Support NeoGAF

[Lime]

Well respected designer Greg Costikyan posted this very blunt rant on Gamesutra, and then they deleted it later. The "I want to tell you some stories" section is heartbreaking.

Yeah this pretty much echo my feelings on this ongoing matter. This whole thing is basically kicking the people in the lower economic and power caste. I have no idea why people continue to do so.

 

[Noaloha]

That's the thing though - she's past being relevant to the discussion. No one should even be bringing her up anymore, let alone attacking her. The discussion should be centered around why the gaming industry and the industry that covers it has such an incestuous relationship?

She's never going to be irrelevant (you could take the argument as far as: women are never going to be irrelevant) to the discussion when the overarching hashtag itself invokes an associated "this is the thing that started because some woman supposedly fucked a journo for review scores right?", or any understanding of that genrral nature. Like you did in your post. Which isn't to call you out, but to illustrate an example of this widespread false association.

 

[cerulily]

I find THIS article surreal and sexist.

I wont defend all women, because i consider women people, i respect them as individuals with different opinions, ideas, personalities; gender (or sexual orientation) is just one of the many factors associated to them. I will criticize or defend a man or a woman if they do something despicable, and surely not because of their sex.

Painting women with a broad brush like this person does, saying "they have to be defended no matter what" seems incredibly sexist. I dont even know what to say about the "duel" part that follows right after that.

I just wish there was more common sense in this world.

You don't really seem to understand the point he is making. Or how conclusions about society works.

I could just as easily say "#Gamergate is stupid because i respect them as individuals with different opinions, ideas, personalities; gender (or sexual orientation) is just one of the many factors associated to them. I will criticize or defend a journalist if they do something despicable, and surely not because of them being part of gaming journalism."

 

[boogie2988]

Yeah this pretty much echo my feelings on this ongoing matter. This whole thing is basically kicking the people in the lower economic and power caste. I have no idea why people continue to do so.

I too pretty much feel the same as greg, with the exception of a few minor points. his assumptions that everyone involved in the movement are men is wrong, and his assumption that everyone in the movement also hate women is wrong.

If this letter had been written to "extremists on both sides" rather than "you fat neckbeards" i could have written it letter for letter in a moment of anger, too.

 

[Kadayi]

Do you honestly believe that is a fair summary of the criticism you have been receiving in this thread? I don't. You've stripped out all the actual substance of what people were saying to you.

I'd say it's pretty fair. All I see is a mix of tone trolls and people who would give happily someone a pass based solely on their gender versus what they say or their actions.

 

[Nikodemos]

the logic, as I understand it (and I really do NOT understand it) is as follows:

A) #gamergate was supposedly started by zoe's ex boyfriend and there are screenshots to prove it.
B) Other misogynists joined the movement and have used it as as an excuse to bully women
C) because of this the word is now 'tainted' and must never be spoken because it encourages assault on women or pain to zoe or something along those lines.

Therefore any statement using #gamergate, even if its calling for gaming industry reform, or comforting a person whose been harassed is not allowed because the hashtag is built on 'rotten roots', i guess.

Not 'supposedly'.

Quite correct. To employ an analogy, it's like using climate change denialism as a launchpad to discuss issues regarding the scientific peer review process, or using garbage spewn by Tea Partiers as starting point for a debate on runaway government spending. You're drawing water from a poisoned well.

 

[CoLaN]

You don't really seem to understand the point he is making. Or how conclusions about society works.

I could just as easily say "#Gamergate is stupid because i respect them as individuals with different opinions, ideas, personalities; gender (or sexual orientation) is just one of the many factors associated to them. I will criticize or defend a journalist if they do something despicable, and surely not because of them being part of gaming journalism."

Why are you putting my comment together with the gamergate tag? I didn't even mention it (as i will never tweet something with it).

It was a criticism on that article, which to me seems more insulting to women than anything else. And it ends up being a really chaotic article that mixes different things. The premises are right, the form not so much.

 

[Sneds]

I'd say it's pretty fair. All I see is a mix of tone trolls and people who would give happily someone a pass based solely on their sexuality versus what they say or their actions.

Sexuality?

 

[boogie2988]

I have taken a ton of sleep medicine in the hopes that I can get some real sleep. I'll check this thread again in about 10 hours. As always I appreciate everyone's civility while discussing this. I also appreciate you challenging me and helping me grow as a person.

I really, really hope that later when I wake up is the day that all of this harassment and bullying is over so we can finally have the real discussion we need to have about all of this.

 

[Lime]

"Deal with the fact that not all games are, or will be in the future, the same corporate crap that you apparently love so much. And understand that the money-grubbing who dole out this crap will continue to feed your fix, because it's a far larger market than is reached by the indie people, whom you despise and spit on, can possibly ever hope to reach.

You're attacking people who have problems making their rent, apparently in defense of people who make millions off your fanboy lusts; and somehow feel threatened by people who loves games - as I suppose you do - but love games that are a little bit different."

Damn.

 

[cerulily]

Why are you putting my comment together with the gamergate tag? I didn't even mention it (as i never will tweet something with it).

It was a criticism on that article, which to me seems more insulting to women than anything else.

Because i am making a point about how vaguely interchangable your argument is in regards to almost anything.

It is pointless to say "everyone is different" as a means to say "i don't have to generally agree."

You don't really seem to realize that nobody could be talking about every nuanced individual opinion. It is a broad strokes support statement that you're rebutting with pedantry.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

I'd say it's pretty fair. All I see is a mix of tone trolls and people who would give happily someone a pass based solely on their sexuality versus what they say or their actions.

Isn't everybody involved in the main drama straight? No clue about the youtubers/journalists/bloggers/etc. who've been pulled into this.

 

[Intheflorsh]

i've already read it and taken it into consideration. Its whats made me move to the position that if/when I use the hashtag I will only use it to preach moderation and civility on both sides. I made that decision not because of any lack of empathy, but because of a presence of it.

Even if you think using the Gamer Gate hashtag is not actively hurting anyone, I don't see how you can think it's doing the conversation about ethics in game media any favors. Like it or not, when you use #gamergate you are going to distract people away from whatever point you are trying to make.

If you want the "clean up game journalism" thing to have traction then you would be smart to continue the discussion under a different banner.

 

[Lime]

I too pretty much feel the same as greg, with the exception of a few minor points. his assumptions that everyone involved in the movement are men is wrong, and his assumption that everyone in the movement also hate women is wrong.

Regardless about how supporters feel about the women, the movement specifically and implicitly targets women in video games. While some people, like you, obviously don't have those intentions, the fact of the matter is that the consequences of the movement is ACTUALLY excluding women from the games industry.

It's like wearing a blindfold while unwittingly helping someone beating up a dog while proclaiming that you have nothing against dogs.

 

[N-Bomb]

boogie2988, read gilianseed's post to you

"I agree with you until you don't share my viewpoint." I see this so often, it's rotten.

She's never going to be irrelevant (you could take the argument as far as: women are never going to be irrelevant) to the discussion when the overarching hashtag itself invokes an associated "this is the thing that started because some woman supposedly fucked a journo for review scores right?", or any understanding of that genrral nature. Like you did in your post. Which isn't to call you out, but to illustrate an example of this widespread false association.

ZQ is not 'women' though, and to claim so is to insult the trials that women actually face every day around the world. This is no longer about her, or what's happening to her (rightly or wrongly brought about by her own actions), but about a broken system and what we might be able to do to fix it.

He sexuality is her own business - it's not relevant who she did or didn't sleep with, except for when they might have been in a position of power (much like the rationale for when a college prof might get in trouble for an inappropriate relationship with a student).

If I can be allowed a bit of a stretch, this is beyond her now, much like in 1916, it was no longer really about the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

The spark happened, and now the house is on fire, so the spark itself doesn't really matter anymore. It's time to address the flame and see what we can do about rebuilding the house afterward.

------------

Edit: Despite what many people (Costikyan included) seem to think is 'indie' vs. AAA, it's not about that at all. That's the biggest horse hockey I've even heard in this whole debate, and it's another wedge idea to derail discussion for where it should rightly be focused.

I really, really hope that later when I wake up is the day that all of this harassment and bullying is over so we can finally have the real discussion we need to have about all of this.

Damn right. Have a good sleep, sir.

 

[CoLaN]

Because i am making a point about how vaguely interchangable your argument is in regards to almost anything.

It is pointless to say "everyone is different" as a means to say "i don't have to generally agree."

You don't really seem to realize that nobody could be talking about every nuanced individual opinion. It is a broad strokes support statement that you're rebutting with pedantry.

To me painting a group of people with a wide brush is disrespecting their individuality.

I am actually a strong defender about equality and women rights, you seem to not understand what im saying.

 

[cerulily]

Its not a broad strokes support statement? Its my view on things. To me painting a group of people with a wide brush is disrespecting their individuality.

You don't understand what i am saying, since i was saying the article was a broad strokes statement and yours was overly singular, not the other way around.

It misses the point since he is not suggesting you should be in support of awful people who do terrible things. But a community at large that has expressed huge concerns about how they're treated. Not every one of us is the same, sure. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been one huge consensus among women that would be pretty hard to deny or ignore unless you just hated the idea of changing anything.

You wouldn't be "disrespecting individuality" by being pro to the consensus. That makes no sense. Individuality means that we have nuance and differences. But if 70% of a community wholly agrees about something, saying "well that disrespects the 30% who aren't part of that consensus" (as far as this issue goes as this argument can be further nuanced) then you would be remiss to imply that it is not a problem worth dealing with.

He is aiming his lens at irrational attackers of positive change. Not moderates.

 

[hidys]

After going to sleep, I thought people would let Gamergate go to rest and realize what movement they have been associating themselves with.

Looks like people still want to continue supporting the campaign, despite being aware it is specifically targeting women in video games.

I'm so tired of video games culture and gamers.

This is pretty much my thoughts on this as well.

No matter what the good intentions of a few people, are GamerGate will always be seen as a movement of hatred aimed at a minority within the video game industry. And that is all it will be remembered for.

It's unfortunate that some are continuing it despite knowing its misogynistic origins.

I'm frankly amazed that Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian have pushed on with what they are doing. I would totally understand if Anita Sarkeesian decided to abandon her Kickstarter project. They have far more courage than I ever will.

These women are too good for this industry.

 

[Sneds]

These women are too good for this industry.

Agreed.

 

[Lime]

I saw this in relation to Greg's blog post:

These women are too good for this industry.

You can say that again.

 

[CoLaN]

You don't understand what i am saying, since i was saying the article was a broad strokes statement and yours was overly singular, not the other way around.

It misses the point since he is not suggesting you should be in support of awful people who do terrible things. But a community at large that has expressed huge concerns about how they're treated. Not every one of us is the same, sure. But that doesn't mean there hasn't been one huge consensus among women that would be pretty hard to deny or ignore unless you just hated the idea of changing anything.

You wouldn't be "disrespecting individuality" by being pro to the consensus. That makes no sense. Individuality means that we have nuance and differences. But if 70% of a community wholly agrees about something, saying "well that disrespects the 30% who aren't part of that consensus" (as far as this issue goes as this argument can be further nuanced) then you would be remiss to imply that it is not a problem worth dealing with.

He is aiming his lens at irrational attackers of positive change. Not moderates.

I deleted the first part of the post one second after i posted it. He is defending an idea with the right premise in a bad way, and a sexist way that he probably doesnt even realize.

The problem of this whole thing is that people keep generalizing entire groups of individuals (on one side or the other), so everyone reacts in an aggressive way, men and women.

Its out of control and will not solve anything, because its a discussion that no longer promotes equality, women rights or a fight against sexism, but an all out war where people take sides and dont see people for what they are: individuals. That would be the key to solve everything, but of course creating hate is "much more interesting".

 

[Señor Coyote]

A refreshing article on Cinemablend that reflects the other side of #gamergate that you probably wouldn't see on most gaming sites.

 

[Delusibeta]

So, since last night, we've basically been spinning our wheels, with Lime attempting to start a #gameethics thread and completely botching it and boogie refusing to admit that he's digging a pretty deep hole for himself. Meanwhile, the #gamergate tag trundles along on Twitter.

I was right in saying that it was going to continue for the rest of the week, though.

 

[cerulily]

I deleted the first part of the post one second after i posted it. He is defending an idea with the right premise in a bad way, and a sexist way that he probably doesnt even realize.

The problem of this whole thing is that people keep generalizing entire groups of individuals (on one side or the other), so everyone reacts in an aggressive way, men and women.

Its out of control and will not solve anything, because its a discussion that no longer promotes equality and women rights, but an all out war where people take sides and dont see people for what they are: individuals. That would be the key to solve everything, but of course creating hate is "much more interesting".

Relativism is self-defeating. If everyone is right on their own terms, nothing is wrong and everything is permitted. If you have to cater to every nuance, you will never achieve anything. I don't see how his argument is sexist. It's not sexist to not digress about every individual desire, that would be de-individuation. It has nothing to do with sexism.

 

[cerulily]

A refreshing article on Cinemablend that reflects the other side of #gamergate that you probably wouldn't see on most gaming sites.

This hashtag has already been revealed to have dubious double meaning, use and origin.

https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate

 

[Noaloha]

ZQ is not 'women' though, and to claim so is to insult the trials that women actually face every day around the world.

I miss where you're picking up that this was my intended point. I specifically left Quinn's name outside of the problem association in my post ("this is the thing that started because some woman supposedly fucked a journo for review scores right?") because I don't expect the wider community who heard about where #gamergate started to remeber such specifics as a name. I feel much more confident that they'll at least remember it being about a woman that's alleged to have slept with a journo for personal gain.

#gamergate was built on a lie. A lie that had one goal, to smear the character of, if not socially progressive women in video games in general (which is, I agree, entirely debatable), then at the very least to smear the character of Quinn herself specifically.

Sadly, that lie gained traction and wasn't sufficiently questioned or subsequently proven patently false to many of the people who are aware of what #gamergate is or came from. Yes, absolutely, the #gamergate conversation that's currently happening is dealing with matters separate to Quinn; entirely, pretty much. Matters that are valid and should be discussed, because gods know there are enough people that want to, and should, have their say.

And I'm suggesting that the discussion shouldn't happen under that lie. If anyone, anywhere (and they are out there), is functioning under the possible idea that they're having this conversation because a woman slept with a journo to further her own career, the perpetrators of the lie are meeting their goal. This can - should - be discussed outside of a context which, however background-ey, links Quinn's bedroom to gaming.

 

[Lime]

Lime attempting to start a #gameethics thread and completely botching it

hey! I didn't botch it - the replies did

 

[MrHoot]

Greg has a few points although I'd say I kinda disagree on the "woe poor indies who have so many problems because they don't have as many marketing" and how we should allow them or at least turn a blind eye when they do something shady.

Now it's not to say that I particularily cared THAT much about Mrs. Anthropy's publicity on Kotaku. The practice wasn't really ethical by journalistic standard but i'm not gonna throw a fit. I'm an indie myself, I know how networking works too. You get whatever you can as long as it doesn't breach, or at least not too much, on some conflict of interest and stuff like that.

However, you still need to be a bit freaking professional. You're in a professional industry field for crying out loud, it does come with some amount of responsibility.

That, and it's really not THAT hard to be noticed as an indie nowadays. Christ, there's youtube channels, there's patreon, there's kickstarter, there's greenlight, you can go to different conventions and parties to make relation, they're all over the world now, and of course there's forum like GAF, the game dev thread on 4chan/vg/, and plenty of other forums. There's dozen and dozen of ways to publicize your game almost FREE OF CHARGE if you're crafty enough. Does it require work ? Of course it does but hey, it's a tough job for a reason.

I withhold integrity and professionalism in the highest regard. My father taught me as such, and I respect him even more for that.
I understand that independants (and journalists) want to be taken more seriously. I understand they want their media to be taken more seriously. I do too, in some way, it's my media too. It's a big business. But damn for that we also have to act the part first at least.

As far as #Gamergate goes, I haven't participated myself in the campaign (I hate twitter for the most part). Being also from /v/, the happenings behind it were not hidden to me (hence also why I didn't partake completely, I don't like to implicate myself too much when /v/ goes on a campaign). I know how /pol/ acts and how easily influenced some of the posters are on the video games board. But like they say, /v/ is not one person. GamerGate might've been started by a bunch of pricks, it doesn't mean that everyone involved is a "mysoginist trying to get women out of the industry". I appreciate people like Boogie who are trying to turn something shitty into something worthwhile, because you get nothing by antagonizing. Myself had some pretty cool exchange here and there where I managed to make friends despite contrary viewpoints and it's surprising how much more easy the dialogue becomes

tl;dr: be cool, be you, don't be lazy, make pals. xoxoxo

 

[hidys]

I absolutely support the need for a proper discussion of ethics in the gaming press.

But while this harassment is going on it can't happen. Especially since a good number of people are afraid for their well-being.

Maybe in a few months.

 

[Señor Coyote]

This hashtag has already been revealed to have dubious double meaning, use and origin.

https://storify.com/strictmachine/gameovergate

Yet thousands are using it legitimately. It's origins are fairly irrelevant at this point.

 

[Lime]

I could imagine that if Greg's blog post on Gamasutra had been written by Leigh Alexander or any other woman, the entire thread, Neogaf, and Twitter would be in flames and in huge uproar over its "offending language".

 

[MrHoot]

I absolutely support the need for a proper discussion of ethics in the gaming press.

But while this harassment is going on it can't happen. Especially since a good number of people are afraid for their well-being.

Maybe in a few months.

Pretty much this.

I'd say right now, it's not possible to have something sensible. And while I don't necessarily agree that the whole thing is ABOUT harassment, the climate and the actual disgusting behaviours makes me sympathise with the people who are against it. Because it's a hard to push a point to someone when his face has just been trudged through mud. You want to offer him a towel first and give him time to recuperate

 

[Yrael]

I deleted the first part of the post one second after i posted it. He is defending an idea with the right premise in a bad way, and a sexist way that he probably doesnt even realize.

I can understand Greg's anger - the harassment and death threats directed towards the women involved have been vile, and seeing people white-wash, excuse or outright deny the abuse that has been leading to people bowing out of the industry altogether makes me rather angry too.

I agree that the blanket statement "good men defend women" is not helping though, since it smacks of benevolent sexism, which is, after all, still sexism (the bit afterwards about the duel was also...odd :x). Abuse is abuse, and ought to be condemned by any decent human being. (A more accurately-put point is that the bulk of the harassment we've seen so far has been gendered in nature and aimed at women; I don't think this is too controversial a point. Moreover, more men are generally in a better position to be able to curb this harassment - this is not because they are inherently meant to take on emotionally protective roles over women, but rather because they have more influence on their peers carrying out the abuse (who are mostly, although not all, male). Instead of attacking women, or remaining silent on the wings when this abuse occurs, more men could help to pave the way towards a more equitable and supportive environment by acting as positive examples.)

 

[disastermouse]

Regardless about how supporters feel about the women, the movement specifically and implicitly targets women in video games. While some people, like you, obviously don't have those intentions, the fact of the matter is that the consequences of the movement is ACTUALLY excluding women from the games industry.

It's like wearing a blindfold while unwittingly helping someone beating up a dog while proclaiming that you have nothing against dogs.

Yes. It's exactly like that. Refusing to honor the tarnishing of a hashtag by the side that also wanted to make 'gamer' an illegitimate moniker is EXACTLY like that.

The herp-derp is deep here.

 

[N-Bomb]

I miss where you're picking up that this was my intended point. I specifically left Quinn's name outside of the problem association in my post ("this is the thing that started because some woman supposedly fucked a journo for review scores right?") because I don't expect the wider community who heard about where #gamergate started to remeber such specifics as a name. I feel much more confident that they'll at least remember it being about a woman that's alleged to have slept with a journo for personal gain.

#gamergate was built on a lie. A lie that had one goal, to smear the character of, if not socially progressive women in video games in general (which is, I agree, entirely debatable), then at the very least to smear the character of Quinn herself specifically.

Sadly, that lie gained traction and wasn't sufficiently questioned or subsequently proven patently false to many of the people who are aware of what #gamergate is. Yes absolutely, the #gamergate conversation is currently dealing with matters separate to Quinn, entirely pretty much. Matters that are valid and should be discussed, because gods know there are enough people that want to have their say.

And I'm suggesting that the discussion shouldn't happen under that lie. If anyone, anywhere (and they are out there), is functioning under the possible idea that they're having this conversation because a woman slept with a journo to further her own career, the perpetrators of the lie are meeting their goal. This can - should - be discussed outside of a context which, however background-ey, links Quinn's bedroom to gaming.

The thing is, that tag is where all the limelight is. If we're going to change how things work in this industry, that's where it needs to happen. We can change what words mean. We can take back an insult and make it a badge of pride. So #gamergate is likely where this discussion has to take place.

No matter what the good intentions of a few people, are GamerGate will always be seen as a movement of hatred aimed at a minority within the video game industry. And that is all it will be remembered for.

It's unfortunate that some are continuing it despite knowing its misogynistic origins.

I respectfully disagree. To me, it's about gamers being painted, universally, as hatemachines and assholes, and an industry that's way too cozy with its chroniclers. I think that many people feel the same way. The misogyny angle is a sham and a smokescreen.

I'm frankly amazed that Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian have pushed on with what they are doing. I would totally understand if Anita Sarkeesian decided to abandon her Kickstarter project. They have far more courage than I ever will.

These women are too good for this industry.

Are you kidding me. Seriously.

One is famous for making what's essentially a Choose Your Own Adventure and getting it onto Steam somehow, and the other one is a shameless self-promoter who sob-story-scams people into donating money to her. There are FAR better women in gaming. TONS of them.

 

[Nephtis]

I could imagine that if Greg's blog post on Gamasutra had been written by Leigh Alexander or any other woman, the entire thread, Neogaf, and Twitter would be in flames and in huge uproar over its "offending language".

I put both Leigh and Greg on the same boat. They're just being incendiary assholes, instead of trying to appeal to reason. You're put in a platform where a lot of people will read and try to digest your post. A lot of people are underestimating the power they wield, and they just allow their feelings to ooze out. Which, guess what? It's going to bring about other peoples' feelings into it too. Especially so if the poster is condescending.

That's what got this thing so out of control.

 

[Oersted]

Yet thousands are using it legitimately. It's origins are fairly irrelevant at this point.

Just enter the hashtag in Twitter. It is constantly used for harassment and attacks on women and feminists.

 

[Oppo]

I could imagine that if Greg's blog post on Gamasutra had been written by Leigh Alexander or any other woman, the entire thread, Neogaf, and Twitter would be in flames and in huge uproar over its "offending language".

C'mon Lime. I know you are like ultra passionate about this thing, but no need to be snide and generalize all over again!

 

[Lime]

@N-Bomb

"it's about gamers being painted, universally, as hatemachines and assholes"

*supports movement started and continued by assholes terrorizing women*

If you really want to make aware that not all gamers are assholes or bigots, here's what Besada wrote:

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.

 

[bigwinnerx]

Harassment and doxxing and hate and threats is like a 10/10.

Journalist ethics trying to ride in on these rotten coattails is a 2/10 at best and needs to be tabled.

 

[Kurdel]

I put both Leigh and Greg on the same boat. They're just being incendiary assholes, instead of trying to appeal to reason. You're put in a platform where a lot of people will read and try to digest your post. A lot of people are underestimating the power they wield, and they just allow their feelings to ooze out. Which, guess what? It's going to bring about other peoples' feelings into it too. Especially so if the poster is condescending.

That's what got this thing so out of control.

Ever read a newspaper?

That is what we call an "editorial", where authors can express what they like the way they like.

It's not the same as an article, and it's meant to provoke a reaction, positively or negatively. On the other hand, that doesn't give people the right like goddamned animals, because they found an article "incendiary" or "offensive".

 

[disastermouse]

The thing is, that tag is where all the limelight is. If we're going to change how things work in this industry, that's where it needs to happen. We can change what words mean. We can take back an insult and make it a badge of pride. So #gamergate is likely where this discussion has to take place.





I respectfully disagree. To me, it's about gamers being painted, universally, as hatemachines and assholes, and an industry that's way too cozy with its chroniclers. I think that many people feel the same way. The misogyny angle is a sham and a smokescreen.




Are you kidding me. Seriously.

One is famous for making what's essentially a Choose Your Own Adventure and getting it onto Steam somehow, and the other one is a shameless self-promoter who sob-story-scams people into donating money to her. There are FAR better women in gaming. TONS of them.

Sarkeesian makes some good points and opens a way to influencing a different sort of game design. There's room for different kinds of game design. There's no reason to hate what she's doing, she's just presenting what she sees from her viewpoint.

Sarkeesian isn't demonizing anyone. She's presenting a view and it's up to you whether it's accurate and, to the extent that you think it is, whether that reflects so badly on your choices that you feel bad - that's on you.

The writers collectively demonizing gamers on game sites that hype these games that are supposedly so bad - that's a betrayal of sorts and an internally conflicted one at that.

 

[Oppo]

I am getting a little tired of being obliquely accused of "not standing up for women".

What am I supposed to do about anonymous assholes that no one else can do? I obviously don't tolerate this sort of behaviour in real life but this is the net. I am not complicit with these "concerned" anti-SJW idiots. I don't like the implication.

 

[Señor Coyote]

Just enter the hashtag in Twitter. It is constantly used for harassment and attacks on women and feminists.

I don't doubt some have used it to harass, this is the internet after all and no "side" isn't with out its detractors. Having kept up with the incoming tweets on and off for the last day though all I have seen is people expressing their dissatisfaction with the gaming press and/or defense of the term "gamer"

 

[Nephtis]

Ever read a newspaper?

That is what we call an "editorial", where authors can express what they like the way they like.

It's not the same as an article, and it's meant to provoke a reaction, positively or negatively. On the other hand, that doesn't give people the right like goddamned animals, because they found an article "incendiary" or "offensive".

You're absolutely right, it doesn't give anyone the right to act like an animal because of it. However, it's still a reality that when you make a post like that, it's not that surprising that you will get people acting like that because they found it offensive or incendiary.

That kind of crap - like Leigh's article for example? That wouldn't have made it past the editor in any respectable publication. And I mean, in actual print. I wonder how this whole thing would have played out had she not decided to get up on her pedestal and choose it was her time to enlighten us all.

 

[Fhtagn]

Yet thousands are using it legitimately. It's origins are fairly irrelevant at this point.

No, they actually aren't irrelevant. It was made explicitly and cynically to give cover to people doing terrible things. People using it with any sincerity are being used by the people who came up with it.

That people don't want to move to a different hashtag is simply beyond my comprehension. I'd be furious if I found this out about something I'd participated in.

 

[Seeds]

I could imagine that if Greg's blog post on Gamasutra had been written by Leigh Alexander or any other woman, the entire thread, Neogaf, and Twitter would be in flames and in huge uproar over its "offending language".

Would you prefer instead that Leighs article was taken down?

 

[Lime]

I am getting a little tired of being obliquely accused of "not standing up for women".

What am I supposed to do about anonymous assholes that no one else can do? I obviously don't tolerate this sort of behaviour in real life but this is the net. I am not complicit with these "concerned" anti-SJW idiots. I don't like the implication.

You're not and you aren't required to do anything about. But if you're signalboosting and associating yourself with a movement targetting women and rooted in a dubious and problematic origin, then you need to get off that train.

 

[Oersted]

I don't doubt some have used it to harass, this is the internet after all and no "side" isn't with out its detractors. Having kept up with the incoming tweets on and off for the last day though all I have seen is people expressing their dissatisfaction with the gaming press and/or defense of the term "gamer"

The dissatisfaction with the press is often enough expressed in such tweets:

The Portal series has won dozens of awards without the help of any SJW "critic." Chell is #notyourshield #gamergate http://t.co/5fP0fADSnZ

The "movement" has a problem

 

[N-Bomb]

@N-Bomb

"it's about gamers being painted, universally, as hatemachines and assholes"

*supports movement started and continued by assholes terrorizing women*

If you really want to make aware that not all gamers are assholes or bigots, here's what Besada wrote:

When gamers shut down the assholes? What mechanism is there exactly, for doing that? Unless game lobbies have added 'vote to kick the abusive person out' since I stopped doing much multiplayer gaming with pubbies.

As I said before, gamergate is not about harassing women and minorities, it's a reaction to the allegations of nepotism that came out in the initial Zoepost, and then the gaming media (and others') subsequent demonization of anyone who criticized Zoe or her friends as a misogynistic nerd. Also, further questionable connections between indie devs, indie gaming organizations such as IGF and gaming media, and a host of other things such as the harassment of TFYC, the silencing of the person Zoe abused (Wolf Wozniak), etc.

If you're seriously equating random assholage to a systematic terror campaign, your shoulder must hurt. You may be locked into your viewpoint and can't begin to see the other side. I don't know what else to say.