in GamerGate a bad thing?

[Impulse725]

Being neutral is almost always just a good way to get two sides mad at you instead of one. I've noticed people mention Switzerland (of course). They aren't able to maintain neutrality because everyone respects it. They make themselves useful to powerful people in many countries with high end banking services. They're naturally difficult to invade, being mountainous. And they take defense seriously. Everyone of age is trained to be in the militia, lots of key places are fortified, and they wire bridges and tunnels to explode if they lose control of them. Even so, Germany planned to invade them, Normandy just happened before they got around to it. Neutrality also wasn't respected with most other countries in that tried it either. Even the allies invaded neutral Iceland to set up monitoring stations.

So, expect it to cheese some people off, is I suppose the overall message. It's hard to maintain neutrality without coming under attack. There's nothing Zap Brannigan hates more than neutrals!

Edit: curse you for beating me to the Zap reference, but I appreciate your fine work providing a clip.

 

[RobertEHouse]

I stayed neutral because GG seemed more to devolve more into shouting tactics against one side over the other. Plus both sides simple had a mind set of "your with us or against us" which pushed them even further from being creditable by any means. In my book

Both parties had valid points but it?s hard to take anyone serous when they are jump up and down and shouting and screaming.

 

[Caostotale]

I suppose I can't qualify for 'neutral' because I'm outwardly dismissive towards Gamergate, I find the Vivian avatars vulgar, feel like they're focusing unduly on 'easy' indie targets, etc.. Still, though, I've barely seen anything on this forum that could be described as a pro-active anti-GG movement, rather a number of isolated individuals who, like myself, see GG as a hot mess of paranoia, outrage, hyperbole, and vindictiveness that hasn't yet presented a cogent case for its own existence (just that it HAS to exist because of well...reasons). I think my sweeping skepticism is rooted in experiences I've had with friends who got really swept up into things like the 9/11 Truth movement or Alex Jones' various conspiracy schemes, some becoming so insufferable or scary (the biggest Alex Jones listener I knew started showing up everywhere with all sorts of guns in his trunk) that I couldn't tolerate being around them anymore. As well, I've been a leftist libertarian and a student of history for many years, and an awful lot of the GG vibe strikes me as reactionary, economically perverse, intolerant, and anti-democratic.

 

[Scars Unseen]

When it comes to the topic of being neutral, you are either for or against. There is no middle ground!

 

[Silence]

As I like to call myself "neutral", just my two cents:
It's no good to shout your voice into a shitstorm (or something like it), if your plan is not to make it bigger. I will read stuff from both sides (I see both sides largely represented in a false light), but I will not post some half-assed conclusions. Right now it is time to gather information (if the issue interests you). There are a lot of unanswered questions. Right answers will take time.
Secondly, to jump to half-assed conclusions anyway, I think there are issues behind this which were talked about before, but are now swept into the storm without impact. For example: Review scores and objectivity. Or feminism, the role of the younger generation(s males) and the older generation (there is a MASSIVE difference).


There was one debate which really showed the philosophical differences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_n2ctR-JN8
This is a well-spoken debate from both sides (Apart from the chat, which was literally shit). We should have more such debates.

 

[Bat Vader]

I'm firmly on the side of "meh", I'm neutral in that I don't really care. I've been ignoring the whole thing and sticking to playing games instead of whatever that whole thing was about.

This is pretty much how I have dealt with it too. If any of this somehow affected me in some way I would care but until it does I refuse to care. Plus, from what I have heard and seen both sides have been acting pretty toxic and I refuse to align myself with groups that act toxic.

 

[grassgremlin]

snip

Tb said misogynistic things? Would you be so kind as to tell me what they were.

edit.

To make it more clear. You said that a man who is happily married to a great woman and has some fantastic female friends, has said things that indicate he hates women. That was your statement.

No, I said people accused him of saying those things when he did not.
The problem was people thought he was thinking the allegations against Zoe Quinn were true when he said "if" and "maybe".

They picked out words in his statement which I admit was poorly worded and therefore easy to misinterpret.

 

[Stats ^1]

Because Escapist users like to feel like they're somehow important by raving on about a really unimportant issue.

 

[grassgremlin]

When it comes to the topic of being neutral, you are either for or against. There is no middle ground!

I'm against Gamer Gate.
Two days ago I had a long conversation with a very close friend some time after I made this forum post.
He convinced me to choose a side . . .

HOWEVER! I do not agree with your comment at all. "Either for or Against Us." Go away with this stupid rhetoric, no one gives a crap about your opinion regardless. If you are for gamer gate, sorry but I don't agree, if you are against it then, sorry but I don't agree. I'm also a person with my own opinions too.

Is it so hard to see both sides of the argument. I don't like being told something is a lie without seeing it for myself, sorry. I don't read things at face value and make a decision, I'm a skeptic something you yourself should learn to be.

Ask questions, always.

 

[grassgremlin]

As I like to call myself "neutral", just my two cents:
It's no good to shout your voice into a shitstorm (or something like it), if your plan is not to make it bigger. I will read stuff from both sides (I see both sides largely represented in a false light), but I will not post some half-assed conclusions. Right now it is time to gather information (if the issue interests you). There are a lot of unanswered questions. Right answers will take time.
Secondly, to jump to half-assed conclusions anyway, I think there are issues behind this which were talked about before, but are now swept into the storm without impact. For example: Review scores and objectivity. Or feminism, the role of the younger generation(s males) and the older generation (there is a MASSIVE difference).


There was one debate which really showed the philosophical differences: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_n2ctR-JN8
This is a well-spoken debate from both sides (Apart from the chat, which was literally shit). We should have more such debates.

While, my opinions recently changed and I'm no longer nuetral. I agree with looking between the lines.
I have a lot of passion for the industry, whether I was for or against, I'd have a opinion.
I have come to one conclusion and that's that both sides seem to want the exact same things.

I'll say I'm anti-gamer gate, but I'm not FOR game journalists. I just don't like Gamer Gate's actions or opinions. That's all.

So yeah, opinions change, but I agree that nuetrality helps.

 

[Roofstone]

It just struck me, I don't actually KNOW what gamergate is. As far as I could know people just really absolutely fucking loathe that collection of letters.

OT: When there are two sides of a issue, if you are on neither or either of said sides, you are not helping their cause, thereby hurting it. At least in their minds I imagine.

 

[RandV80]

Hah, apart from the initial scandal I have know idea what 'gamergate' is really all about and what being for or against gamergate is all about. And I'm damned proud of it!

I mean seriously the way people are flocking to these discussions you'd think it was 10 years ago with the Iraq war or something.

 

[AT God]

I get a feeling, and this is my own personal thought, no clue if others think it, that being neutral means that you have weighed both sides of the debate and purposely chosen to not jump in to either side. I think this would be seen by those on either side as meaning that you oppose that side's stance in a form. And as for neutral being a bad thing, it isn't bad, but you are looking at an internet debate that departed rationality from the start. While the various issues being discussed are important, the loudest voices dominate the conversation and the loudest voices do irrational things to maintain their status as the loudest. As such, choosing neutral will get you the scorn from the loudest voices of both groups because they assume the "dissenters be damned" sort of mentality wherein anyone who isn't with us, is against us.

I think that rational voices exist on both sides but the fact that those rational voices lack any platform to speak and be heard means that any stance on the issue simply puts you at the mercy of those who are speaking loudest. And basically, by remaining neutral, both sides see you as a danger to their own ideas.

Essentially, if you believe you are neutral, this is not the place to discuss it. The internet gives everyone an equal voice and while that is a great asset, it also makes it unsuitable for certain forms of thinking, like being neutral to a debate.

 

[ryessknight]

I have no idea what gamergate is and frankly i dont give a crap. I just wanna play my games and be left alone.