Support NeoGAF

[spwolf]

I have no idea what posts you are reading because the posts of mine you are quoting have absolutely nothing to do with your apparent replies. You seem to be very angry about something you think I am saying, but I cannot wrap my head around what that is.

I posted something like 'gamers should actively try to make the gaming community a place where bigots feel less comfortable being openly bigoted' and your reaction was 'WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO WHEN SOMEONE ON NEOGAF THINKS THAT?'

I don't think any of the insanity you just typed up. Not a drop of it.

I quoted your post. I expect you to reply to the post I quoted and not to the one 10 pages ago.

You keep repeating that you want to make gaming community a better place. Well OUR gaming community is Neogaf. Do you think our community- isnt adequately moderated against bigotry or other issues? Or do you want to moderate twitter?

You also said that you dont think that bigots can be reformed or their views changed.
So what is the solution then? If you cant change their opinion, then obviously you want them taken out of community? How do you propose to do that?

And of course, since you believe that bigots are dominant in gaming - much more than in other communities, do you believe that bigotry in this case is related only to gaming and that these people who think that women are of lesser value only think that while they game? And that while they watch movies, they have different opinion of women? Or at their work place?

Is there going to be some discussion or?

 

[plagiarize]

two articles and 5 movies per year dont make it a fact.... this stuff is way more discussed in gaming community than movie community. I mean I just gave you a list of 15 current movies but lets conveniently ignore facts.

And of course, same people who you label as bigots in gaming community and also bigots in movie community. They watch movies too. They also work and go on their daily rutine just like everyone else... and they express these views or hold them in themselves no matter what part of their day it is. They are always bigots.

It is all part of society at large.

So you want society to change... gaming is just small subsection and reflection of society as a whole.

I have, and will continue to, cited blockbuster movies as another media that needs to improve. I have, and will continue to, cited comic books as another media that needs to improve.

I have, and will continue to, cited genre TV as an area that is further along than gaming, movies and comic books, in both the content of it's product and in the fandoms that enjoy said product.

That genre TV is more inclusive than the others, and that it's fandoms are more inclusive than the others I have mentioned, demonstrates quite clearly that gaming could stand to do better.

You help fight sexism by fighting it in things like movies and moderated communities. You're trying to argue that we have zero responsibility for the amount of sexism found in our community, which is a potentially harmful stance to take. Because it will only discourage people from trying to do anything about it.

And we know that things can be done about it.

 

[DragonSworne]

I have no idea what posts you are reading because the posts of mine you are quoting have absolutely nothing to do with your apparent replies. You seem to be very angry about something you think I am saying, but I cannot wrap my head around what that is.

I posted something like 'gamers should actively try to make the gaming community a place where bigots feel less comfortable being openly bigoted' and your reaction was 'WHAT IS THE WORLD COMING TO WHEN SOMEONE ON NEOGAF THINKS THAT?'

I don't think any of the insanity you just typed up. Not a drop of it.

His post did not come across as aggressive or angry....

 

[Tigress]

I quoted your post. I expect you to reply to the post I quoted and not to the one 10 pages ago.

You keep repeating that you want to make gaming community a better place. Well OUR gaming community is Neogaf. Do you think our community- isnt adequately moderated against bigotry or other issues? Or do you want to moderate twitter?

I think NeoGaf is the only place I even feel comfortable reading on the topic without wanting to decide humanity sux.

And honestly, sure, those people are bigots outside of being gamers, but it does seem to be a big problem within the gaming community. Just cause not all gamers are like that doesn't mean it's not a disproportionate problem. It may just be the kind of personality who is a bigot is also attracted to gaming.

I also do think it is a cultural problem. But that's no excuse to say we should just ignore it in the gaming community. Cultural problems don't stop cause you ignore the problem in individual communities within the culture. They change when communities start changing their attitude. They change when individuals change. Cultures don't change all at once but start small and get bigger.

 

[JackDT]

The point of the video was pretty simple. I think MOST people are good, I think MOST gamers are good, and I think that EVERYONE taking a bad rap for a handful of shitty people is wrong.

Boogie: "I'm a gamer". "I think gamers have been jerks lately." These two sentences are not a contradiction or an attack on everyone, it's a claim about a way-bigger-than-handful of people claiming represent and defend gaming and what I've been hearing from them.

 

[TheForceWithin]

I really feel like this is my "I'm too old for this shit" moment. It's just to the point where I just honestly want the conversation to go away. And I don't mean in the sense of "let's stop talking about issues that women/minorities/other underrepresented groups face" in as much as I'm just stupefied that we've reached this current level of controversy. Things have come to a boiling point and I just don't get it. And I don't know how much more interest I can muster in carrying on as though this controversy is deserving of a reasonable conversation.

I'm getting too old for this shit.

I agree with you there.

I really didn't know what was going on with all the back story of all this shit and trying to get my head around it is giving me a headache. I agree there are some issue with in the industry. Yes, I have my views on the subject and yes some people may call them moderate. But I feel it's a waste of my time to even bother trying when all sides have so much charged up emotion and it's making me upset.

I just wanna play games. I'm also to old for this shit, I'm out...

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Alexander's article (and others) attacking the word "gamers" miss the point. The point is not that "gamers" are all terrible human beings. the point is that "gamers" includes a subset of terrible human beings, who are often given passive cover by a much larger group that identify as "gamers".

Passive cover involves anything from ignoring them when they're online being misogynist, racist, douchebags to attempting to redirect every inclusion thread into a thread about themselves. Both of these are behaviors we see regularly on GAF. Multiple people in this very thread have said, "It's not my problem."

Well, yes it is if you take issue with the culture at large thinking we're all giant douchebags. All movements and groups contain offensive elements. How we deal with those elements often shows us what sort of group we're looking at. Do we embrace them? Do we pretend they aren't there, because it makes us uncomfortable to be associated with them? Do we call them out when they step outside the line?

Part of culture is creating acceptable social mores for groups. It's not that gamers are all terrible people -- I clearly don't believe that, given I've been a gamer for 35 years, moderate a gaming board, and have a ton of gamer friends -- it's that gamers don't do anything about the terrible people in their community, which makes it appear to outsiders that we approve.

A gedankenexperiment: On GAF, if someone starts a thread about how all Asian people are actually fifth columnists from China, what would you expect? If moderators left it up and no one got banned, what conclusion would you draw about GAF and the moderators? Many people would draw the conclusion that either we agree with the thread maker, or at least we don't find anything wrong with what he's saying, otherwise we would act upon it.

And that's what's happening here. Gamers's unwillingness to stand up to the extremists within their community makes it appear to people that we approve, or at least don't disapprove, of their actions. It allows shitbags to use the rest of us for cover. I'm not sure why so many people are upset about Alexander's attack on gamers, when the attacks of these people, the ones who threaten to kill in our names, are often ignored, or treated as the price of being involved in the industry.

When gamers routinely shut down these dickholes, gamers will start to be seen as something other than these dillholes. When someone's wife can get online to play a game without someone calling her a slut, or a whore, or weirdly a nigger or faggot, then people outside the industry may stop seeing gamers as misogynistic, racist, scum.

I hope people understand and act on this, rather than allowing themselves to get their feelings hurt over some journalists that swung too wide.

I'll be perfectly honest. I like this post. I agree with a lot of what's in it. However -- though I consider myself very sympathetic to social justice issues and have been labeled a Social Justice Warrior before -- I don't even think that advocacy needs to go this far. My "I have a dream speech" could be described as succinctly as wishing that people who purport to just want to game and have fun would just simply ignore the social justice conversation and focus on playing games and having fun. As opposed to this current situation wherein the battle lines are being drawn and it's time to pick a side.

Personally, I don't feel that it ever needed to come to this. I feel like a lot of people are on the defensive because they feel their hobby is under attack from outsiders and my stance is that the situation is becoming worse when some grass roots Tea Party-esque movement rises up against a vague sentiment that things are bad and we need to do something. I really do find myself scratching my head at something like #GamerGate and just not getting it. I can't help but feel reminded of people fired up that Obama was going to raise taxes and steal our guns, and it's time to fight back!

When the reality is that the feminist menace has made innocuous YouTube videos and questioned why Assassins Creed doesn't have a female character in multi (it's because they're all Arno you stupid feminists!!!!!).

 

[RM8]

Boogie: "I'm a gamer". "I think gamers have been jerks lately." These two sentences are not a contradiction or an attack on everyone, it's a claim about a way-bigger-than-handful of people claiming represent and defend gaming and what I've been hearing from them.

I genuinely think they're a small minority, if not a handful. It's just that we (the ones basically not taking part in this) are not visible at all.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Hypothetically speaking (so when I say 'you' here I don't mean shampoowarrior) if you want to see the same issues solved as I do, but your inaction actually works against solving those issues, me criticizing your inaction wouldn't be counter productive to the issue we both want solved.

Yes, that would make sense if there was something of practical value to take action on. I don't feel that these campaigns against labels or these broad-sweeping attacks on the community at large have any kind of practical value towards fixing the issues. So any energy wasted on criticizing me for not supporting impractical and divisive campaigns, energy that could instead be spent on coming up with a real solution, is counterproductive to the issue we both want solved.

 

[Nibel]

Alexander's article (and others) attacking the word "gamers" miss the point. The point is not that "gamers" are all terrible human beings. the point is that "gamers" includes a subset of terrible human beings, who are often given passive cover by a much larger group that identify as "gamers".

Passive cover involves anything from ignoring them when they're online being misogynist, racist, douchebags to attempting to redirect every inclusion thread into a thread about themselves. Both of these are behaviors we see regularly on GAF. Multiple people in this very thread have said, "It's not my problem."

Well, yes it is if you take issue with the culture at large thinking we're all giant douchebags. All movements and groups contain offensive elements. How we deal with those elements often shows us what sort of group we're looking at. Do we embrace them? Do we pretend they aren't there, because it makes us uncomfortable to be associated with them? Do we call them out when they step outside the line?

Part of culture is creating acceptable social mores for groups. It's not that gamers are all terrible people -- I clearly don't believe that, given I've been a gamer for 35 years, moderate a gaming board, and have a ton of gamer friends -- it's that gamers don't do anything about the terrible people in their community, which makes it appear to outsiders that we approve.

A gedankenexperiment: On GAF, if someone starts a thread about how all Asian people are actually fifth columnists from China, what would you expect? If moderators left it up and no one got banned, what conclusion would you draw about GAF and the moderators? Many people would draw the conclusion that either we agree with the thread maker, or at least we don't find anything wrong with what he's saying, otherwise we would act upon it.

And that's what's happening here. Gamers's unwillingness to stand up to the extremists within their community makes it appear to people that we approve, or at least don't disapprove, of their actions. It allows shitbags to use the rest of us for cover. I'm not sure why so many people are upset about Alexander's attack on gamers, when the attacks of these people, the ones who threaten to kill in our names, are often ignored, or treated as the price of being involved in the industry.

When gamers routinely shut down these dickholes, gamers will start to be seen as something other than these dillholes. When someone's wife can get online to play a game without someone calling her a slut, or a whore, or weirdly a nigger or faggot, then people outside the industry may stop seeing gamers as misogynistic, racist, scum.

I hope people understand and act on this, rather than allowing themselves to get their feelings hurt over some journalists that swung too wide.

I never read the word 'dickhole' before, but that being said: I always enjoy reading your thoughtful and intelligent contributions, and agree with your sentiment in this post.

Right now we need to re-focus the discussion on this real issue and I hope that many involved in this debate will do so.

The whole talk about 'gamer' and terminology is dumbshit.

 

[FF Seraphim]

Ok, imagine that most people bitching about the evil muslims are Christian and you are trying to point out that there is a problem within the christian culture of lumping you all together as all terrorists (I don't want to get in the discussion on if this is a Christian problem, I just want to use it as an example so just take this as true and if you are christian I'm not trying to accuse you of anything but trying to set up a theoretical situation here).

And some one comes in and goes, "I wish you'd stop accusing me of doing that just cause I'm Christian." All the sudden the discussion has been turned on you to accuse you of being bad and the topic has been diverted from what you were talking about to whether you were accusing all of doing it or not.

Wouldn't you prefer it if the Christian said instead, "Hey, as a Christian I think it is horrible that there are Christians who are doing that and I wish those Christians would stop giving us a bad name."?

Now notice, that had the same affect as saying, "Not all us christians do that", better really cause the person showed themselves as a real example. So the person still could make a point of showing not all Christians are like that. And, it helped you out in your discussion in calling out christians who do that and tells those Christians who are treating all muslims like they are terrorists that not everyone in their culture condone that (and people will put more importance on the words of some one from within their group).

Also, it acknowledges that it is a problem and doesn't try to make it look like you are just over reacting.

By just saying, "Quit lumping me, I didn't do it" all you really are doing is (at best inadvertantly, sadly I think some people do it on purpose) diverting the discussion to something else. On top of that you are trivializing the person's complaint and turning it around on them. And you're really not adding anything. ON top of that, usually when I see the, "hey quit lumping me" the statement is not saying all of group is like this. It's saying it is a problem within the group. And then people take it personally as if the person is accusing them directly. And, on top of that, when people keep doing that, then it means we have to keep putting in disclaimers anytime we want to discuss a problem with a culture overall to make sure some one doesn't personally take offense (like I did there with the disclaimer towards Christians).

This doesn't solve the issue, the generalization shouldn't have been made to begin with on either side be it Christian of Muslim.
Thats the problem people are having, the generalization was made and people are having to defend themselves despite the fact some or many of them were not wanting to be involved in the first place. Yeah having some speak out is good, but again why should they have to distance themselves from the extremist in the first place?

 

[SparkPeople]

Ok, imagine that most people bitching about the evil muslims are Christian and you are trying to point out that there is a problem within the christian culture of lumping you all together as all terrorists (I don't want to get in the discussion on if this is a Christian problem, I just want to use it as an example so just take this as true and if you are christian I'm not trying to accuse you of anything but trying to set up a theoretical situation here).

And some one comes in and goes, "I wish you'd stop accusing me of doing that just cause I'm Christian." All the sudden the discussion has been turned on you to accuse you of being bad and the topic has been diverted from what you were talking about to whether you were accusing all of doing it or not.

Wouldn't you prefer it if the Christian said instead, "Hey, as a Christian I think it is horrible that there are Christians who are doing that and I wish those Christians would stop giving us a bad name."?

Now notice, that had the same affect as saying, "Not all us christians do that", better really cause the person showed themselves as a real example. So the person still could make a point of showing not all Christians are like that. And, it helped you out in your discussion in calling out christians who do that and tells those Christians who are treating all muslims like they are terrorists that not everyone in their culture condone that (and people will put more importance on the words of some one from within their group).

Also, it acknowledges that it is a problem and doesn't try to make it look like you are just over reacting.

By just saying, "Quit lumping me, I didn't do it" all you really are doing is (at best inadvertantly, sadly I think some people do it on purpose) diverting the discussion to something else. On top of that you are trivializing the person's complaint and turning it around on them. And you're really not adding anything. ON top of that, usually when I see the, "hey quit lumping me" the statement is not saying all of group is like this. It's saying it is a problem within the group. And then people take it personally as if the person is accusing them directly. And, on top of that, when people keep doing that, then it means we have to keep putting in disclaimers anytime we want to discuss a problem with a culture overall to make sure some one doesn't personally take offense (like I did there with the disclaimer towards Christians).

No, this doesn't make sense.

I'm a Muslim, and I see where he's coming from. Just because I'm Muslim or not doesn't give me any extra standing when I condemn ISIS' actions, because I'm not condemning them from a religious point of view, but from a personal point of view. From their eyes, I wouldn't even be considered Muslim.

Second, it's not my job, nor has it ever been, to dispel people's notions of what Muslims are. If you can't differentiate between different individuals or subgroups within a larger heading, I'm gonna call you out on it.

Third if you're opening up a line of discussion with someone you know is Muslim and straight up saying "I wish Muslims would stop beheading people." you deserve literally no sympathy from the verbal bashing you're about to receive.

 

[Oersted]

I quoted your post. I expect you to reply to the post I quoted and not to the one 10 pages ago.

You keep repeating that you want to make gaming community a better place. Well OUR gaming community is Neogaf. Do you think our community- isnt adequately moderated against bigotry or other issues? Or do you want to moderate twitter?

You also said that you dont think that bigots can be reformed or their views changed.
So what is the solution then? If you cant change their opinion, then obviously you want them taken out of community? How do you propose to do that?

And of course, since you believe that bigots are dominant in gaming - much more than in other communities, do you believe that bigotry in this case is related only to gaming and that these people who think that women are of lesser value only think that while they game? And that while they watch movies, they have different opinion of women? Or at their work place?

Is there going to be some discussion or?

If you want fight for feminism on a broader scale, thats fine. I don't see how and why you use your need to fight sexism as a counter-argument to fight it in the gaming community. Except of course, you are contributing with a redherring here.

 

[Tigress]

This doesn't solve the issue, the generalization shouldn't have been made to begin with on either side be it Christian of Muslim.
Thats the problem people are having, the generalization was made and people are having to defend themselves despite the fact some or many of them were not wanting to be involved in the first place. Yeah having some speak out is good, but again why should they have to distance themselves from the extremist in the first place?

No, it shouldn't have. But it does happen. Instead of just diverting the conversation why not show an example of some one who is not like that? It doesn't trivialize the problem, it doesn't divert the discussion away from the problem, and it still shows an example of how not all are like that.

Not to mention, when some one says, "This is a problem within this community" they aren't lumping everyone in it!!! Saying a community has a problem with something isn't saying everyone in the community is like that. But some one has to take offense and think they are accusing them directly just cause they happen to be of that community. And honestly, usually it's a diversion tactic to move the topic away.

Maybe if you don't think it is a problem, then argue that it is not a problem and make your argument there (it's a small minority but they are very loud). But saying you aren't like that and accusing the person of saying everyone is like that is not contributing to the discussion, it's just diverting it.

 

[flatearthpandas]

Ok, imagine that most people bitching about the evil muslims are Christian and you are trying to point out that there is a problem within the christian culture of lumping you all together as all terrorists (I don't want to get in the discussion on if this is a Christian problem, I just want to use it as an example so just take this as true and if you are christian I'm not trying to accuse you of anything but trying to set up a theoretical situation here).

And some one comes in and goes, "I wish you'd stop accusing me of doing that just cause I'm Christian." All the sudden the discussion has been turned on you to accuse you of being bad and the topic has been diverted from what you were talking about to whether you were accusing all of doing it or not.

Wouldn't you prefer it if the Christian said instead, "Hey, as a Christian I think it is horrible that there are Christians who are doing that and I wish those Christians would stop giving us a bad name."?

Now notice, that had the same affect as saying, "Not all us christians do that", better really cause the person showed themselves as a real example. So the person still could make a point of showing not all Christians are like that. And, it helped you out in your discussion in calling out christians who do that and tells those Christians who are treating all muslims like they are terrorists that not everyone in their culture condone that (and people will put more importance on the words of some one from within their group).

Also, it acknowledges that it is a problem and doesn't try to make it look like you are just over reacting.

By just saying, "Quit lumping me, I didn't do it" all you really are doing is (at best inadvertantly, sadly I think some people do it on purpose) diverting the discussion to something else. On top of that you are trivializing the person's complaint and turning it around on them. And you're really not adding anything. ON top of that, usually when I see the, "hey quit lumping me" the statement is not saying all of group is like this. It's saying it is a problem within the group. And then people take it personally as if the person is accusing them directly. And, on top of that, when people keep doing that, then it means we have to keep putting in disclaimers anytime we want to discuss a problem with a culture overall to make sure some one doesn't personally take offense (like I did there with the disclaimer towards Christians).

You shouldn't have to toadie up and sneak in a criticism of something just because there are other issues involved. Having a real concern doesn't and shouldn't make you invulnerable to criticism on other things. You should absolutely be able to say, "Hey, I think it sucks that some Christians do that, but let's keep our criticism realistic so we can effectively address this problem."

Generalizing people is fucking dangerous. Most especially when there is a sensitive issue at hand.

 

[Eddie Griffin]

I normally like boogie, but I feel like I learned something about him with this video that I didn't know before. I felt like this video/argument was supremely lazy.

Whether or not you agree with any given point swirling around the twitters and blogs and polygons and kotakus these days, I don't think anyone is actually arguing that "all gamers are bigots". I can't think of anyone who's making this claim, and this is the premise of boogie's video -- that evil jerks who want to ruin games are saying all gamers are bigots. No one is saying that.

This isn't an intellectual video.

If he wants to think about who he's talking to and who he's aligning himself with when he makes such an argument as this, he should look at the comments as they pour in. I haven't studied them closely, but I'm psychic: I bet they're nearly uniformly ignorant and/or revolting.

You may be looking too much into this.

 

[plagiarize]

Okay. Thank you for taking the time to strip the hyperbole from your post so that it is now something I can actually wrap my head around. That isn't a sarcastic show of thanks either. The view you were attributing to me is so far from my actual view that I had zero idea how to even begin to respond.

I quoted your post. I expect you to reply to the post I quoted and not to the one 10 pages ago.

You keep repeating that you want to make gaming community a better place. Well OUR gaming community is Neogaf. Do you think our community- isnt adequately moderated against bigotry or other issues? Or do you want to moderate twitter?

I have no issue with the moderation here on NeoGAF. Still, people feel comfortable enough to spew some pretty vile shit here that I don't see on some of the other communities I take part in online (even if they got banned for it). Can we do something to make them less comfortable in this community? I think we can and I think it would make gaming community a better place. The mods do what they can to keep discussion on track. They ban plenty of bigots in these discussions, and yet every thread on the topic brings in new bigots.

Heck it's to the point where they've had to enforce *tighter* rules and moderation on any threads specifically about one of Anita's videos so that actual discussion about the video and the points it has raised can take place, rather than plummeting into take 1000 of all the side discussions that would come up every time her name was even mentioned, all of which intentionally or not just distract from any actual issues she identifies.

You also said that you dont think that bigots can be reformed or their views changed.
So what is the solution then? If you cant change their opinion, then obviously you want them taken out of community? How do you propose to do that?

As I've been saying, by criticizing them without kid gloves, and when and if they have broken the rules or terms of use of whatever online service they are using, reporting them for doing so.

In my experience you don't get very far at all reasoning with bigots. You discourage people from being openly bigoted, and socially condemn bigotry then the next generation will grow up less bigoted. We've seen this time and again over the last few generations. Eventually the old ideas fade away, but you have to actively make that happen.

And of course, since you believe that bigots are dominant in gaming - much more than in other communities, do you believe that bigotry in this case is related only to gaming and that these people who think that women are of lesser value only think that while they game? And that while they watch movies, they have different opinion of women? Or at their work place?

Is there going to be some discussion or?

I do not think gaming has the most open bigotry of any community. But I see communities that are more welcoming to women and minorities than gaming and do not see 'other communities are the same or worse' as any justification for not trying to help gaming become as welcoming a community as the ones currently better than it.

No gulags. No bigotry tests for PS4. No lifetime bans based on poll results.

Thank you again for giving me the chance to discuss my actual opinions with you, in a way that even if I can't get you to agree with any of them, at least you will hopefully stop thinking I'm espousing some doomsday round a bunch of people up and throw them in a gulag scenario thing.

 

[JackDT]

I genuinely think they're a small minority, if not a handful. It's just that we (the ones basically not taking part in this) are not visible at all.

You are probably right in the abstract that there are people who don't follow games discussions at all. But the thing kind of knocked me out of the moderate camp on this was seeing things hit #1 on reddit games. Because it's maybe the most mainstream gaming discussion place I think of -- and then reading through 2500+ comments and not being able to find a single dissenting opinion that wasn't invisible. With top voted comments simply assuming that of course, Anita faked her death threats, we know that's what they always do. That this is the majority sentiment, the vast majority, among people who enjoy talking games online is what made me realize it's not a 'small majority'.

 

[AlimNassor]

Sadly, it has come to picking a side. Hey that's fine that you don't want to get involved, but, this involves peoples lives and you choose to ignore it just to have your fun? That's messed up. I'm a SJW, and feminist, but, I don't support the extremists, but, they are the only ones who are actually speaking up. You can't win wars with hugs and kisses, you have to fight, and win by whatever is necessary. Eventually the fence sitters will have to pick a side.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Personally, I don't feel that it ever needed to come to this. I feel like a lot of people are on the defensive because they feel their hobby is under attack from outsiders

I think (and the previous times I've gotten involved in this discussion, I've been pretty vocal on this aspect of it) there's context that shouldn't be forgotten: We're dealing with a community that's been, over the course of a few decades, TRAINED to circle the wagons against any press that is critical of the hobby. And often, that wagon-circling was to the good, because they were defending the hobby from frivolous accusations that tied all manner of criminal activity to their pastime. There are literally decades of the sort of witch-hunt politcal maneuvering that other forms of media had to withstand in their infancies that people who identify as gamers have gone through if they've been part of this hobby for longer than a few years.

It got to this because people in the community, those who have self-selected to be voices of that community (and they have to self-select, there's no real committee that could appoint this shit) had to place value judgments on what to speak up for, and what to backburner. And for the longest time, it was more important to defend the label against accusations of societal harm than it was to tend to misogynist/racist/homophobic members of the community participating in mean-spirited, abusive actions on a quieter, more accepted level.

And now we're at a point where that value judgment is coming into play, and everything that was absolutely right, every instinct that was completely rewarded before when it seemed outside sources were trying to cripple the community, is now inverted - because the outside forces aren't really outside. They're inside. And the behavior they're decrying is also coming from inside, not outside. And deciding to defend the label over tending to those problematic members of the community isn't the obvious choice anymore.

So you have a situation where large groups of people are wondering why they're being looked at sideways when they decide it's more important to fight for the honor of the label "Gamers" instead of fighting for their fellow gamers who have been enduring years of abuse from other gamers, as we adhere to the shrugging modus operandi that tolerates abuse and assumes that since you can't eradicate it completely there's no purpose in attempting to tackle it head-on when confronted with it in your circle of friends or on whatever server you're using.

edit: I also feel that, while the point of comparison makes for an analogy that's easier to wrap ones head around, the direct comparison between gaming and one of the largest religions in the world isn't a helpful one, and in fact helps blow the discussion up to unwieldy, unhelpful proportions. Same with equating your choice of leisure hobby to skin tone, or sexual orientation.

 

[Gestault]

I've been banging this drum for years on end and the results and reactions to this aren't actually encouraging. I'm a bit pessimistic with this, but I'm not saying that we shouldn't do what you're suggesting, but that I don't expect something significant from the people who constantly deny there even being an issue (and thereby hurt the victims who are speaking up about their legitimate experiences).

If it makes you feel any better, the prominence of these situations has ended up making it easier to have this conversation with people who previously would have considered themselves outsiders to feminism, even within gaming. People are comprehending the premise, even if they disagree with it now. That plants "seeds." That puts the question in people's minds when they see events moving forward.

I think this is an almost necessary step. OVERreactions from those at the heart of the problem only weaken their position of acceptance in any community. When that forces self-reflection, the next steps are much more personal, and certainly not immediate. You can't expect to see those moments, but we have reason to believe it will happen with good ideas and good people.

 

[SkeptiMism]

Hey look, another reason to ignore everything that comes out of the "gaming community" and just play and appreciate games created by people doing something constructive and worthwhile. So sick of this shit.

Wait. Do you mean that it's shit that the person ignores everything that comes out the "gaming community" and just plays and appreciates games, or do you mean it's shit that people can't just play and appreciate games?

A serious question. I originally interpreted it as the latter, but reading it again and again I'm not sure.

I sincerely hope it's not the latter, because people should absolutely criticize things if they feel like it. But I'd like to hear from you either way.
edit: I'll also add that talking about the issues obviously doesn't prevent your capability of playing and appreciating games.

I stopped watching after he said he was a "white cis male".

Could you please elaborate on that? Why would that stop you?

You may be looking too much into this.

How so? I'd honestly say he's pretty much spot on.

 

[Tigress]

No, this doesn't make sense.

I'm a Muslim, and I see where he's coming from. Just because I'm Muslim or not doesn't give me any extra standing when I condemn ISIS' actions, because I'm not condemning them from a religious point of view, but from a personal point of view. From their eyes, I wouldn't even be considered Muslim.

Second, it's not my job, nor has it ever been, to dispel people's notions of what Muslims are. If you can't differentiate between different individuals or subgroups within a larger heading, I'm gonna call you out on it.

Third if you're opening up a line of discussion with someone you know is Muslim and straight up saying "I wish Muslims would stop beheading people." you deserve literally no sympathy from the verbal bashing you're about to receive.

And I feel you are using a different example.

I'm talking about when there is a topic about sexist attitudes in gaming and some one saying there is a problem in the gaming community with sexist attitudes. And people diverting the topic to "Quit accusing me!" Which sorry, usually is purposely done to divert the topic to something different.

You're talking about some one specifically coming up to you, knowing you are muslim, and saying, "Muslims should quit beheading people".

And yes, if you want people to think you don't condone it, then yes, you have to not condone it! Duh!

You don't change attitudes by saying nothing and letting them think that at best you just don't care. Sorry. World sux, people suck and can be judgemental and have stereotypes of people. And really, the best way to change their mind is show them an example, not just berate them and put them on the defensive (whether you are in the right or not). People on the defensive are far less likely to listen to you.

As a sport bike rider (or used to be) I tried to change the image by being a respectful rider on the road and not acting like a hooligan. And yes, I did condemn the riders who did act like that. BEcause, well, I thought they were wrong. And yes, I did think they were giving the rest of us a bad image. I'm not going to change that by ignoring the idiot riders and saying nothing and only bitching if some one accuses me of being like them that I'm not.

(and yes, I realize Muslim is a large generalization, so is Christian. As I said before, I'm not trying to accuse muslims or christians of anything, just trying to set up a scenario that hopefully could get you to see more what I was talking about).

 

[FF Seraphim]

No, it shouldn't have. But it does happen. Instead of just diverting the conversation why not show an example of some one who is not like that? It doesn't trivialize the problem, it doesn't divert the discussion away from the problem, and it still shows an example of how not all are like that.

Not to mention, when some one says, "This is a problem within this community" they aren't lumping everyone in it!!! Saying a community has a problem with something isn't saying everyone in the community is like that. But some one has to take offense and think they are accusing them directly just cause they happen to be of that community. And honestly, usually it's a diversion tactic to move the topic away.

Maybe if you don't think it is a problem, then argue that it is not a problem and make your argument there (it's a small minority but they are very loud). But saying you aren't like that and accusing the person of saying everyone is like that is not contributing to the discussion, it's just diverting it.

I may be reading this wrong, but I do not think you fully understand my issue on the matter. A person who doesn't want to be involved or wishes to not be involved in the situation should not have to defend themselves or make a comment that shows they are distancing themselves from the extremist in the community at all.

Now if we are talking about pro-active people, then I totally agree, they want to be in the forefront so we should let them.

But we shouldn't belittle a person because they are part a wider community and just want to enjoy themselves. It isn't pleasant but we must come to the reality that not everyone cares about pushing the issue of the time they just want to be left alone.

 

[Tigress]

I may be reading this wrong, but I do not think you fully understand my issue on the matter. A person who doesn't want to be involved or wishes to not be involved in the situation should not have to defend themselves or make a comment that shows they are distancing themselves from the extremist in the community at all.

Now if we are talking about pro-active people, then I totally agree, they want to be in the forefront so we should let them.

But we shouldn't belittle a person because they are part a wider community and just want to enjoy themselves. It isn't pleasant but we must come to the reality that not everyone cares about pushing the issue of the time they just want to be left alone.

Alright, point taken. But at the same time, they shouldn't be upset if a group they consider they are part of gets a bad reputation if no one speaks out against the element within the group that is giving that group the reputation. If no one is willing to speak out against it, then don't get surprised when the group gets labeled as being bad about that. Because people will notice that not only do they see this vitrol from the group, but that no one within the group is even condemning it and they seem fine with it or at best indifferent to it (which doesn't look all that much better honestly).

I mean if you aren't willing to do anything about it, then why should you be upset when it gets a bad reputation and you did nothing to stop that? Obviously you don't care about the reputation if you're not willing to do anything about it.

 

[JackDT]

I think (and the previous times I've gotten involved in this discussion, I've been pretty vocal on this aspect of it) there's context that shouldn't be forgotten: We're dealing with a community that's been, over the course of a few decades, TRAINED to circle the wagons against any press that is critical of the hobby. And often, that wagon-circling was to the good, because they were defending the hobby from frivolous accusations that tied all manner of criminal activity to their pastime. There are literally decades of the sort of witch-hunt politcal maneuvering that other forms of media had to withstand in their infancies that people who identify as gamers have gone through if they've been part of this hobby for longer than a few years.

It got to this because people in the community, those who have self-selected to be voices of that community (and they have to self-select, there's no real committee that could appoint this shit) had to place value judgments on what to speak up for, and what to backburner. And for the longest time, it was more important to defend the label against accusations of societal harm than it was to tend to misogynist/racist/homophobic members of the community participating in mean-spirited, abusive actions on a quieter, more accepted level.

And now we're at a point where that value judgment is coming into play, and everything that was absolutely right, every instinct that was completely rewarded before when it seemed outside sources were trying to cripple the community, is now inverted - because the outside forces aren't really outside. They're inside. And the behavior they're decrying is also coming from inside, not outside. And deciding to defend the label over tending to those problematic members of the community isn't the obvious choice anymore.

So you have a situation where large groups of people are wondering why they're being looked at sideways when they decide it's more important to fight for the honor of the label "Gamers" instead of fighting for their fellow gamers who have been enduring years of abuse from other gamers, as we adhere to the shrugging modus operandi that tolerates abuse and assumes that since you can't eradicate it completely there's no purpose in attempting to tackle it head-on when confronted with it in your circle of friends or on whatever server you're using.

edit: I also feel that, while the point of comparison makes for an analogy that's easier to wrap ones head around, the direct comparison between gaming and one of the largest religions in the world isn't a helpful one, and in fact helps blow the discussion up to unwieldy, unhelpful proportions. Same with equating your choice of leisure hobby to skin tone, or sexual orientation.

Well put. I have a reflexive defensive urge even now, if I read something negative about games in general.

 

[Sakwoff]

I think (and the previous times I've gotten involved in this discussion, I've been pretty vocal on this aspect of it) there's context that shouldn't be forgotten: We're dealing with a community that's been, over the course of a few decades, TRAINED to circle the wagons against any press that is critical of the hobby. And often, that wagon-circling was to the good, because they were defending the hobby from frivolous accusations that tied all manner of criminal activity to their pastime. There are literally decades of the sort of witch-hunt politcal maneuvering that other forms of media had to withstand in their infancies that people who identify as gamers have gone through if they've been part of this hobby for longer than a few years.

It got to this because people in the community, those who have self-selected to be voices of that community (and they have to self-select, there's no real committee that could appoint this shit) had to place value judgments on what to speak up for, and what to backburner. And for the longest time, it was more important to defend the label against accusations of societal harm than it was to tend to misogynist/racist/homophobic members of the community participating in mean-spirited, abusive actions on a quieter, more accepted level.

And now we're at a point where that value judgment is coming into play, and everything that was absolutely right, every instinct that was completely rewarded before when it seemed outside sources were trying to cripple the community, is now inverted - because the outside forces aren't really outside. They're inside. And the behavior they're decrying is also coming from inside, not outside. And deciding to defend the label over tending to those problematic members of the community isn't the obvious choice anymore.

So you have a situation where large groups of people are wondering why they're being looked at sideways when they decide it's more important to fight for the honor of the label "Gamers" instead of fighting for their fellow gamers who have been enduring years of abuse from other gamers, as we adhere to the shrugging modus operandi that tolerates abuse and assumes that since you can't eradicate it completely there's no purpose in attempting to tackle it head-on when confronted with it in your circle of friends or on whatever server you're using.

edit: I also feel that, while the point of comparison makes for an analogy that's easier to wrap ones head around, the direct comparison between gaming and one of the largest religions in the world isn't a helpful one, and in fact helps blow the discussion up to unwieldy, unhelpful proportions. Same with equating your choice of leisure hobby to skin tone, or sexual orientation.

I don't know if it has been linked before, but there's a really excellent post by Liz Ryerson on exactly this issue: http://ellaguro.blogspot.ca/2014/09/on-gamers-and-identity.html?m=1

 

[unbias]

I genuinely think they're a small minority, if not a handful. It's just that we (the ones basically not taking part in this) are not visible at all.

You are probably right... However, according to this study here is the problem:

- Journalism is the only category where women received more abuse than men, with female journalists and TV news presenters receiving roughly three times as much abuse as their male counterparts.

Celebrities(according to this study) gets a higher % of abusive tweets, Journalists are arguably the game industries celebrities. This puts a disproportionate amount of anger on female journalists in gaming, because they fit both the highest amount of people who get abuse, and also the category of women who get more abuse then men.

So actually, ya, it is a problem with the game industry. And to me it is because they are the closest thing gamers have to celebrities. The fix to this? I dont know, but based on these findings, it makes sense that there is a perception of a higher % of misogynists on twitter in regards to the community.

 

[plagiarize]

I may be reading this wrong, but I do not think you fully understand my issue on the matter. A person who doesn't want to be involved or wishes to not be involved in the situation should not have to defend themselves or make a comment that shows they are distancing themselves from the extremist in the community at all.

Now if we are talking about pro-active people, then I totally agree, they want to be in the forefront so we should let them.

But we shouldn't belittle a person because they are part a wider community and just want to enjoy themselves. It isn't pleasant but we must come to the reality that not everyone cares about pushing the issue of the time they just want to be left alone.

I get that some people want to just be left alone, but I don't have to respect their desires to be left alone, not if I think they are contributing to an issue.

I know that's going to get characterized as 'you're either with us or against us' as if I'd outright call someone turning a blind eye to all this as bad as a bigot, when clearly they aren't...

But I'm going to bother them enough to make sure they understand that by following their own desires they may actually be working against solving an issue.

You can't just absolve yourself from all responsibility just because you don't want to hear about the problem.

 

[John Rabbit]

But I'm going to bother them enough to make sure they understand that by following their own desires they may actually be working against solving an issue.

so rather than work on promoting a solution to the actual problem, you're just going to finger-point at everyone else and shame them?

sounds like a great use of time and energy.

 

[YoYo Switch]

I'm a game head

 

[RM8]

You are probably right in the abstract that there are people who don't follow games discussions at all. But the thing kind of knocked me out of the moderate camp on this was seeing things hit #1 on reddit games. Because it's maybe the most mainstream gaming discussion place I think of -- and then reading through 2500+ comments and not being able to find a single dissenting opinion that wasn't invisible. With top voted comments simply assuming that of course, Anita faked her death threats, we know that's what they always do. That this is the majority sentiment, the vast majority, among people who enjoy talking games online is what made me realize it's not a 'small majority'.

A quick look at /r/shitredditsays makes it clear it's not a gamer thing, but a "there are a ton of jerks out there" thing. Which can make you feel good and bad at the same time, I guess :/

 

[staticneuron]

I get that some people want to just be left alone, but I don't have to respect their desires to be left alone, not if I think they are contributing to an issue.

I know that's going to get characterized as 'you're either with us or against us' as if I'd outright call someone turning a blind eye to all this as bad as a bigot, when clearly they aren't...

But I'm going to bother them enough to make sure they understand that by following their own desires they may actually be working against solving an issue.

You can't just absolve yourself from all responsibility just because you don't want to hear about the problem.

And this is where people forget that gaming is a hobby and some people that participate in the community is simply not as involved as others are. They have their own concerns and life issues. Pushing for them to get involved and being hostile about it is just as negative as those who push a bigoted view. Both behaviors are divisive and may cause less people get interested in the gaming community thanks to the acts of a few.

 

[ab.aeterno]

When people talk about the Civil Rights movement they prominently point to MLK and Lyndon B. Johnson... I am sure they were very civil in the their approach.
When people talk about Gay Rights movement they know the courts will be on their side in the end, and point to the crazy hateful people showing they are wrong.

I am not going try to stop anyone from voicing their opinion on how they view another person's views, but that is just put yourself on their level and we as a group have to be better than that.

That's... ignoring a lot of history, man. For instance, the modern push for equality and ending homophobia stated with the Stonewall Riots. Civility alone does not accomplish change.

I genuinely think they're a small minority, if not a handful. It's just that we (the ones basically not taking part in this) are not visible at all.

Then get visible when harassment occurs.

I'd also dispute that it's a handful. Either I'm somehow running into the same few people everywhere or, more likely, there's a sizable contingent of people that feel fine dropping slurs.

 

[SparkPeople]

And I feel you are using a different example.

I'm talking about when there is a topic about sexist attitudes in gaming and some one saying there is a problem in the gaming community with sexist attitudes. And people diverting the topic to "Quit accusing me!" Which sorry, usually is purposely done to divert the topic to something different.

You're talking about some one specifically coming up to you, knowing you are muslim, and saying, "Muslims should quit beheading people".

And yes, if you want people to think you don't condone it, then yes, you have to not condone it! Duh!

You don't change attitudes by saying nothing and letting them think that at best you just don't care. Sorry. World sux, people suck and can be judgemental and have stereotypes of people. And really, the best way to change their mind is show them an example, not just berate them and put them on the defensive (whether you are in the right or not). People on the defensive are far less likely to listen to you.

As a sport bike rider (or used to be) I tried to change the image by being a respectful rider on the road and not acting like a hooligan. And yes, I did condemn the riders who did act like that. BEcause, well, I thought they were wrong. And yes, I did think they were giving the rest of us a bad image. I'm not going to change that by ignoring the idiot riders and saying nothing and only bitching if some one accuses me of being like them that I'm not.

(and yes, I realize Muslim is a large generalization, so is Christian. As I said before, I'm not trying to accuse muslims or christians of anything, just trying to set up a scenario that hopefully could get you to see more what I was talking about).

No, the problem lies with you. If you're assuming the worst of everyone, then your pessimism is your problem, not mine. I shouldn't have to prove that I'm "one of the good ones" because you generalize everyone. That problem lies squarely with you, and you alone.

And people saying "quit accusing me" aren't diverting the topic because they're trying to hard the dark and gruesome truth from you, it's because they're not part of that sub-demographic you have a problem with. They don't want to be the spokesperson for someone they disagree with.

And this is where people forget that gaming is a hobby and some people that participate in the community is simply not as involved as others are. They have their own concerns and life issues. Pushing for them to get involved and being hostile about it is just as negative as those who push a bigoted view. Both behaviors are divisive and may cause less people get interested in the gaming community thanks to the acts of a few.

This is specifically it.

I'm a gamer when I sit down and play a game, and when I post on neogaf. I'm not a gamer 24/7, and games aren't my main concern in life. Asking me to step into an issue that I may have no stake in is asking me to dedicate time and energy into a cause I didn't take up. I'm more than likely to refuse because in the end it doesn't matter to me.

 

[FF Seraphim]

I get that some people want to just be left alone, but I don't have to respect their desires to be left alone, not if I think they are contributing to an issue.

I know that's going to get characterized as 'you're either with us or against us' as if I'd outright call someone turning a blind eye to all this as bad as a bigot, when clearly they aren't...

But I'm going to bother them enough to make sure they understand that by following their own desires they may actually be working against solving an issue.

You can't just absolve yourself from all responsibility just because you don't want to hear about the problem.

Well there is a difference between seeing a problem and turning a blind eye to it and honestly believing the issue itself is over their head and just will stay silent on it. One one side you have a person who is doing an ethical injustice, on the other you have someone who clearly needs a person to explain to them what is going on.
Hateful words and forcing the person who doesn't fully understand whats going to defend or pick a side themselves doesn't help the equality movement. For instance if a person asked a question pertaining to the issue, it isn't wise to leave a witty/snide remark as a reply if you do not know rather they are just trying to insult or genuinely asking.
However, you and I have very different views on how to approach people on social behavior so we may not see eye to eye on this matter.

 

[spwolf]

Okay. Thank you for taking the time to strip the hyperbole from your post so that it is now something I can actually wrap my head around. That isn't a sarcastic show of thanks either. The view you were attributing to me is so far from my actual view that I had zero idea how to even begin to respond.


I have no issue with the moderation here on NeoGAF. Still, people feel comfortable enough to spew some pretty vile shit here that I don't see on some of the other communities I take part in online (even if they got banned for it). Can we do something to make them less comfortable in this community? I think we can and I think it would make gaming community a better place. The mods do what they can to keep discussion on track. They ban plenty of bigots in these discussions, and yet every thread on the topic brings in new bigots.

Heck it's to the point where they've had to enforce *tighter* rules and moderation on any threads specifically about one of Anita's videos so that actual discussion about the video and the points it has raised can take place, rather than plummeting into take 1000 of all the side discussions that would come up every time her name was even mentioned, all of which intentionally or not just distract from any actual issues she identifies.


As I've been saying, by criticizing them without kid gloves, and when and if they have broken the rules or terms of use of whatever online service they are using, reporting them for doing so.

In my experience you don't get very far at all reasoning with bigots. You discourage people from being openly bigoted, and socially condemn bigotry then the next generation will grow up less bigoted. We've seen this time and again over the last few generations. Eventually the old ideas fade away, but you have to actively make that happen.


I do not think gaming has the most open bigotry of any community. But I see communities that are more welcoming to women and minorities than gaming and do not see 'other communities are the same or worse' as any justification for not trying to help gaming become as welcoming a community as the ones currently better than it.

No gulags. No bigotry tests for PS4. No lifetime bans based on poll results.

Thank you again for giving me the chance to discuss my actual opinions with you, in a way that even if I can't get you to agree with any of them, at least you will hopefully stop thinking I'm espousing some doomsday round a bunch of people up and throw them in a gulag scenario thing.

You really are not expressing your views properly or maybe your opinion is not fully developed yet.

Banning on Neogaf is the ultimate end. There is nothing else worse you can do to a community member - other than sending them to gulag and/or their PS4 being banned.

How is ban not enough? They are completely removed from community. It is deletion of their virtual presence completely.

If you have issues with moderation on Neogaf, thats another thing... usually it is pretty damn strict and heavy handed (as it should be).

So, that is the way of removing bigots from our community. There is no need for generalization and shaming general gaming population.

We also seem to agree that bigotry is problem in society, even if it is hard for you to get there. Obviously same person who devalues women in gaming, will do the same in movies or tv shows or their work place. This goes for any kind of discrimination - based on ethnicity, race, or anything else.


Working on having more women leads, more minority leads in gaming is worthy goal, as it is in movies and tv shows. Except for some specific TV shows, Movie and TV industry is not there yet. Gaming has far greater diversification than the Movies do. Women characterization in these movies and tv shows is stereotypical and sexist - as can be expected, because as we said above, same people who buy games also watch movies and tv shows.

To date, movie industry has great gender based pay differences. This is a huge issue that dont exists in gaming or software industry, at least nowhere at that point.

So I (and I think all of us here) can agree completely with trying to get more women and more minorities into gaming, this is a great cause that many will support. On the other hand, labeling "gaming community" as "bigot" because someone wrote something on twitter is simply wrong from all points. I think Neogaf as a community is one of the better places on the internet, which does not allow any for any open discrimination and we here can not be responsible for what someone claims on twitter.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

I don't know if it has been linked before, but there's a really excellent post by Liz Ryerson on exactly this issue: http://ellaguro.blogspot.ca/2014/09/on-gamers-and-identity.html?m=1

I hadn't seen that before. Thanks for sharing that. REALLY good stuff in there.

 

[plagiarize]

so rather than work on promoting a solution to the actual problem, you're just going to finger-point at everyone else and shame them?

sounds like a great use of time and energy.

Again I have no idea where you guys are getting these opinions from, because they aren't what I'm posting.

No John that isn't what I'm saying at all. I just don't think I have to respect someone's desire to be left alone if I think their inaction is contributing to the problem.

And what was it I said I would do to such people?

Was it 'make sure they understand that by following their own desires they may actually be working against solving an issue.'?

It was, wasn't it.

Not sure how you extract 'finger pointing and shaming instead of trying to fix the problem' from that.

And staticneuron, I'm not sure how that's being hostile either. I'm talking about taking someone's fingers out of their ears for a moment, to make sure they understand they might be contributing to a real problem.

 

[Felix Lighter]

I think (and the previous times I've gotten involved in this discussion, I've been pretty vocal on this aspect of it) there's context that shouldn't be forgotten: We're dealing with a community that's been, over the course of a few decades, TRAINED to circle the wagons against any press that is critical of the hobby. And often, that wagon-circling was to the good, because they were defending the hobby from frivolous accusations that tied all manner of criminal activity to their pastime. There are literally decades of the sort of witch-hunt politcal maneuvering that other forms of media had to withstand in their infancies that people who identify as gamers have gone through if they've been part of this hobby for longer than a few years.

It got to this because people in the community, those who have self-selected to be voices of that community (and they have to self-select, there's no real committee that could appoint this shit) had to place value judgments on what to speak up for, and what to backburner. And for the longest time, it was more important to defend the label against accusations of societal harm than it was to tend to misogynist/racist/homophobic members of the community participating in mean-spirited, abusive actions on a quieter, more accepted level.

And now we're at a point where that value judgment is coming into play, and everything that was absolutely right, every instinct that was completely rewarded before when it seemed outside sources were trying to cripple the community, is now inverted - because the outside forces aren't really outside. They're inside. And the behavior they're decrying is also coming from inside, not outside. And deciding to defend the label over tending to those problematic members of the community isn't the obvious choice anymore.

So you have a situation where large groups of people are wondering why they're being looked at sideways when they decide it's more important to fight for the honor of the label "Gamers" instead of fighting for their fellow gamers who have been enduring years of abuse from other gamers, as we adhere to the shrugging modus operandi that tolerates abuse and assumes that since you can't eradicate it completely there's no purpose in attempting to tackle it head-on when confronted with it in your circle of friends or on whatever server you're using.

edit: I also feel that, while the point of comparison makes for an analogy that's easier to wrap ones head around, the direct comparison between gaming and one of the largest religions in the world isn't a helpful one, and in fact helps blow the discussion up to unwieldy, unhelpful proportions. Same with equating your choice of leisure hobby to skin tone, or sexual orientation.

That would explain some things for me. I was shocked by the way these scenarios have played out and my perspective on the community has definitely changed for the worse, though hopefully once the dust settles and the initial knee jerk reaction dies down maybe the community can become a bit more self-reflective. Now that the hobby is totally mainstream, the natural reaction to criticism won't be so much defensiveness.

 

[SparkPeople]

And staticneuron, I'm not sure how that's being hostile either. I'm talking about taking someone's fingers out of their ears for a moment, to make sure they understand they might be contributing to a real problem.

Their reply will always be a variation of "make me care about this problem."

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

Alexander's article (and others) attacking the word "gamers" miss the point. The point is not that "gamers" are all terrible human beings. the point is that "gamers" includes a subset of terrible human beings, who are often given passive cover by a much larger group that identify as "gamers".

Passive cover involves anything from ignoring them when they're online being misogynist, racist, douchebags to attempting to redirect every inclusion thread into a thread about themselves. Both of these are behaviors we see regularly on GAF. Multiple people in this very thread have said, "It's not my problem."

Well, yes it is if you take issue with the culture at large thinking we're all giant douchebags. All movements and groups contain offensive elements. How we deal with those elements often shows us what sort of group we're looking at. Do we embrace them? Do we pretend they aren't there, because it makes us uncomfortable to be associated with them? Do we call them out when they step outside the line?

Part of culture is creating acceptable social mores for groups. It's not that gamers are all terrible people -- I clearly don't believe that, given I've been a gamer for 35 years, moderate a gaming board, and have a ton of gamer friends -- it's that gamers don't do anything about the terrible people in their community, which makes it appear to outsiders that we approve.

A gedankenexperiment: On GAF, if someone starts a thread about how all Asian people are actually fifth columnists from China, what would you expect? If moderators left it up and no one got banned, what conclusion would you draw about GAF and the moderators? Many people would draw the conclusion that either we agree with the thread maker, or at least we don't find anything wrong with what he's saying, otherwise we would act upon it.

And that's what's happening here. Gamers's unwillingness to stand up to the extremists within their community makes it appear to people that we approve, or at least don't disapprove, of their actions. It allows shitbags to use the rest of us for cover. I'm not sure why so many people are upset about Alexander's attack on gamers, when the attacks of these people, the ones who threaten to kill in our names, are often ignored, or treated as the price of being involved in the industry.

When gamers routinely shut down these dickholes, gamers will start to be seen as something other than these dillholes. When someone's wife can get online to play a game without someone calling her a slut, or a whore, or weirdly a nigger or faggot, then people outside the industry may stop seeing gamers as misogynistic, racist, scum.

I hope people understand and act on this, rather than allowing themselves to get their feelings hurt over some journalists that swung too wide.

An effective enunciation of the "groups should take responsibility for their extremists" stance. But would you really make these same arguments for other groups? We've already discussed Muslims and African Americans in this thread, but they're both relevant examples: do rank-and-file Muslims really have a responsibility to condemn terrorism? Do black people have a responsibility to condemn black-on-black crime whenever they talk about police brutality? Do feminists have a responsibility to condemn the tiny minority of genuine crazies in their movement in order for the rest of society to stop tarring them with the same brush? Do Marxist professors have to hasten to assure their interlocutors that they're not fans of Stalin? Does every conservative really need to prove to you that he's not homophobic or racist whenever he opens his mouth? Do Americans traveling abroad need to assure everyone that they in fact loathe the warlike actions of their government (keep in mind that the US government is by definition more representative of the average American than some lowlives on 4chan are of the average gamer). Is everyone responsible for soothing all the misconceptions anyone might have about a group they belong to?

I don't like this principle being applied to gamers because I don't like it being applied to anyone. No one has a responsibility to publicly disassociate themselves from extremists whom they happen to share a group identity with. That should not be an expectation of or an obligation on anyone. We are not culpable for the misdeeds of fellow members of our identity groups by the simple fact of self-identifying in the same way as they do.

We are responsible for policing our social groups. If one of my friends makes a racist comment I should call him out for it. But we have no responsibility to police our identity groups, except when the two overlap.

 

[FF Seraphim]

That's... ignoring a lot of history, man. For instance, the modern push for equality and ending homophobia stated with the Stonewall Riots. Civility alone does not accomplish change.

I was just pointing out who people remember more when talking about Civil Rights. How many people do you know talk about the Stonewall Riots when talking about Gay Marriage? This is just anecdotal evidence but my sister is part of the gay community and one of my best friends runs a gay bar where I live. When we discuss Gay Marriage we mostly talk about how pushing it through the courts is the right way to go and evidentually one day in the South it will be legal. But we all acknowledge that it takes a lot of time for this social agendas to change, and you get more done in the long term being civil than being antagonistic.

Of course I will agree, sometimes action is needed but only after exhausting all other options.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

You can't just absolve yourself from all responsibility just because you don't want to hear about the problem.

OK. I have to admit that I find this a little too black and white. Make no mistake, there are plenty of people who are using "I just want to play games and have fun" as a disingenuous technique to shut down conversation when people raise concerns. In that regard, that kind of attitude can be detrimental to conversation, but not because it's bad in and of itself but more so because it's often disingenuous.

But for people who are actually ignoring the social justice conversation because it's just not what they're here for (i.e. "I have a limited amount of free time and I like to play games and talk about playing games"), I don't think it's fair to point a finger at them for fence-sitting. I think it's perfectly fine to shrug an ambivalent shoulder to a topic about female protagonists in Assassins Creed and focus on talking about how fun Unity looks so long as you're not deriding the people who do care in the process.

Honestly, for people that claim to just want to kick their feet up and enjoy this hobby, I want them to avoid the conversation. Because if they did, the controversy wouldn't be as pervasive as it is. There's a lot of people out there right now that are fired up that are being fueled by a whole lot of nonsense, and as such I don't think a call to arms is helping the situation.

And just to be clear, I think that people that care about social justice topics should absolutely continue to talk about social justice topics.

 

[plagiarize]

You really are not expressing your views properly or maybe your opinion is not fully developed yet.

Or maybe your reading comprehension isn't up to snuff. That's another possibility.

Banning on Neogaf is the ultimate end. There is nothing else worse you can do to a community member - other than sending them to gulag and/or their PS4 being banned.

I... I mean... do you really think this? I can think of way worse things than being banned from NeoGAF. Hell, I can think of way worse things than having my PS4 get banned too.

How is ban not enough? They are completely removed from community. It is deletion of their virtual presence completely.

If you have issues with moderation on Neogaf, thats another thing... usually it is pretty damn strict and heavy handed (as it should be).

I don't have issues with the moderation. I don't see how I can put it any more plainly than that.

So, that is the way of removing bigots from our community. There is no need for generalization and shaming general gaming population.

I am not shaming the general gaming population. I am asking the general gaming population to openly criticize bigotry and to report the user if the behavior in question is outside of the rules of the service.

We also seem to agree that bigotry is problem in society, even if it is hard for you to get there. Obviously same person who devalues women in gaming, will do the same in movies or tv shows or their work place. This goes for any kind of discrimination - based on ethnicity, race, or anything else.

Working on having more women leads, more minority leads in gaming is worthy goal, as it is in movies and tv shows. Except for some specific TV shows, Movie and TV industry is not there yet. Gaming has far greater diversification than the Movies do. Women characterization in these movies and tv shows is stereotypical and sexist - as can be expected, because as we said above, same people who buy games also watch movies and tv shows.

To date, movie industry has great gender based pay differences. This is a huge issue that dont exists in gaming or software industry, at least nowhere at that point.

So I (and I think all of us here) can agree completely with trying to get more women and more minorities into gaming, this is a great cause that many will support. On the other hand, labeling "gaming community" as "bigot" because someone wrote something on twitter is simply wrong from all points. I think Neogaf as a community is one of the better places on the internet, which does not allow any for any open discrimination and we here can not be responsible for what someone claims on twitter.

I do not think anything is 'there' yet. But some things are closer than gaming, and that shows us that gaming can absolutely be doing better.

I want to see things *continue* to improve. 'There' is a long way away. But that's no reason not to try and move gaming specifically in a more positive direction when I see it falling behind other things which are *closer* to there.

A bigot, as you rightly highlight, is a bigot is a bigot. So how do you explain why bigots seem more at home in some communities than others? Or why do you think bigots feel they can more freely express their opinions in some communities than others?

The answer is in how that specific community responds to bigotry... and gaming could be responding to bigotry a lot better.

I am having a very hard time understanding how these views are anything approaching extreme.

 

[RM8]

Then get visible when harassment occurs.

I'd also dispute that it's a handful. Either I'm somehow running into the same few people everywhere or, more likely, there's a sizable contingent of people that feel fine dropping slurs.

Genuine question, how do I make myself visible? I really don't have the time or desire to fight trolls on Reddit or gaming boards. It a thread arises and I have something to say, I do it, but that still makes me virtually invisible compared to the bullies. I turn my mic off in the only game I play that features voice chat (USFIV), sometimes angry people will insult me but being totally honest it simply amuses me (maybe as a result of it not happening a lot) and I ignore it or respond with snarky text messages.

Also, handful might not be the correct term, but I do think they're a small minority compared to the entire gamer population. There are a lot of us, so this minority is not insignificant

 

[Rats Off To Ya]

Alexander's article (and others) attacking the word "gamers" miss the point. The point is not that "gamers" are all terrible human beings. the point is that "gamers" includes a subset of terrible human beings, who are often given passive cover by a much larger group that identify as "gamers".

Passive cover involves anything from ignoring them when they're online being misogynist, racist, douchebags to attempting to redirect every inclusion thread into a thread about themselves. Both of these are behaviors we see regularly on GAF. Multiple people in this very thread have said, "It's not my problem."

Well, yes it is if you take issue with the culture at large thinking we're all giant douchebags. All movements and groups contain offensive elements. How we deal with those elements often shows us what sort of group we're looking at. Do we embrace them? Do we pretend they aren't there, because it makes us uncomfortable to be associated with them? Do we call them out when they step outside the line?

Part of culture is creating acceptable social mores for groups. It's not that gamers are all terrible people -- I clearly don't believe that, given I've been a gamer for 35 years, moderate a gaming board, and have a ton of gamer friends -- it's that gamers don't do anything about the terrible people in their community, which makes it appear to outsiders that we approve.

A gedankenexperiment: On GAF, if someone starts a thread about how all Asian people are actually fifth columnists from China, what would you expect? If moderators left it up and no one got banned, what conclusion would you draw about GAF and the moderators? Many people would draw the conclusion that either we agree with the thread maker, or at least we don't find anything wrong with what he's saying, otherwise we would act upon it.

And that's what's happening here. Gamers's unwillingness to stand up to the extremists within their community makes it appear to people that we approve, or at least don't disapprove, of their actions. It allows shitbags to use the rest of us for cover. I'm not sure why so many people are upset about Alexander's attack on gamers, when the attacks of these people, the ones who threaten to kill in our names, are often ignored, or treated as the price of being involved in the industry.

When gamers routinely shut down these dickholes, gamers will start to be seen as something other than these dillholes. When someone's wife can get online to play a game without someone calling her a slut, or a whore, or weirdly a nigger or faggot, then people outside the industry may stop seeing gamers as misogynistic, racist, scum.

I hope people understand and act on this, rather than allowing themselves to get their feelings hurt over some journalists that swung too wide.

Great post, and it's taken me a little too long to come around to this position. I was initially offended by Alexander's piece. I still think much of her prose was needlessly hostile and perhaps cast too wide a net. But her premise is sound. We've allowed this shit to go on for far too long. We joke about the online gaming community being composed of irredeemable assholes but we don't do anything about it. I realized that my perspective on this issue was colored by the fact that I've deliberately removed myself from places where the unseemly attitudes propagate. I forgot how bad it is. I come to NeoGAF because this community is one of the few that actively seeks to raise the level of discourse. If only all communities did the same.

 

[plagiarize]

OK. I have to admit that I find this a little too black and white. Make no mistake, there are plenty of people who are using "I just want to play games and have fun" as a disingenuous technique to shut down conversation when people raise concerns. In that regard, that kind of attitude can be detrimental to conversation, but not because it's bad in and of itself but more so because it's often disingenuous.

But for people who are actually ignoring the social justice conversation because it's just not what they're here for (i.e. "I have a limited amount of free time and I like to play games and talk about playing games"), I don't think it's fair to point a finger at them for fence-sitting. I think it's perfectly fine to shrug an ambivalent shoulder to a topic about female protagonists in Assassins Creed and focus on talking about how fun Unity looks so long as you're not deriding the people who do care in the process.

Honestly, for people that claim to just want to kick their feet up and enjoy this hobby, I want them to avoid the conversation. Because if they did, the controversy wouldn't be as pervasive as it is. There's a lot of people out there right now that are fired up that are being fueled by a whole lot of nonsense, and as such I don't think a call to arms is helping the situation.

And just to be clear, I think that people that care about social justice topics should absolutely continue to talk about social justice topics.

'You can't just absolve yourself from all responsibility' wasn't meant to infer anything approaching a high level of responsibility. Obviously if you didn't get that, I didn't phrase it well enough, so to anyone who jumped on this as if I was being a radical, I apologize for not phrasing my opinion well enough.

It was a response to someone that I thought was suggesting that I had to respect people's desires to not get involved in this discussion... and... I don't have to respect that at all. I mean, I don't jump into other topics and tell people they should be over here talking about this, or that they shouldn't care about the shit they care about...

but someone's desire to be left alone isn't an over riding thing that I have to feel removes all responsibility from them when there are issues within this group or society at large.

I think they at least have a small responsibility as a member of that community and I think it's fair for me to want to at least tell them what I think their inaction might be doing.

That's it though, it was a response to that single statement that seemed to be inferring that we should respect people's desires to be left out of the debate.

 

[Tigress]

No, the problem lies with you. If you're assuming the worst of everyone, then your pessimism is your problem, not mine. I shouldn't have to prove that I'm "one of the good ones" because you generalize everyone. That problem lies squarely with you, and you alone.

And people saying "quit accusing me" aren't diverting the topic because they're trying to hard the dark and gruesome truth from you, it's because they're not part of that sub-demographic you have a problem with. They don't want to be the spokesperson for someone they disagree with.

I'm not asking them to be a spokesperson. I'm asking them to help me condemn what they supposedly dislike as well.

And I'm not saying people who group all people are excusable.

But think of it this way. If some one is doing that to you, would you like me to just say, "Don't lump me with him." or "It's not my problem cause I'm not the same group as you so whatever." Or would you like me to say, "Hey! Stop that, that's not right! And you are making the rest of (group that I'm part of that you're not) look bad!" and help condemn the person that is doing that?

And yes, it is diverting the topic. We are talking about when some one is talking about sexism in gaming and gamers come back with, "Hey, we're not sexist, quit lumping us together." You're denying there is an issue there and trying to turn the discussion around on the person who is trying to point out there is an issue in gaming. And saying there is an issue in a culture is not accusing everyone in that culture! It's just saying you are seeing there is a large problem within the culture. It's a helluva lot more productive to even say, "We disagree, we don't think there is a large problem. It's a loud minority." At least you are keeping the topic to the discussion at hand, not diverting it to something else.

 

[Oersted]

Banning on Neogaf is the ultimate end.

Permbans on NeoGaf are the end of posting on NeoGaf. Yes. Why are you bringing it up?

There is nothing else worse you can do to a community member - other than sending them to gulag and/or their PS4 being banned.

Are you for real? What in the hell?

How is ban not enough? They are completely removed from community. It is deletion of their virtual presence completely.

These bans are rare and don´t effect other virtual presences of theirs. Again, why are you bringing this up?

So, that is the way of removing bigots from our community. There is no need for generalization and shaming general gaming population.

Who did?

We also seem to agree that bigotry is problem in society, even if it is hard for you to get there. Obviously same person who devalues women in gaming, will do the same in movies or tv shows or their work place. This goes for any kind of discrimination - based on ethnicity, race, or anything else.

We are in the videogame section of a videogames forum. Yes, videogames are discussed here. Make a new thread if you want to draw a bigger picture.

Working on having more women leads, more minority leads in gaming is worthy goal, as it is in movies and tv shows. Except for some specific TV shows, Movie and TV industry is not there yet. Gaming has far greater diversification than the Movies do. Women characterization in these movies and tv shows is stereotypical and sexist - as can be expected, because as we said above, same people who buy games also watch movies and tv shows.

Besides the lack of citation.... why are you bringing this up? Make a thread if you want to discuss sexism in the movie industry.

So I (and I think all of us here) can agree completely with trying to get more women and more minorities into gaming, this is a great cause that many will support. On the other hand, labeling "gaming community" as "bigot" because someone wrote something on twitter is simply wrong from all points. I think Neogaf as a community is one of the better places on the internet, which does not allow any for any open discrimination and we here can not be responsible for what someone claims on twitter.

You seem to be more invested into these "other hands"(redherrings) as in the topic at hand. Correct me if I´m wrong.