Support NeoGAF

[Abelian75]

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.

I'm on the same page, though at the same time I don't know what we could actually do about it. You'd need actual legal action against abusive harassment in order to actually change anything, as far as I can tell.

I mean, if I could throw money at the game industry to get them to be far more aggressive in permanently banning abusive individuals in online games, I'd be all for it. I just don't know what to do.

 

[John Rabbit]

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.

so again, rather than work toward solving the problem, you think it's best to spend your time forcing your ideas and motives on people who have actively decided not to participate. just so we're clear on your intentions and motivations. unless you think the sweeping lack of participation and awareness among those who choose not to engage in the discussion (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter) is really the larger problem over rampant bigotry in the audience and by extension, misogyny in the industry.

and I extract "finger pointing and shaming" from condescending and forceful rhetoric like "bother them" and "make sure". you don't sound like someone attempting to spread awareness through activism, you sound like a parent scolding a child.

furthermore, the patronizing way you ask rhetorical questions to re-assert your opinions isn't constructive or necessary.

 

[JackDT]

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.

Same. I feel like even two weeks ago I would have been personally affronted by Leigh's post about 'gamers' ... but then some threshold was passed, and now the people who have taken upon the mantle of 'gamers' are not me and I don't feel it.

(she'd be more effective if she could lay off the condescension a bit, but sometimes I can't lay off the snark either when things get heated, and I'm not taking a fraction of the shit headed at her. i think being angry is more than justified)

 

[Mononoke]

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.

I do understand where you are coming from with this post. As I said in my past posts, I do not agree with the idea that the gamer label is over, or that people should be shamed for identifying with a label. I don't think that's the right approach, and I think it's actually wrong. But I also feel that people should be more engaged in these issues when so many are effected by this.

 

[SparkPeople]

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?

I don't understand what this means.

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.

I'm not denying an issue, I'm saying that I am not qualified to discuss it because I'm not a spokesperson, nor do I share these views. I'm not about to have a discussion on something I know nothing about.

I'm also not some monolithic entity that's aware of all aspects of any culture, so coming up to me with a random assertion that something is wrong with a culture I identify with, all I can tell is that I'm not part of it or I disagree with it.

You don't seem to understand something: People aren't arbiters of groups that they're part of. They're individuals within that group, that share a common set of views or beliefs. That's it. They can speak about themselves, or their view of the group, but you're asking for complete information no one has. The research is up to you.

 

[Palette Swap]

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.

I might be oversimplifying it but I think there's a fundamental difference between the Muslim example the way you frame it and what is going on here: I don't believe this is about what gamers tell the rest of the world (ie I don't think shouting "we hate misogyny" to every outsider observer would be a great solution).

On the other hand, I do believe that as a community, and by that I mean on forums or during games, we should police ourselves. And by police, I mean we shouldn't let any slurs or bullying slide, we should never turn a blind eye. This is on us.

It's all about the community at large, not the way it interacts with "outsiders". So yes, to actually make the Muslim community example fit, you sure as hell should tell to anyone inside the community who feels any bit of sympathy towards Al Qaeda or ISIS to go fuck themselves as they degrade your community and this isn't who you want to be. This isn't about the outside.

At least, that's my perception of it.

 

[sonicmj1]

Here's the thing that depresses me about trying to make any kind of difference in this conversation:

I agree that the social reactions of a community can shape behavior and discourage bigotry. If your neighbors and friends shame you for using racial slurs, you'll either stop or be shunned. A community sets the standards for acceptable behavior, so the actions of members can change what those standards are for the better.

With the internet, though, it's not necessarily the same as it would be in your town or workplace. If I don't like how threads about Anita are moderated or discussed here at NeoGAF, there are plenty of less-moderated communities with like-minded members I can go to who will complain along with me about stuck-up feminist bitches out to destroy gaming, and then we can all go to a shared, unmoderated space like Twitter and clash with a different community of people. Then, even if those people on Twitter tell me I'm a jerk, they're the problem, not me, because I have an online community that still supports me.

Basically, because I don't think it's possible to root out the safe online spaces for bigotry on the internet, I'm not sure how the harassers can really be shamed without (aided by Twitter's character limits that suffocate all nuance) creating the same kind of escalating rhetoric that created this whole stupid mess about nothing in the first place.

Maybe I'm part of the problem, but I've read way more about this in the last two weeks than I'd like, and the whole thing is just depressing. It'd be easier to push out the bad elements if people realized how much common ground they have, but they're all caught up on semantic crap.

 

[plagiarize]

so again, rather than work toward solving the problem, you think it's best to spend your time forcing your ideas and motives on people who have actively decided not to participate. just so we're clear on your intentions and motivations. unless you think the sweeping lack of participation and awareness among those who choose not to engage in the discussion (for whatever reason, it doesn't matter) is really the larger problem over rampant bigotry in the audience and by extension, misogyny in the industry.

and I extract "finger pointing and shaming" from condescending and forceful rhetoric like "bother them" and "make sure". you don't sound like someone attempting to spread awareness through activism, you sound like a parent scolding a child.

furthermore, the patronizing way you ask rhetorical questions to re-assert your opinions isn't constructive or necessary.

I apologized in my response to Steve to anyone who got the wrong impression from my post, but I have no problems in doing it again for you since you missed it. The fault here is mine for badly conveying what I was trying to say.

When I saw Steve thought I was being irrational, I realized that I must have done a very bad job of phrasing my opinion. Until then I thought something else was going on with your response to it and other people's responses.

The bothering I was referring to was just telling them that I thought they were potentially contributing to a problem. They want to be left alone, so not leaving them alone might be seen as 'bothering' them, but I was only talking about bothering them in that way.

The making sure was the same. I can make sure you are aware of something. By telling you about it. I mean, that's not finger pointing or attacking.

But my post was clearly deficient, and your upset in response to it is completely understandable reading it back. So again, I apologize for how it came across.

I hope my position as laid out in my response to Steve makes it clear where I was coming from, and I hope my other posts in this thread make it *very* clear that I don't see this as a 'rather than going after the people who are the problem'.

I haven't and don't go after people who want to be left out of this discussion. I just don't think their desire to be left out of the discussion is something that has to be respected, and if they keep running into it on their favorite gaming websites or whatever, I have zero empathy for that. But no, I'm not tracking them down and publically shaming them in any way shape or form and I do not advocate that remotely.

I just don't think they get to completely wash their hands of responsibility.

 

[FF Seraphim]

The problem is that, there is a huge portion of people in this gaming community (close to half to be exact), that literally can not enjoy this hobby to the same extent as the other half. Sexual harassment. Death threats. Rape threats. Being looked down on, because their gender isn't accepted as a norm in gaming. And then there is the whole aspect of the games industry in general being VERY poor at making content that has good female representation.

That they can't even voice their opinions without being attacked, is insane. Imagine trying to be a gamer, and not being able to enjoy your hobby the way others get to. That sounds insane. And that, almost half of this industry has to deal with that? Just seems unacceptable to me.

I feel this is moving beyond just an issue with a hobby, and is now a human rights issue. Because if you remove the hobby from this discussion, it's essentially a gender being attacked for their gender. It's a gender being mistreated because of their gender. I do understand that some people just want to play games, and don't care about the social/political aspects that come along with gaming. But at what point to people in general, need to stand up for the rights of other people? Can apathy really be excused? Would those sitting on the side lines during segregation, be fine, because they just didn't want to deal with the injustices others had to suffer? No I'm not saying this is 1:1 the same as the civil rights movement. But I don't think we should look away from it either as not being important. Where is the empathy? Where is the basic human understanding/decency? At what point does someone have to act.

I dunno. Anyways, I do understand where you are coming from with this post. As I said in my past posts, I do not agree with the idea that the gamer label is over, or that people should be shamed for identifying with a label. I don't think that's the right approach, and I think it's actually wrong. But I also feel that people should be more engaged in these issues.

I agree with this mostly. The problem is we cannot nor should we be the ones dictating other people's lives no matter how much we want to prod them into action. That is a choice they have to make themselves. As for the question of empathy and understanding? You do not go on the internet for that, you have to get to the people face to face where cannot hide behind a screen and point out how destructive their behavior is to half the population.
As for developers that is a tricky issue considering you do not want to censor them from making the game they want to make but at the same time they need to push for better progressive changes.

 

[GobFather]

I agree with him, the mainstream media will target us all with the same brush. This generalisation must stop, I'm utterly fed up with my friends suggesting cause I'm a gamer, I must be the stereotypical anti women, anti homosexual, gutting totting fps nut job. Well I'm not I'm an oldie guy with an open mind on everything and I rarely play fps.

.

 

[Mononoke]

I agree with this mostly. The problem is we cannot nor should we be the ones dictating other people's lives no matter how much we want to prod them into action. That is a choice they have to make themselves. As for the question of empathy and understanding? You do not go on the internet for that, you have to get to the people face to face where cannot hide behind a screen and point out how destructive their behavior is to half the population.
As for developers that is a tricky issue considering you do not want to censor them from making the game they want to make but at the same time they need to push for better progressive changes.

Yeah, that is my issue with it too. I don't think you can force someone to care about an issue. You can educate them, and try to get them to understand the issues. I don't think the right way to doing this is to have an Us vs. Them mentality. If you don't agree with my view point, then fuck off etc. The problem is, how do you deal with this when you get attacked for voicing your opinion?

 

[jusufin]

I didn't say what she said wasn't missing the point. I said you're directing your ire and energy in the wrong direction.

Lemme just quote this again, because it's really all there is to say on this particular matter (and worded much better than non-native-me could hope to):

I still think that articles like that only help to hide these kind of people rather than create any real kind of change. When you make generalizations and insult people like that, the only thing you're doing is creating more anger and discouraging interest in your cause. If I were to write an article about eliminating racism in america and in that article say that most white people are racist, I would achieve nothing. If you want to separate the asshats from the gamers, you don’t lump them in together. It only angers people and puts the focus squarely on the writer when it should be about the larger issue at hand. Change happens when good people show injustice to good people, not by inciting anger in the very same people you're trying to recruit.

 

[FF Seraphim]

Yeah, that is my issue with it too. I don't think you can force someone to care about an issue. You can educate them, and try to get them to understand the issues. I don't think the right way to doing this is to have an Us vs. Them mentality. If you don't agree with my view point, then fuck off etc. The problem is, how do you deal with this when you get attacked for voicing your opinion?

This may not be the answer you want, but you need a "voice" that people will not instantly dislike and will listen to instead of brushing it off. It isn't a pleasant solution but it will warm up the people who wouldn't give you the time of day anyway. It shouldn't need to happen this way but it is clear right now small steps need to be taken to get the bigger yields later on.

 

[APF]

Terrorism breeds when the perception of disenfranchisement is paired with a civil power vacuum. Terrorists are most often the enemies of their own people and their own countries, far more than, say, western powers. People within those countries often don't have the ability to speak out or strike back, either out of fear of reprisal or just a lack of agency (see: disenfranchisement); the governments often don't have the power--or sometimes the will--to restrain these elements. If we really want to stretch ourselves, sure we could draw some parallels between gamers as a broad group refusing to deal with trolls "from 4chan" (whatever that actually means) or whatever hole they're crawling out from, but I'm not sure the actual parallels are favorable to gamers begging not to face their own bad elements.

 

[gogosox82]

What a terrible video. Starts out with a strawman and then argues against it the whole time. I've never watched any of this guys videos but from what I understand, this guy is pretty popular so you'd think he'd put more time and effort into thinking about than a badly argued 4 minute video.

 

[unbias]

The problem is that, there is a huge portion of people in this gaming community (close to half to be exact), that literally can not enjoy this hobby to the same extent as the other half. Sexual harassment. Death threats. Rape threats. Being looked down on, because their gender isn't accepted as a norm in gaming. And then there is the whole aspect of the games industry in general being VERY poor at making content that has good female representation.

This is a pretty broad generalization that effects perceptional reality, I think. Do women face a different type of harassment then men? Absolutely, men I would bet also try to use more intimidating tactics on women(this is my guess, I have no study to back this up) and then you have the women who have it good, who attack the women who dont. And on top of that women in the media(any media) gets disproportionately attacked, and on top of that the most attacked people(celebrities) happen to be the exact same people who fit in the female journalist category for games(in my opinion, journalists are the closest thing gamers have to celebrities).

Perception, unfortunately, is the reality that people feel a lot of the time, and I think you see some people be so extreme in how they articulate their argument(gamers, in no context, are bigots), is because they want the perception to clear up, because until that happens, women will feel more ostracized, regardless of "what the facts say".

When the women you look up(in this industry) to are the ones getting most attacked it very much can feel like you don't have a voice, and unfortunately the game industry doesn't have have a healthy framework in place for criticism(almost all of it is unregulated), we rely on youtube, twitch, and twitter for the large majority of content filtering. The problems are so pop culture related it is incredibly hard to separate what is actually happening and what feels like is actually happening, imo.

People need to just realize women in the game press are more harassed then normal, so they most definitely will and arguably should have that perception on the community. The question is how to clean it up, and I dont think it is as simple as "calling everyone out", because I dont think that works. I think moderation is more important then vigilante back and forth, personally, but then again this is pure opinion, since I dont have anything that shows what does in fact work and what doesnt, when it comes to internet trolls. However, people wont just stop using twitter either, so I just dont know what the solution is. Cause if going by the twitter numbers, you either need to reduce journalism harassment in general(since it effects women the most) or reduce celebrity harassment(because they get the most harassment overall).

 

[Mononoke]

This may not be the answer you want, but you need a "voice" that people will not instantly dislike and will listen to instead of brushing it off. It isn't a pleasant solution but it will warm up the people who wouldn't give you the time of day anyway. It shouldn't need to happen this way but it is clear right now small steps need to be taken to get the bigger yields later on.

The thing you have to keep in mind , is that none of this toxicity would exist if women/activist could openly speak their opinions and criticisms without being attacked. This hostility exists purely because a group of people will not tolerate any criticisms of their hobby. Or they don't want certain people in their hobby.

If women/activist could voice their opinions/criticisms without being attacked, then there wouldn't be all this bs. You could agree with them. You could disagree with them. You could be apathetic to it. But it would still allow equal treatment, in that they have the ability to voice criticisms/opinions in the hope that, devs/people in the community might eventually understand their point of view. What we have now is, they are just being cut off (or at least, being relentlessly attacked for doing so).

This is a pretty broad generalization that effects perceptional reality, I think. Do women face a different type of harassment then men? Absolutely, men I would bet also try to use more intimidating tactics on women(this is my guess, I have no study to back this up) and then you have the women who have it good, who attack the women who dont. And on top of that women in the media(any media) gets disproportionately attacked, and on top of that the most attacked people(celebrities) happen to be the exact same people who fit in the female journalist category for games(in my opinion, journalists are the closest thing gamers have to celebrities).

Perception, unfortunately, is the reality that people feel a lot of the time, and I think you see some people be so extreme in how they articulate their argument(gamers, in no context, are bigots), is because they want the perception to clear up, because until that happens, women will feel more ostracized, regardless of "what the facts say".

When the women you look up(in this industry) to are the ones getting most attacked it very much can feel like you don't have a voice, and unfortunately the game industry doesn't have have a healthy framework in place for criticism(almost all of it is unregulated), we rely on youtube, twitch, and twitter for the large majority of content filtering. The problems are so pop culture related it is incredibly hard to separate what is actually happening and what feels like is actually happening, imo.

People need to just realize women in the game press are more harassed then normal, so they most definitely will and arguably should have that perception on the community. The question is how to clean it up, and I dont think it is as simple as "calling everyone out", because I dont think that works. I think moderation is more important then vigilante back and forth, personally, but then again this is pure opinion, since I dont have anything that shows what does in fact work and what doesnt, when it comes to internet trolls. However, people wont just stop using twitter either, so I just dont know what the solution is. Cause if going by the twitter numbers, you either need to reduce journalism harassment in general(since it effects women the most) or reduce celebrity harassment(because they get the most harassment overall).

I can admit this is a generalization, for the fact that i don't have stats/data to back up such a claim. So that was poor on my part. I guess my point is, A LARGE enough amount of people have to deal with it, that I think it's an issue that shouldn't be ignored.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I might be oversimplifying it but I think there's a fundamental difference between the Muslim example the way you frame it and what is going on here: I don't believe this is about what gamers tell the rest of the world (ie I don't think shouting "we hate misogyny" to every outsider observer would be a great solution).

On the other hand, I do believe that as a community, and by that I mean on forums or during games, we should police ourselves. And by police, I mean we shouldn't let any slurs or bullying slide, we should never turn a blind eye. This is on us.

It's all about the community at large, not the way it interacts with "outsiders". So yes, to actually make the Muslim community example fit, you sure as hell should tell to anyone inside the community who feels any bit of sympathy towards Al Qaeda or ISIS to go fuck themselves as they degrade your community and this isn't who you want to be. This isn't about the outside.

At least, that's my perception of it.

I don't know. It's a complicated issue. On the one hand: I agree with what you're saying. We should shun egregiously bad members of our communities. A Muslim should stand up to people at his mosque or in his social circle who sympathize with Isis. A gamer should stand up to people in his social circles who say sexist shit.

But our ability and responsibility to police the behavior of other members of our ingroup is limited outside of face-to-face interaction. You can use social pressure against a real-life acquaintance in ways that you can't over the internet. At a place like Gaf our options are basically argue with misogynists or ban them. There are some people who you can convince with arguments (I think we've seen it happen in this thread), and there are some people you can't. At places with less of a culture of strong moderation banning isn't an option.

I absolutely think it's reasonable for gamers to ask themselves what they can do to combat misogyny in their personal interactions with other gamers. I think it's reasonable to expect gaming tournaments, for instance, or expos or what have you, to enforce rules against misogyny. I think it's reasonable for sites like Gaf to take editorial or curatorial stances against it, which we've done.

What I take issue with is the idea that it's reasonable to ride around accusing "gamers" at large of not having done enough simply because the problem persists.

Terrorism breeds when the perception of disenfranchisement is paired with a civil power vacuum. Terrorists are most often the enemies of their own people and their own countries, far more than, say, western powers. People within those countries often don't have the ability to speak out or strike back, either out of fear of reprisal or just a lack of agency (see: disenfranchisement); the governments often don't have the power--or sometimes the will--to restrain these elements. If we really want to stretch ourselves, sure we could draw some parallels between gamers as a broad group refusing to deal with trolls "from 4chan" (whatever that actually means) or whatever hole they're crawling out from, but I'm not sure the actual parallels are favorable to gamers begging not to face their own bad elements.

I'm not talking about people in Iraq being asked to confront Isis with my Muslim example. I'm talking about people in the US being asked to condemn Isis-supporters within their midst.

 

[bj00rn_]

I grew up Muslim. I heard this sort of ridiculous argument all the time: well if you really don't support terrorism why don't you preface every political opinion you have with a condemnation of terrorism? Why doesn't every Muslim preface every political opinion they have with a condemnation of terrorism? It's the same argument as the conservative meme about black people not talking about black-on-black crime. Oh you're black and you want to talk about police brutality? Well why don't you condemn black-on-black crime first?

Suffice to say, I don't much care for this line of argumentation. People shouldn't have to explicitly distance themselves from extremists, it should be assumed unless they say or do something that would cause a reasonable person to assume they agree with extremists.

I think most of us understand that. HOWEVER, if you could see and feel what happened here in Norway when muslims recently decided to come together publicly to stand against IS (ISIL), I think you would at the same time see the benefit is greater than your right to separate yourself. I really think it was an import step to bring ethnic Norwegians and muslims together, and it contributes to disarm certain "fears" and preconceptions. If we want to keep our rights to distance ourselves from what we don't feel apart of anyway, that is fine, and that's how it should be in most cases. But at the same time we should acknowledge that in some cases it might be even better if we channel it into something else, something positive like the muslims in Norway did.

 

[marrec]

I don't know. It's a complicated issue. On the one hand: I agree with what you're saying. We should shun egregiously bad members of our communities. A Muslim should stand up to people at his mosque or in his social circle who sympathize with Isis. A gamer should stand up to people in his social circles who say sexist shit.

But our ability and responsibility to police the behavior of other members of our ingroup is limited outside of face-to-face interaction. You can use social pressure against a real-life acquaintance in ways that you can't over the internet. At a place like Gaf our options are basically argue with misogynists or ban them. There are some people who you can convince with arguments (I think we've seen it happen in this thread), and there are some people you can't. At places with less of a culture of strong moderation banning isn't an option.

I absolutely think it's reasonable for gamers to ask themselves what they can do to combat misogyny in their personal interactions with other gamers. I think it's reasonable to expect gaming tournaments, for instance, or expos or what have you, to enforce rules against misogyny. I think it's reasonable for sites like Gaf to take editorial or curatorial stances against it, which we've done.

What I take issue with is the idea that it's reasonable to ride around accusing "gamers" at large of not having done enough simply because the problem persists.

The problem isn't with the efficacy of our actions... the problem lies with people who do nothing to stop it from happening. If every single reasonable person who enjoys playing video games would step up and condemn their fellow gamers who are casually racist or sexist then it would slowly start to disenfranchise the rotten element's in our communities. It's not going to happen over night and it's going to be a constant battle... but it's so easy. And if we can convince everyone to do it then there would be no place left for the misogynists to hide.

Even 4chan is full of decent, respectable people who would be able to self police if they found the motivation.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I think most of us understand that. HOWEVER, if you could see and feel what happened here in Norway when muslims recently decided to come together publicly to stand against IS (ISIL), I think you would at the same time see the benefit is greater than your right to separate yourself. I really think it was an import step to bring ethnic Norwegians and muslims together, and it contributes to disarm certain "fears" and preconceptions. If we want to keep our rights to distance ourselves from what we don't feel apart of anyway, that is fine, and that's how it should be in most cases. But at the same time we should acknowledge that in some cases it might be even better if we channel it into something else, something positive like the muslims in Norway did.

Absolutely. I certainly don't have a problem with any attempts by gamers to collectively denounce misogyny. I'm taking issue specifically with a rhetorical trope being bandied around that somehow gamers are responsible for what misogynists do because some gamers are misogynists and gamers "haven't done enough" to shut them up. The Leigh Alexander article, basically, and its penumbrations into the debate. I think people have every right to view this sort of rhetoric as unfair and demeaning, and they have every right to get angry about it without being told they should really be angry about the other thing.

 

[unbias]

I guess my point is, A LARGE enough amount of people have to deal with it, that I think it's an issue that shouldn't be ignored.

I agree completely with this. When the attacks on the people in a community is disproportionately aimed at 1 single group with a pedestal it is a problem, because if has a deafening effect on others around you, because it is impossible to "feel" the problems that these women in the media experience. The reason it is so easy for many to dismiss, is(I think) It is so disproportionately focused on women in media that they can shrug it off as not being a real issue, "cause it's just games". The problem is the focal point of anger at female game journalism hits every single person who looks up to these people. So you have the completely oblivious arguing with the ones who are hurt, and the disconnect is so massive that it fills with hate for effecting your sub communities within the actual community.

Again, this is all speculative on my part.

 

[CombustibleNate]

I think most of us understand that. HOWEVER, if you could see and feel what happened here in Norway when muslims recently decided to come together publicly to stand against IS (ISIL), I think you would at the same time see the benefit is greater than your right to separate yourself. I really think it was an import step to bring ethnic Norwegians and muslims together, and it contributes to disarm certain "fears" and preconceptions. If we want to keep our rights to distance ourselves from what we don't feel apart of anyway, that is fine, and that's how it should be in most cases. But at the same time we should acknowledge that in some cases it might be even better if we channel it into something else, something positive like the muslims in Norway did.

How do you combat this type of behavior though? The people that are getting the most attention are the ones that are being the worst. I think the support will come from the many of the gamers who are a positive voice against the injustices. And dropping buzzwords like calling someone a misogynist are not going to help squelch an angry mob. Why isn't anyone elevating the positive voices that are actually stating truths without backing it with anger and frustration not being elevated into the spotlight? The lack of healthy communication skills between groups is the issue not the lack of us trying to do anything.

 

[kiunchbb]

I do care about gender issues, and agreed that all the death/rape threat must be stop. However, from what I see, game journalist and a few sjw are trying to punish a few assholes by aliening and destroying the whole community.

I can safely say that after this fiasco, I no longer care about gaming equality. Just let me know when the war is over and I will join the winner.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

Absolutely. I certainly don't have a problem with any attempts by gamers to collectively denounce misogyny. I'm taking issue specifically with a rhetorical trope being bandied around that somehow gamers are responsible for what misogynists do because some gamers are misogynists and gamers "haven't done enough" to shut them up. The Leigh Alexander article, basically, and its penumbrations into the debate. I think people have every right to view this sort of rhetoric as unfair and demeaning, and they have every right to get angry about it without being told they should really be angry about the other thing.

For the sake of argument, let's just say that I agree that Alexander's piece isn't the greatest. I think my problem here is the level of response people think is appropriate. For instance, you can clearly see very specific vitriol that people like Quinn or Sarkeesian or Jenn Frank are receiving and the effect it's having on them and it should be clear that there's a problem out there that needs to be dealt with. At the other end of the spectrum, one person at one website wrote an opinion piece about "gamers" that I didn't like. Insisting that we need to talk about that too doesn't lead me to believe that such an individual is open-minded and approaching the topic in good faith.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

I feel that in this case, like many others, there is far too much emphasis on an individual's ability to affect change when a great deal of the problems with the way that the debate (if you can call it that) has gone is simply structural issues with the way conversation goes on Twitter.

Until people don't use Twitter for this particular purpose, Twitter finds ways to curtail abuse or followers aren't wielded as weapons against other users, personal intervention isn't going to change that much in the long run.

Don't misunderstood, I'm not pretending like people have no agency or blame for their own words or actions but that only goes so far in making fundamental changes.

 

[plagiarize]

I agree completely with this. When the attacks on the people in a community is disproportionately aimed at 1 single group with a pedestal it is a problem, because if has a deafening effect on others around you, because it is impossible to "feel" the problems that these women in the media experience. The reason it is so easy for many to dismiss, I think, that it is so dispraportinatly focused on women in media that they can shrug it off as not being a real issue, "cause it's just games". The problem is the focal point of anger at female game journalism hits every single person who looks up to these people. So you have the completely oblivious arguing with the ones who are hurt, and the disconnect is so massive that it fills with hate for effecting your sub communities within the actual community.

Again, this is all speculative on my part.

I genuinely think most of the push back those of us trying to see gaming become a friendlier community, and video games becoming more welcoming to women and minorities isn't down to bigotry, but down to a fear of gaming becoming damaged or watered down or whatever.

There's a perception that it's going to change to suit the demands of people 'outside' of gaming... but that's not the goal and I don't know of many real world examples of a push against open bigotry leading to what I think a lot of gamers are afraid of.

It's an ignorant fear, but I don't use that word judgmentally. Such ignorance can be helped, whereas bigotry is a much tougher thing to fix in people.

But see, people who stand on a side that sounds like it's defending gaming as it is here on the fourth of September 2014 or who don't want to talk about the issues, they are pushing back against a valid drive against bigotry and a drive towards turning the gaming community into something that doesn't turn women away.

Again, the fear is that to make it less unsavory to women, that it has to stop catering to men at the same time... but it doesn't. Loads of fantastic things appeal about equally to men and women. Horror movies. Genre TV. There's stuff out there.

It's a very short step from 'She's criticizing gaming!' to 'She's criticizing GAMERS!' and yes, the press should avoid it, but they should avoid it because doing so lets people hide from the real issues, and it lets the bigots hide amongst them.

It's also a leap that gamers make when they don't want to deal with the real issues to though.

 

[FF Seraphim]

The thing you have to keep in mind , is that none of this toxicity would exist if women/activist could openly speak their opinions and criticisms without being attacked. This hostility exists purely because a group of people will not tolerate any criticisms of their hobby. Or they don't want certain people in their hobby.

If women/activist could voice their opinions/criticisms without being attacked, then there wouldn't be all this bs. You could agree with them. You could disagree with them. You could be apathetic to it. But it would still allow equal treatment, in that they have the ability to voice criticisms/opinions in the hope that, devs/people in the community might eventually understand their point of view. What we have now is, they are just being cut off (or at least, being relentlessly attacked for doing so).



I can admit this is a generalization, for the fact that i don't have stats/data to back up such a claim. So that was poor on my part. I guess my point is, A LARGE enough amount of people have to deal with it, that I think it's an issue that shouldn't be ignored.

I think most people in GAF understand this, however the reality of the situation means different avenues of communication is needed to help rid of community of the toxicity that plagues it. When differences of opinion are brought up, there will always be someone getting riled up over it and taking it to the extreme. Only thing that will fix that is constant communication and time. Despite the threats, people just need to keep talking, they win if you stop talking and telling us whats on your mind.

 

[John Rabbit]

I apologized in my response to Steve to anyone who got the wrong impression from my post, but I have no problems in doing it again for you since you missed it. The fault here is mine for badly conveying what I was trying to say.

When I saw Steve thought I was being irrational, I realized that I must have done a very bad job of phrasing my opinion. Until then I thought something else was going on with your response to it and other people's responses.

The bothering I was referring to was just telling them that I thought they were potentially contributing to a problem. They want to be left alone, so not leaving them alone might be seen as 'bothering' them, but I was only talking about bothering them in that way.

The making sure was the same. I can make sure you are aware of something. By telling you about it. I mean, that's not finger pointing or attacking.

But my post was clearly deficient, and your upset in response to it is completely understandable reading it back. So again, I apologize for how it came across.

I hope my position as laid out in my response to Steve makes it clear where I was coming from, and I hope my other posts in this thread make it *very* clear that I don't see this as a 'rather than going after the people who are the problem'.

I haven't and don't go after people who want to be left out of this discussion. I just don't think their desire to be left out of the discussion is something that has to be respected, and if they keep running into it on their favorite gaming websites or whatever, I have zero empathy for that. But no, I'm not tracking them down and publically shaming them in any way shape or form and I do not advocate that remotely.

I just don't think they get to completely wash their hands of responsibility.

thanks for the clarification. sometimes people start shouting (figuratively) so loudly they don't realize they're actually in agreement.

we're obviously both in favor of a more inclusive, positive, and harmonious environment, i just feel that our time and energies are better spent actively working/discussing the issues and producing awareness as a byproduct of those efforts.

 

[JackDT]

For the sake of argument, let's just say that I agree that Alexander's piece isn't the greatest. I think my problem here is the level of response people think is appropriate. For instance, you can clearly see very specific vitriol that people like Quinn or Sarkeesian or Jenn Frank or receiving and the effect it's having on them and it should be clear that there's a problem out there that needs to be dealt with. At the other end of the spectrum, one person at one website wrote an opinion piece about "gamers" that I didn't like. Insisting that we need to talk about that too doesn't lead me to believe that such an individual is open-minded and approaching the topic in good faith.

Same with Anita Sarkeesian. Apart from whether you think the catalog of tropes is representative of trends in gaming, the sheer volume and vitriol in the response is so out of whack. Jack Thompson, in addition to making grandiose claims, was literally talking about legal action against game makers. Anita is like, 'hey dishonored was really cool game but this part here kinda bothered me' and everything flips the table.

 

[plagiarize]

For the sake of argument, let's just say that I agree that Alexander's piece isn't the greatest. I think my problem here is the level of response people think is appropriate. For instance, you can clearly see very specific vitriol that people like Quinn or Sarkeesian or Jenn Frank or receiving and the effect it's having on them and it should be clear that there's a problem out there that needs to be dealt with. At the other end of the spectrum, one person at one website wrote an opinion piece about "gamers" that I didn't like. Insisting that we need to talk about that too doesn't lead me to believe that such an individual is open-minded and approaching the topic in good faith.

My issue with the upset around Alexander's piece is that... all of the people who keep bringing it up only focused on the poorly thought out part of it, and they don't address all the parts of it that are still valid. It just sounds to me like 'lets not talk about sexism in gaming and the game community, lets talk about the bit that hurt *my* feelings instead'.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I do care about gender issues, and agreed that all the death/rape threat must be stop. However, from what I see, game journalist and a few sjw are trying to punish a few assholes by aliening and destroying the whole community.

I can safely say that after this fiasco, I no longer care about gaming equality. Just let me know when the war is over and I will join the winner.

Who is trying to punish a few assholes by aliening and destroying the whole community? This is a genuine question by the way, I'm having really hard time understanding that. But please elaborate, I'm open to hear it.

Sure there have been some articles about how we should stop using the word gamer and such, but I just can't see them trying to punish anyone nor can I see them alienating and destroying the whole community.

Finally, by choosing to not care about gaming equality at all anymore, it kind of seems to me that you're doing exactly the same as those few gaming journalists and SJWs. Because of those few people, you put your head in the sand just as those journalists and SJWs supposedly alienate and destroy the whole community by trying to punish a few assholes.
Not trying to insult you here, but it really seems kind of petty to stop caring about gaming equality because of some extremists.

 

[unbias]

I feel that in this case, like many others, there is far too much emphasis on an individual's ability to affect change when a great deal of the problems with the way that the debate (if you can call it that) has gone is simply structural issues with the way conversation goes on Twitter.

Until people don't use Twitter for this particular purpose, Twitter finds ways to curtail abuse or followers aren't wielded as weapons against other users, personal intervention isn't going to change that much in the long run.

Don't misunderstood, I'm not pretending like people have no agency or blame for their own words or actions but that only goes so far in making fundamental changes.

Sort of agree. I think sub communities can do a lot, in terms of making sure talking points are healthy and that the discussion is happening in good faith. Make people keep their disagreements on the talking points, when it comes to female game journalists, don't let it drift to the actual person. I also believe you need to make sure female game journalism articles has a topic for healthy growth outside of the debate of the community, where idea's can be shared for improvement.

The debate portion while fun(I'll admit is the most fun part to me), and can be very healthy; it needs to, I think, have a separate section heavily moderated to make sure people are actually arguing about legitimate criticisms of female journalists, instead of the back and forth of who's sentiment is the most fake. Because then it stops becoming about the actual work and it becomes personal between people arguing and then the journalist pays the price because they also happen to be a quasi-celebrity. Again, this is all just my opinion.

 

[unbias]

I genuinely think most of the push back those of us trying to see gaming become a friendlier community, and video games becoming more welcoming to women and minorities isn't down to bigotry, but down to a fear of gaming becoming damaged or watered down or whatever.

I dont believe it is this, honestly. If you look back at those tweet stats I posted, female journalists and both celebrities(in general) are the 2 most attacked and abused people on twitter(proportionate to their industries). This infers to me that female journalists and celebrities have a lot of anger focused on them, for reasons I'm not even close to qualified to guess on. This doesnt tell me people are afraid of change, this tells me that people have an issue with these groups, period. Because it could be a female journalist not even relating to gaming, and she will get dumped on. So imagine being also, quasi-celebrities in a industry? It's hard for me to accept this has much to do with games.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I do care about gender issues, and agreed that all the death/rape threat must be stop. However, from what I see, game journalist and a few sjw are trying to punish a few assholes by aliening and destroying the whole community.

Huh?

 

[charlequin]

However, from what I see, game journalist and a few sjw are trying to punish a few assholes by aliening and destroying the whole community.

I would like you to explain to me two things. First, the reason why a list of people, all of whom exclusively make their income from engagement with the game community; second, the plausible mechanism by which this destruction will occur as a result of their actions. Explain it like you would explain it to a normal person, somebody who has no knowledge of any backstory or industry politics at all.

I think you will find that when you try to break this premise down in detail that it is pretty difficult to meaningfully support.

 

[PsychoSoldier]

I don't think it's reasonable to say that game journalists are trying to destroy their audience but there have been a huge number of examples of journalists being highly contemptuous of their audience for a variety of reasons.

Whatever the intent may be, some people may have perceived this same way, which roots this current issue in controversies long past (see X1DRM, ME3 ending, etc).

 

[plagiarize]

I dont believe it is this, honestly. If you look back at those tweet stats I posted, female journalists and both celebrities(in general) are the 2 most attacked and abused people on twitter(proportionate to their industries). This infers to me that female journalists and celebrities have a lot of anger focused on them, for reasons I'm not even close to qualified to guess on. This doesnt tell me people are afraid of change, this tells me that people have an issue with these groups, period. Because it could be a female journalist not even relating to gaming, and she will get dumped on. So imagine being also, quasi-celebrities in a industry? It's hard for me to accept this has much to do with games.

There are definitely hateful bigots attacking people like Anita, don't get me wrong. There is plenty of direct evidence of that. I certainly don't think anyone is pretending to be a bigot, but I do think that most of the push back those of us arguing for more inclusive games and for a more inclusive gaming community receive comes from people with baseless fears that gaming will be transformed into something they can no longer enjoy should that happen.

Obviously you have a lot of bigots hiding behind reasonable sounding viewpoints, but if most of the people saying things like 'both sides are wrong' are actually bigots, then we've got a much bigger problem and a lot more work to do. And I don't personally believe that.

I don't think it's reasonable to say that game journalists are trying to destroy their audience but there have been a huge number of examples of journalists being highly contemptuous of their audience for a variety of reasons.

Whatever the intent may be, some people may have perceived this same way, which roots this current issue in controversies long past (see X1DRM, ME3 ending, etc).

There are still way too many bigots and way too many *open* bigots in gaming, and gaming is still far from being as inclusive as genre TV (which itself still needs to improve, but it's definitely further along). I'm not downplaying that. I'm just saying that I think a lot of the 'against us' isn't bigotry, but people ignorant to the full details of the issue, and ignorance is much easier solved by education than bigotry.

Trust me, I regularly side against the gaming media when I see wide spread problems there too. Ask Jschrier if he thinks I have his back. I'm sure I'm one of his least favorite posters... and most of that comes from me condemning his numerous posts about how 'not all game journalists' are guilty of whatever gaming media is being criticized of. 'Not all' solves nothing when a real problem exists. 'Other things have problems too' solves nothing. They all just encourage inaction.

Valid criticisms are valid criticisms though, even if they're next to invalid ones in a Kotaku editorial.

 

[Felix Lighter]

I have seen way to many people suggest that each side of the controversy are equally to blame for the current toxic state of this debate. We have a collection of angry reaction tweets to harassment, death/rape threats and criminal acts and a potentially insulting article being held to the same level as harassment, death/rape threats and criminal acts. People are blaming their disengagement from the issue because they feel the hobby and community is being too harshly criticized. If that is all it takes to turn general gamers off to these issues, I'm not very optimistic about things getting any better.

 

[eyeless]

I do care about gender issues, and agreed that all the death/rape threat must be stop. However, from what I see, game journalist and a few sjw are trying to punish a few assholes by aliening and destroying the whole community.

how are a few journalists destroying the whole community, in what way, how are they doing this

I can safely say that after this fiasco, I no longer care about gaming equality. Just let me know when the war is over and I will join the winner.

hey lemme search yo post history for the word equality i bet there's a bunch of posts of you saying how much you care about gaming equality since ya used to until this week when a woman had an opinion on the internet and that was the last straw for you believing in the fundamental principal of equality

Games don't need to be a social utopia to be taken seriously, all it need is the money.

Why can't people see the difference between game and real life? Violent video games don't make people more violent and doesn't mean the developers are bunch of murderous lunatic. Why can't it be the same or every other issue? Just because it fit your agenda?

Why are you ONLY fighting for gender and race equality in game? What about the fair representation of age and weight? Religion and wealth? Every country in the world? People with disability? Political belief? After accomplishing all that, will game industry still exist?

 

[Aeana]

I do care about gender issues, and agreed that all the death/rape threat must be stop. However, from what I see, game journalist and a few sjw are trying to punish a few assholes by aliening and destroying the whole community.

I can safely say that after this fiasco, I no longer care about gaming equality. Just let me know when the war is over and I will join the winner.

I'm tired of repeating myself at this point, but I'll do it one more time: what you're seeing is not correct. The assault on "gamers" was taken from a heavy-handed Leigh Alexander piece and then drummed up into a Twitter campaign by certain individuals specifically to get people fighting against each other instead of talking about how to solve the actual issues. They've successfully managed to pit two sides that are actually in agreement about a lot of things against each other so that they would stop talking about the stuff they were talking about a week ago.

Now we have people shouting noise like "I'm a gamer and I'm NOT a bigot!!!" which doesn't actually accomplish anything but precisely what those individuals wanted: to distract. Nobody actually thinks all gamers are bigots. The fact that anybody believes that to be the case is actually insane to me. And even if you do, why would you think that the solution is to go and tell everybody that you're not like that instead of actually decrying the people who are currently making "gamers" look terrible? It's these people who are harassing others and causing some people to leave the industry that might actually color the perception of what a "gamer" is by the general populace. Not a bunch of people saying "I'm a gamer and I'm not like these other gamers."

 

[Warm Machine]

I really think that the blanket "gamer" shaming made this whole thing way more worse that it otherwise would be. I was just at PAX less than a week ago and I didn't see a furious gamer contingent getting angry at everything. I mostly saw people who were really interested in what everyone was showing.

 

[ab.aeterno]

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.

It's not about wanting people to say they're not associated with assholes, that's meaningless really. It's about wanting people to stand up against harassers when harassment and abuse and bullying happens. You're decrying people feeling pressured into saying Not All [blank] when that's not what I'm seeing asked for in this thread. In fact, most people on the "side" of social justice seen to find no value in that. So your arguing against something I don't think most people want.

What I want, and what I would guess others want, is for allies who will have the back of victims when they get harassed. For having people say "hey man, that's not OK" when someone starts dropping slurs. It's about a community standing up for the people in it when they're attacked, not about dissociating from troublesome people. Can you really argue against that?

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.

I disagree. My point was that change doesn't usually come about from sheer civil dialogue, especially in the face of harassment or abuse. It's tone policing to expect victims, who are facing ongoing and systemic harassment, to enact change but having to speak or act a certain way to do so.

Further, yeah, of course no one is going to talk about the Stonewall Riots in relation to gay marriage now because so much progress has been made since then that a calm dialogue is even possible. But the point is that the modern gay rights movement and fight for equality didn't start by sitting and calmly discussing homophobia with people enacting targeted abuse on gay men and women, but by rioting and getting violent after one more night of police harassment and arrest after years and years of it and other systemic bigotry.

Dialogue has its place, but expecting it after years of harassment come to a boiling point is misguided. Like I said, sometimes, making noise is the only way for minorities to get heard.

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.

I wasn't intending to speak to you specifically as much as you globally. But it's a fair question. I've covered it more at length in past posts, but the short version: speak up when you see something happening that is harassing or exclusionary, something that makes people not feel welcome in the gaming community. The perfect example is the usual silence that slurs are met with in voice chat. I'll freely admit I'm guilty of this in the past too. And it tells anyone who is hurt by that shit that it is implicitly condoned or accepted behavior. It's also isolating, making someone feel like no one has their back.

You don't need to tell people you don't stand for harassment, you need to show it, you know? I don't need to be told you don't agree as someone is punching me in the face, I need you to say stop or pull them off instead of staying silent as it happens.

 

[unbias]

I don't think it's reasonable to say that game journalists are trying to destroy their audience but there have been a huge number of examples of journalists being highly contemptuous of their audience for a variety of reasons.

Whatever the intent may be, some people may have perceived this same way, which roots this current issue in controversies long past (see X1DRM, ME3 ending, etc).

Yes, but think about it. If the allegations are true(which honestly isnt much of a stretch if you work in another field), that there is nepotism in the game industry and it is at a high degree, guess who probably looks up to these female games media? The male games media, so guess what they are going to do? Pile on, because they are probably hurt too, cause their friends are being attacked, so they feel empathy and are also hurt. Does it justify the 15 page salute to the article most of this blew up about? No. But is it understandable that these people jumped to their friends defense? Hell yes. I'd say its just normal, and the problem with all this has more to do with how the game media press is structured, because I sure as hell bet most of these guys in the media dont like it as well(as Jim tells us over, and over and over again). This is not me giving them a pass, I'm probably more pro consumer then most people here, still though, I think my point stands.

Ya, it sucks for the consumer, because there is no easy solution for us, and then we look to the journalists and they say "whelp our hands are tied", and then consumers just get more annoyed, so ANY wrong doing on the press' part gets massive backlash when they crawl into consumer unfriendly practices territory or blame the consumer. the finger pointing, I 100% agree with you is a problem, however, because there is no easy solution I think all we consumers can do is be as understanding as possible while we share our disagreements. And ya, it can be hard to do, because it isn't just video games, people deal with shit at work or in life, they come home play some games and jump on the forums and they cant escape reality right now. Everything is at a boiling point and now you see the unintended side effect of unethical behavior on everyone's(this includes the consumer) part.

Oh and it is mid term elections. Fuck that shit.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I really think that the blanket "gamer" shaming made this whole thing way more worse that it otherwise would be. I was just at PAX less than a week ago and I didn't see a furious gamer contingent getting angry at everything. I mostly saw people who were really interested in what everyone was showing.

What is the bolded even in reference to?

 

[plagiarize]

I'm tired of repeating myself at this point, but I'll do it one more time: what you're seeing is not correct. The assault on "gamers" was taken from a heavy-handed Leigh Alexander piece and then drummed up into a Twitter campaign by certain individuals specifically to get people fighting against each other instead of talking about how to solve the actual issues. They've successfully managed to pit two sides that are actually in agreement about a lot of things against each other so that they would stop talking about the stuff they were talking about a week ago.

Now we have people shouting noise like "I'm a gamer and I'm NOT a bigot!!!" which doesn't actually accomplish anything but precisely what those individuals wanted: to distract. Nobody actually thinks all gamers are bigots. The fact that anybody believes that to be the case is actually insane to me. And even if you do, why would you think that the solution is to go and tell everybody that you're not like that instead of actually decrying the people who are currently making "gamers" look terrible? It's these people who are harassing others and causing some people to leave the industry that might actually color the perception of what a "gamer" is by the general populace. Not a bunch of people saying "I'm a gamer and I'm not like these other gamers."

Right. And why do people seem to think the correct thing to do is to just tell people they're not bigoted, rather than going after the bigots *and demonstrating that they aren't bigoted* while simultaneously helping counteract bigotry?

I think the answer to that question is just one of genuine ignorance (rather than the willful or hateful variety) and so I'm going to keep wheeling it out because I think the gamers saying 'I am not a bigot!' don't realize they're actually functioning in the exact way the bigots hoped they would.

Boogie... he's a very long way away from what a bigot is. That doesn't mean I want to see him accidentally taking up a talking point started by bigots to distract from their bigotry though... and since he has, well I know he's the sort of rational person I can actually have a conversation with to try and explain to him why I think he's unintentionally doing something bad.

Even if I'm right, I know that'll be really hard for him to admit to himself, because we don't like admitting when we fucked up and upset someone (sorry again John Rabbit!) and it wasn't our intention, but I think he, and many of the people in this very thread, are the good natured sort of people that won't let that stop them seeing the truth, whatever that may be.

 

[Northeastmonk]

Has anyone else seen how terrible the marketing campaigns are? Shouldn't both sides be affected by such a thing?

 

[plagiarize]

I wasn't intending to speak to you specifically as much as you globally. But it's a fair question. I've covered it more at length in past posts, but the short version: speak up when you see something happening that is harassing or exclusionary, something that makes people not feel welcome in the gaming community. The perfect example is the usual silence that slurs are met with in voice chat. I'll freely admit I'm guilty of this in the past too. And it tells anyone who is hurt by that shit that it is implicitly condoned or accepted behavior. It's also isolating, making someone feel like no one has their back.

You don't need to tell people you don't stand for harassment, you need to show it, you know? I don't need to be told you don't agree as someone is punching me in the face, I need you to say stop or pull them off instead of staying silent as it happens.

And to add to this, please please please report that shit wherever it is against the terms of service or forum rules. Don't just speak up on Xbox Live about it, also report the user if they truly broke the terms and conditions.

 

[Afrocious]

I feel like this thread has degenerated into the essense of where social media and forums (including this one) are up in arms about: someone (Ms. Alexander) didn't come out to directly to specify she's talking about gamers who are the problem, and others follow suit with some of these stating it's okay to play videogames (but this was glossed over unfortunately) and others offering a deconstruction of the word 'gamer' and its usage.

Then you have people who identify themselves as a gamer (like myself) who are offended by this usage of the word because there wasn't a clear cut sentence saying, again, there are these specific people who identifiy themselves as gamers among others who take to social media to harass developers and journalists.

This is followed by a defense force of people saying they're gamers but they're not misogynistic internet predators. I feel like the accusation in that Gamasutra article and the ones after that gamers are, to put it bluntly, bad people are taking it personally and are saying, as has been written out succintly in this thread already "I'm a gamer and you can't call me a misogynist because I'm not one!". Of course, that declaration, as true as it may be, has little to do with the overarching issue where all of this stemmed from, is where we are now.

Personally, I think we gamers should stop because we're kindling a fire that was lit on accident (admit Ms. Alexander has every right to be upset and probably told her editor to fuck off). We're not doing anyone who needs our help any favors by solely defending ourselves when there are others who have had their lives and personal safety threatened.

Hell, I even think writing a letter to Anita, Jenn, and Maggie apologizing on the behalf of gamers who feel aghast at these children taking advantage of anonimity to make vile threats would be better than getting all defensive.

 

[eyeless]

I feel like the accusation in that Gamasutra article and the ones after that gamers are, to put it bluntly, bad people

i would be interested in links to the articles that call gamers bad people

the gamasutra article though, written by a gamer, does no such thing