Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

I've made it clear to Greg in no uncertain times that I felt left out to dry by that article, and that it put the site's reputation through the wringer. For what it's worth, I generally have a lot of respect when it comes to editorial over there, and I'm usually consulted on anything with controversial potential to offer my input on how to improve a piece, or even if a piece is a good idea to run. In this case, I wasn't asked for input, and that's been acknowledged as a mistake.

I think Greg, at the very least, wants to make it right.

I won't lie, I've been considering my future a lot lately. Not just when it comes to my current job, but my entire choice of industry. The past six weeks have brought that up for a lot of people. Fact is, I don't know what road I'm taking with regards to leaving or cutting back content anywhere. All I know for sure is that right now, the love for what I do is lower than it's ever been, and I am doing what I can to keep myself into it.

Huh, thanks for answering that. I can understand completely how low all of this can make you feel. All I can say is that I think you're honestly one of the best voices we have right now, not just with regards to this bullshit but with your general position of loud consumer advocacy. You shouldn't do something you don't enjoy, of course, but I do think that the work that you do is important and if you did leave it would create a giant hole that I'm not sure who could fill

 

[Lime]

The thing I struggle to get my head around is how some of the most angry and crazy of the people commenting about the whole thing operate in day-to-day life and in the workplace. I can only imagine they have only male friends, or are in a very male dominated office/working environment.

This Onion Article is relevant. (trigger warning: slurs of all kinds incoming)

Though his incoherent, deeply uninformed, and often abusive internet comments seem to suggest he suffers from severe mental illness, web user DaemonX is in all likelihood a normal individual capable of functioning in the outside world, sources reported Wednesday.

Noting that he must at least own a computer, know how to use it, and possess the basic skills required to publish his thoughts on numerous websites and forums, internet users said DaemonX—the username of a person who posts dozens of inane and delusional comments online every day—is presumably a stable member of society.

“Clearly this guy has a working internet connection, so he must have some way of paying the bills, which I guess means he’s holding down a job,” said John Winegar, 34, reading YouTube comments from DaemonX that reportedly contained threats, profanity, and extremely forced sexual innuendos that make no sense to anyone. “If he lived with his parents or in some kind of mental health facility, surely someone would stop him from going online and making so many inexplicable and racially charged statements.”

“I can only assume this is an ordinary, sane individual who has a home, goes shopping, cooks dinner, and pays taxes like anyone else,” he added.

Suggestions that DaemonX could simply be a crazed vagrant using the internet at a public library have largely been dismissed, with Twitter users noting that his needlessly vulgar and aggressive tweets personally attacking “fat fuck” celebrities and other people he has never met often occur as late as 2 a.m.

Sources have also confirmed that DaemonX, whose comments on a recent Slate story headlined “The Hard Truth About Obesity” included “Obesity makes ME hard lol” and “Fuk Obama, take your camels back 2 Africa,” must at least possess the mental faculties necessary to have registered with the news website and have kept track of his username and password for each subsequent login.

Further evidence indicates the seemingly psychotic man probably lives in a house with four walls, a roof, and working utilities, drives a car on the same streets everyone else drives on, and is capable of routinely engaging in measured, straightforward face-to-face conversations with coworkers.

“His profile picture shows him with an arm around a smiling woman who appears to be his wife or girlfriend, so I guess he’s in a long-term relationship,” 27-year-old Facebook user Michelle Fairly said of the man who regularly comments “Bitch make me a sandwich” under news stories involving public figures who happen to be female. “Other photos show him with a 5-year-old girl—maybe she’s a daughter, maybe she’s a niece, but either way, we’re talking about a person who has a family and spends time with them.”

“Jesus Christ, this man may actually be responsible for the lives of young children,” she added while viewing a DaemonX comment on Reddit that simply read “Luv it when the internet is butthurt.” “That’s fucking scary.”

Online hints to his place of residence—found in his criticism of a local Thai restaurant whose food was delivered by a “lazy p.o.s. AZN that needs to learn English” and an Instagram photo of a neighborhood dog he described as “herp derp herp derp herp derp herp derp”—suggest DaemonX apparently lives on a residential street like any other in America and is not currently institutionalized.

As a result, sources added, the man who has claimed on numerous occasions to be the “only 1 who makes any fucking sense, fuck u if ur 2 stupid to take it” presumably interacts freely with dozens of citizens per day without any monitoring whatsoever.

“The scariest thing is knowing that DaemonX isn’t the only one out there,” an anonymous internet user told reporters in an email statement. “There r so many crazy fucking nutsoz in this world that it makes me want to shoot everyone. Those faggots can go die.”

“Fucking faggits,” he added

 

[Lime]

I think there's an optimistic part of me that thinks most of these people are teenagers or 20-somethings that were bullied and now see this as their chance at taking back empowerment and are too drunk at the Kool-Aid to believe the level of harassment going on around them. I want to believe that these people will stop and be repulsed by the movement when they realize what is actually happening.

I've talked to some people (coincidentally all of them were men, but let's not generalize) who are well in the end of their 20's if not 30's who feel Gamergate is speaking for them. They work in the games industry and feel they are oppressed because they might lose their jobs and reputation if they speak up about the things they want to say. Some say they are shamed into silence. Which basically means that they think and want to say sexist or racist or homophobic shit, but social rules fortunately forbids them to.

Luckily they are in the minority of the ones I've talked to, so most are sensible about all of this. But these people do exist and they aren't necessarily young people. Most of the supporters have a degree, a job, some even own a company.

I just wished the "neutral" ones and the people who aren't affected by this (i.e. they can just lay back and don't get attacked) would speak up and take a stand to let the bigots know it's not okay what they are doing.

 

[tonysidaway]

I've talked to some people (coincidentally all of them were men, but let's not generalize) who are well in the end of their 20's if not 30's who feel Gamergate is speaking for them. They work in the games industry and feel they are oppressed because they might lose their jobs and reputation if they speak up about the things they want to say. Some say they are shamed into silence. Which basically means that they think and want to say sexist or racist or homophobic shit, but social rules fortunately forbids them to.

This is actually the face of Gamergate that we all see. I wish the "reasonable" ones would show up on Twitter and take issue with these crackpots for making their movement look like misogynists. But they won't, even if they exist, because the whole point about Gamergate is to deny responsibility for the disgusting behaviour.

At this point, I can only trundle out Mitchell and Webb.

Mitchell and Webb: "Are we the baddies?": http://youtu.be/ToKcmnrE5oY

 

[Neoriceisgood]

This is actually the face of Gamergate that we all see. I wish the "reasonable" ones would show up on Twitter and take issue with these crackpots for making their movement look like misogynists. But they won't, even if they exist, because the whole point about Gamergate is to deny responsibility for the disgusting behaviour.

The few people who sooorta speak out get called shills anyway.

 

[Irminsul]

How did the people who started this misogynist rampage know about the articles _weeks before they were written_?

I don't think Riposte is talking about the creators of the hashtag, but people "jumping in" later.

Maybe there actually were some people for which Alexander's or any of the other "Gamers are dead" articles were the "tipping point" after the articles EmCeeGamer mentioned a few(?) pages ago. Maybe they found a hashtag "ready to use" and didn't care so much about its beginnings.

At least I think that is what Riposte wanted to say. I mean, it doesn't really explain why people who were using the hashtag for precisely these reasons didn't just stop after getting to know its origins (as well as the vast majority of tweets followed by it), but on the other hand, we do have an example for that right in this thread. So maybe it's possible.

 

[freddy]

This is actually the face of Gamergate that we all see. I wish the "reasonable" ones would show up on Twitter and take issue with these crackpots for making their movement look like misogynists. But they won't, even if they exist, because the whole point about Gamergate is to deny responsibility for the disgusting behaviour.

At this point, I can only trundle out Mitchell and Webb.

Mitchell and Webb: "Are we the baddies?": http://youtu.be/ToKcmnrE5oY

I did post something a few pages back about some GamerGate people doing a good thing but it was pretty much ignored universally.

https://twitter.com/sanc/status/521206513130799105

I think people were more concerned with winning Boogie over at the time, perhaps so it might have been missed for that reason. Anyway here it is again with GamerGaters possibly tracking down the person responsible for Anita Sarkeesian's death threats.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

Okay, so this is what I don't understand about the "moderate" gator who's just upset about those articles.

See, I was upset when a bunch of media people decided that ME3 was perfectly fine and entitled losers only disliked it because they didn't like sad endings, and that an ending change would ruin games-as-art forever. Even as someone who doesn't really care for DMC, I cringed whenever I heard "oh you just can't handle black hair." When Arthur Gies was acting like he had made some kind of secret bet where he had to defend SimCity for a whole week to win a million dollars? That was pretty funny! Or when we heard that Sony would implement DRM too, just like MS, because this was simply the inevitable arc of technology and we all had to accept it. Even in the months leading up to all of this insanity, it was a running joke among the mods to post obvious examples of Polygon's descent into clickbait after their longform features (sadly) failed to produce hits, even when Kuchera was insisting that "clickbait" didn't exist.

But I never joined a hashtag campaign over any of this. I made fun of them or vociferously disagreed with them online for far longer than is humanly healthy, yeah. But I have no idea what such a campaign would have done, or accomplished, that would be reasonable in any way, shape, or form.


So, as someone who's spent the last week trying to become good at fighting with a ninja frog pokeyman, and desperately trying to pretend that Ganondorf will be top-tier this time, I... wasn't really offended by any of these articles that apparently were supposed to be insulting me.

But you know what? Not my place to say what offends someone. Okay.

But... that leads me the question: If you honestly only joined the 'gate over those articles... why join a hashtag campaign? What, exactly, are you honestly doing with that campaign? What have you accomplished? What are you hoping to accomplish? What things are you doing right now that you honestly think will make those accomplishments happen? How much 'gate-related time have you spent actually working towards those goals, in comparison to just... telling people online that it's not about (bad thing), it's about (good thing)?

Because saying "well I'm a gamer and I'm not a misogynist" is all well and good, but you have to understand that most (if not all) of the people who wrote and agreed with those articles are "gamers" in the traditional sense as well, and they certainly don't think that all gamers are misogynists either. It's also not really accomplishing anything as a movement. So if you and the rest of the moderates aren't really moving anything forward, then the only visible action is from the people who are trying to accomplish a goal; and boy, do they have "interesting" goals. And so far, the only actions being taken are by the "crazies" who you claim don't represent you. That's why the only news being reported on is "person violently harassed out of their home after criticizing an internet movement," or "B-list actor thinks that small academic group that nobody has ever heard of is a government-funded conspiracy to control gaming."


So far, all of the moderates I've seen don't seem to be really doing anything with even a fraction of the effort as the "fringe that doesn't represent us." All I ever see of them is affirmations that they're respectable human beings (which is great, but I and most other people honestly weren't impugning you on that), or rushing to the defense of a nine-letter nonsense word whenever someone associated with it does something terrible.

What do you call members of a movement who don't actually... move?

I'm a gamer and I kind of find much of this to be pretty stupid. Excluding the hateful, hurtful, threats and the like, which is serious, but there isn't much to say about that stuff that isn't obvious.

It is all confirmation bias for me. Gamers can be some of the worst people, and can be people who make mountains out of mole hills. Game "Journalists" are some of the worst people, and abuse their status in the industry.

A subset of gamers aligning with Breitbart is both hilarious and scary. So what's next? an Infowars "gaming" website? Conversely, Game "journalists" get to feed their own status by co-opting racial/gender issues.

My opinion largely falls along the lines of the Jacobin Mag piece since a Marxist/Class Conscious piece places various levels of blame on the entire industry. I consider myself a "gamer" because I like to game as a hobby, but I am otherwise largely divorced from the spectacle and don't base an identity on it.

 

[antigoon]

Hey Jim - if it helps, I think your work is great. Probably the only gaming-related video content I consume, actually. Thanks for taking a stand. It matters.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

A subset of gamers aligning with Breitbart is both hilarious and scary. So what's next? an Infowars "gaming" website? Conversely, Game "journalists" get to feed their own status by co-opting racial/gender issues.

Honestly, once they start realising they've got an actual market in the gaming community it's not that far-fetched.

 

[Lime]

If anyone is familiar with the survey sent out about diversity in video games ( if you're on any games-industry or culture-related or -academic relation distribution list, you may remember it), the author of the survey has been exposed to harassment as soon as Gamergate peeps found out and written an article on Jezebel, calling it a hate group with a bunch of great research and theory on how a hate group operates according to specific concepts:

It's my theory that #Gamergate as a movement is now acting out of fear. After the release of the IRC logs revealing the movement for what it is, the damning mainstream opinion pieces, and a brutal series of PR losses, the movement is now scared, and lashing out at everything that stands to fit the narrative of their perceived aggressors. At this point, there is no dialogue, even though they still say they are trying to promote one. You simply can't have a sane and productive conversation with someone who would be happier if you killed yourself.

#Gamergate, as they have treated myself and peers in our industry, is a hate group. This word, again, should not lend them any mystique or credence. Rather it should illuminate the fact that even the most nebulous and inconsistent ideas can proliferate wildly if strung onto the organizational framework of the hate group, which additionally gains a startling amount of power online. #Gamergate is a hate group, and they are all the more dismissible for it. And the longer we treat them otherwise, the longer I fear for our industry's growth.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Game "Journalists" are some of the worst people, and abuse their status in the industry.

I am curious, who are you talking about?

 

[Cybit]

Yeah...

I think it's just an extension of the fake girl gamer thing. It's pretty easy to dismiss a female as not being a "real gamer." Or maybe it's the fact that most believe that the majority trumps the minority voice.

I'm not sure. But I don't think this is a consumer revolt. I think this is a conservative consumer revolt reacting to a SJW consumer revolt.

Yep. Fundamentally, this is the counter-revolt to a much larger consumer revolt / addition going on in (at least) US society.

We're the first generation of the USA (and humanity as a whole) where women working a full-time job is the majority and the expectation for the most part. So there's a whole new group / class / insert word describing a sub-set of consumers that have a crap-ton of money, and not many products pandering / aimed towards them because they were not historically a consumer base that had a lot of money to spend in terms of entertainment. Feminism isn't rising because it is a "great social cause" or "people magically decided thousands of years of screwed up policies were bad". It's rising because 20-35 year old women now have a crap-ton of money; and thus the influence commeasurate with said money. This is the USA. You want to have a seat at the table? Have money. This realization makes me feel very sad for several groups in the US, as I don't think they will ever get anything because of how they've been oppressed.

http://insights.wm.ml.com/articles/women-power.html#fbid=aiwuYGbfQFC

Some choice quotes out of the article:

The numbers informing that conversation are hard to ignore. Boston Consulting Group has predicted that within 15 years, women as a group will be earning more than men. Already, the number of U.S. women with six-figure incomes is rising at more than three times the rate of men who earn that much, according to the Census Bureau. The wage gap still persists, particularly for women of color and older women who have moved in and out of the workforce during their careers. But increasingly young women, earning more than their mothers ever dreamed of, are entering upper management, with all of the power and responsibility that entails. In developing nations, meanwhile, women's earned income has been growing at a rate of 8.1%, compared with 5.8% for men, according to Deloitte's "The Gender Dividend."

With their increasing workforce participation and entrepreneurial activity has come massive financial clout. Women in the U.S., for instance, now have roughly $5 trillion in purchasing power. Today, 43% of the wealthiest people in the U.S. are women, and, because women typically live longer than men, it's estimated that nine out of 10 women will eventually take charge of their families' wealth. "Over 50% of the wealth in America will be in the hands of women by 2030," notes Bartels. "That is huge."

These days, too, women are the primary household breadwinners more often than in years past, and they have more of their own money to spend. Against that backdrop, and with women in the U.S. already making almost three out of four purchasing decisions in the home, companies would do well to keep women top of mind at the level of product design.

 

[endless dave]

No offense jason but if you wanted to have that conversation, you could. You don't need gamergate to do it.

If your organization decided tomorrow to pen a code of ethics, discuss it with your viewers, and then adhere to it you're certainly welcome to do that.

I think it would go a long way to regaining some consumer trust and gaining new readers as well. Just a thought.

I would also take it a step in the right direction I helped encourage and I'd sleep a hell of a lot better, to boot.

You could even rest assured that gamergate would get no satisfaction from it because as far as I can tell from the last time I read them discussing your website they say its "too late, just let it burn."

I assume boogie has done a lot in the past to supposedly earn the good will of most of you, but the only thing I've seen in this thread is him constantly putting himself on the cross, bemoaning his stake in life, and unwilling to bend on the idea supporting a shit movement. and then he throws in this little jab "well if you just did the things I WANT I sure wouldn't be in such a bad place" like it's Kotaku's place to placate his neuroses and issues

I don't get the eagerness to walk on egg shells for this guy I guess

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

I am curious, who are you talking about?

People like Arthur Gies and that guy that dipped from Penny Arcade to Polygon?

Terrible.

Not as awful as the scumbags that have been making threats and disgusting remarks, mind you.

 

[More_Badass]

People like Arthur Gies and that guy that dipped from Penny Arcade to Polygon?

Terrible.

Not as awful as the scumbags that have been making threats and disgusting remarks, mind you.

And that makes them "some of the worst people"?
Generalizations like that makes it clear how something like GamerGate still persists

 

[ClosingADoor]

Game "Journalists" are some of the worst people, and abuse their status in the industry.

Thanks mate... Care to explain why, what a game journalist has done to you and what kind of abuse they are guilty of?

 

[Quote]

Thanks mate... Care to explain why, what a game journalist has done to you and what kind of abuse they are guilty of?

Burned down his house, kicked his dog, killed his immediate family and most of all, gave Twiglight Princess an 8.8.

People like Arthur Gies and that guy that dipped from Penny Arcade to Polygon?

Terrible.

Not as awful as the scumbags that have been making threats and disgusting remarks, mind you.

Any chance that if we do the math, that 2 journalists out of many many more means they're an anomaly?

Because like, I also dislike those two guys, but guess what? There's a metric fuck-ton of good gaming journalists out there besides those two. And best of all, I don't even have to read the work of those two.

From the anecdotal dialogue I've seen, they are not taken very seriously by most unless you're the ones offended. Which is an endless cycle GG is built off of.

 

[Lalalandia]

I assume boogie has done a lot in the past to supposedly earn the good will of most of you, but the only thing I've seen in this thread is him constantly putting himself on the cross, bemoaning his stake in life, and unwilling to bend on the idea supporting a shit movement. and then he throws in this little jab "well if you just did the things I WANT I sure wouldn't be in such a bad place" like it's Kotaku's place to placate his neuroses and issues

I don't get the eagerness to walk on egg shells for this guy I guess

I guess I see some of my own history in his 'Draw your life' video thing and he is one of the very few people sympathetic to GG in this thread to engage rather than just drive by shit post. To be clear there have been several folks who strongly disagree with my views on this issue who have engaged in a perfectly reasonable manner also. For me it was pretty clear that he was deeply distressed making those posts and I choose to believe he isn't as cynical as to deploy suicidal thoughts as a rhetorical device.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

And that makes them "some of the worst people"?
Generalizations like that makes it clear how something like GamerGate still persists

Fair enough. Lumping together individuals with the general awfulness of the outlets themselves (IGN, Polygon, etc) isn't exactly fair.

 

[kiunchbb]

I guess I see some of my own history in his 'Draw your life' video thing and he is one of the very few people sympathetic to GG in this thread to engage rather than just drive by shit post. To be clear there have been several folks who strongly disagree with my views on this issue who have engaged in a perfectly reasonable manner also. For me it was pretty clear that he was deeply distressed making those posts and I choose to believe he isn't as cynical as to deploy suicidal thoughts as a rhetorical device.

What I don't get is unlike most people in #gg, boogie actually has a huge audiences. He will be a lot better off(and a lot more effective) promoting the goal of #gg without the annoying tag.

You don't have to join the tea party to advocate smaller government.

 

[More_Badass]

Fair enough. Lumping together individuals with the general awfulness of the outlets themselves (IGN, Polygon, etc) isn't exactly fair.

I hope I didn't insult. But I guess I've seen that same "oh, some people did this = all gamers/journalists/[insert group] are bad" mindset enough times to get annoyed and tired of it. Absolute generalizations just hurt any possibities of actual discussion and change.

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

I hope I didn't insult. But I guess I've seen that same "oh, some people did this = all gamers/journalists/[insert group] are bad" mindset enough times to get annoyed and tired of it. Absolute generalizations just hurt any possibities of actual discussion and change.

No, you're right. I sat here and thought about my post for a minute and saying "gamers = awful" and "game journalists = awful" got me to consider people I do like in both categories. I don't watch many YT personalities but I find Boogie a personable, funny, and would assume nice guy and wouldn't say he's awful. Same thing about Jim Sterling, who I had the pleasure of meeting personally a while back when he showed up at one of my band's gigs. Complete gentleman.

It is this big, monolithic stigma that a sizable but nebulous group of angry/incompetent people are giving the entire culture and it envelopes excellent people within it.

 

[Lalalandia]

What I don't get is unlike most people in #gg, boogie actually has a huge audiences. He will be a lot better off(and a lot more effective) promoting the goal of #gg without the annoying tag.

You don't have to join the tea party to advocate smaller government.

I agree completely but unfortunately Boogie does not, I hate speaking for him but from my reading of his posts he feels that damning the GG label throws too many honest people under the bus. You can see his replies to people making the same point to him and form your own opinion but that's what I took away from them.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Fair enough. Lumping together individuals with the general awfulness of the outlets themselves (IGN, Polygon, etc) isn't exactly fair.

You know what I always find difficult with this stuff? There are a dozen people working at those websites, yet they are being compared as one. If one review states this, the other review doesn't have to agree with that.

You link to some Polygon stuff. Are those all from the same writer then? Because different reviewers have different opinions, as they should. Otherwise you might as well make an automatic review program that gives point based on graphics, resolution and gameplay hours.

Edit: At Polygon, GTA V is reviewed by a different person than Killer Is Dead and Bayonetta 2. Why attack the website because 2 people have different opinions.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

People like Arthur Gies and that guy that dipped from Penny Arcade to Polygon?

Terrible.

Not as awful as the scumbags that have been making threats and disgusting remarks, mind you.

I mean, they're opinionated people with biases and agendas but they don't make up an industry anymore than Breitbart and Cavuto make up the width and breadth of political journalism.

 

[Cybit]

You know what I always find difficult with this stuff? There are a dozen people working at those websites, yet they are being compared as one. If one review states this, the other review doesn't have to agree with that.

You link to some Polygon stuff. Are those all from the same writer then? Because different reviewers have different opinions, as they should. Otherwise you might as well make an automatic review program that gives point based on graphics, resolution and gameplay hours.

Edit: At Polygon, GTA V is reviewed by a different person than Killer Is Dead and Bayonetta 2. Why attack the website because 2 people have different opinions.

Indeed. For instance, I enjoy Totilo and Jason Schrier's (SP?) articles a lot, but I've noticed I am not a fan of Pat Hernandez (also, the entire "covering someone's game when you were their close friend and roommate and not disclosing it bugs the hell out of me. I know the game industry is incestuous, but at least put a little disclaimer up at the top". Different people like different things.

 

[Son of Cervantes]

I mean, they're opinionated people with biases and agendas but they don't make up an industry anymore than Breitbart and Cavuto make up the width and breadth of political journalism.

Kuchera is a straight-up scumbag who tried to get Erik Kain fired.

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I'm pretty tired of "generalizing gamer gate is bad!" "generalizing gamers is bad!" "generalizing gaming journalists is bad!"

For the most part, all of those things are inaccurate, yes, overbroad, yes, and weaken whatever point was trying to be made, but such generalizations are NOT some kind of morally culpable behavior that should be compared to negative stereotypes associated with immutable characteristics such as someone's race, gender, or sexuality. There's a reason why some classifications get constitutional protection and some don't (and, hopefully, some that will in the near future).

 

[More_Badass]

I'm pretty tired of "generalizing gamer gate is bad!" "generalizing gamers is bad!" "generalizing gaming journalists is bad!"

For the most part, all of those things are inaccurate, yes, overbroad, yes, and weaken whatever point was trying to be made, but such generalizations are NOT some kind of morally culpable behavior that should be compared to negative stereotypes associated with immutable characteristics such as someone's race, gender, or sexuality. There's a reason why some classifications get constitutional protection and some don't (and, hopefully, some that will in the near future).

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. Who here is comparing those kind of generalizations with race/gender/etc. stereotypes? Or do you mean in general, rather than in this thread?

 

[TheBryanJZX90]

I'm not exactly what you're trying to say here. Who here is comparing those kind of generalizations with race/gender/etc. stereotypes? Or do you mean in general, rather than in this thread?

Yeah I think I mostly am responding to the response to Leigh Alexander's article, as has appeared in this thread multiple times (most recently with Boogie) but not really where the thread currently is. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[RicoTheMad]

I've talked to some people (coincidentally all of them were men, but let's not generalize) who are well in the end of their 20's if not 30's who feel Gamergate is speaking for them. They work in the games industry and feel they are oppressed because they might lose their jobs and reputation if they speak up about the things they want to say. Some say they are shamed into silence. Which basically means that they think and want to say sexist or racist or homophobic shit, but social rules fortunately forbids them to.

Luckily they are in the minority of the ones I've talked to, so most are sensible about all of this. But these people do exist and they aren't necessarily young people. Most of the supporters have a degree, a job, some even own a company.

I just wished the "neutral" ones and the people who aren't affected by this (i.e. they can just lay back and don't get attacked) would speak up and take a stand to let the bigots know it's not okay what they are doing.

I'd venture to say the bolded statement should tell you *exactly* why they feel like they can't speak up. Because if they backed *any* part of the movement, regardless of how opposed to harassment, sexism, and any social issues, they will automatically be binned as misogynists because in general people seem to think that unlike everything else in life, *this* thing, is black or white, apparently.

Do you think the people in GamerGate saying "websites should not offer favoritism when covering games towards developers they know and are friends with" make any sort of sense? if you do, and you speak up saying so, that means you are also supporting death threats, sexism, and anything else people feel like lumping with that hash tag. Why? Because you're a faceless stranger on the internet, and people want someone to hate, and because the scum posting the death threats isn't here, you're it, buddy.

Let's not mince words here, this kind of attitude is really only fostering hate. The very hate you are trying to fight. It's really sad that people feel the need to inflict this kind of pain on people that actually even agree with their own ideals, like Boogie, simply because they think that regardless of where an idea comes from, if it's a worthy idea, it should be explored and analyzed.

Taking a stand is *not* equivalent to "being on X side". Taking a stand is *not* standing for the kind of harassment bolded above. Making assumptions about people, hating them before they even give you a reason to hate them. That's toxic behavior, that is *not* the way of getting people to embrace your message.

I'm pro equality. Pro women's rights, pro minorities, pro gay rights, pro people being who they wnat to be, pro humans being good to one another, period.

I am against people using generalizations to harm individuals. I am against people stepping on others to further their own agenda. I am against belittling anyone to make yourself feel superior.

If you truly want things to get better, then we both want the same thing. My point is, insulting and harassing others does not further anyone's good cause. Fighting fire with fire only burns down your house.

The people using gamergate to harass, threaten, victimize, or hurt people are scum. I don't think anyone really disagrees with that sentiment. But let's be real here, there are quite a few gamergate people being harassed as well, and if you truly want to use generalizations to define groups of people, then the only people coming out clean *are* the people not saying anything.

Yet another reason to stay away from generalizations. I feel like I post this a lot here, but it falls on deaf ears. Maybe I'm just weird and dislike the idea of the "righteous mass, smiting the evil" since I generally believe even the most mislead individual can change for the better, but not by being ostracized, but by being shown the right way.

 

[BlastProcessing]

That's why I said "allegations", I didn't believe a lot of what he said and I recognized bias but here's the reality: the press answers to the public, it serves the public interest and if the public becomes concerned regarding your outlet's ability to honestly serve their interests you need to respond to those concerns. I work in broadcast engineering, if there was so much public interest in how we handled our reporting at my station we would have responded. Our News department's director would have responded and he has in the past responded to such concerns about how we've handled our reporting.

"the press answers to the public" ≠ "[the press] serves the public interest"

In fact many times these two ideas are diametrically opposed. Serving the public interest doesn't mean they are beholden to tell the public anything and everything.

The Press are curators of information. Their entire reason for existing to to find and share only salient information. If you don't see why outlets dedicated to covering video games didn't jump all over the "Relationship Ends Badly" story or the "Ex-Boyfriend Has Salacious Tale That Paints him as a Hero and His Ex as a Villain" story that is only corroborated personal chat logs that would be wildly unethical to publish, i dunno, go ask one of your editors about it.

It's like ripping on the New York Times for not covering Batboy.

 

[bootski]

I'd venture to say the bolded statement should tell you *exactly* why they feel like they can't speak up. Because if they backed *any* part of the movement, regardless of how opposed to harassment, sexism, and any social issues, they will automatically be binned as misogynists because in general people seem to think that unlike everything else in life, *this* thing, is black or white, apparently.

Do you think the people in GamerGate saying "websites should not offer favoritism when covering games towards developers they know and are friends with" make any sort of sense? if you do, and you speak up saying so, that means you are also supporting death threats, sexism, and anything else people feel like lumping with that hash tag. Why? Because you're a faceless stranger on the internet, and people want someone to hate, and because the scum posting the death threats isn't here, you're it, buddy.

Let's not mince words here, this kind of attitude is really only fostering hate. The very hate you are trying to fight. It's really sad that people feel the need to inflict this kind of pain on people that actually even agree with their own ideals, like Boogie, simply because they think that regardless of where an idea comes from, if it's a worthy idea, it should be explored and analyzed.

Taking a stand is *not* equivalent to "being on X side". Taking a stand is *not* standing for the kind of harassment bolded above. Making assumptions about people, hating them before they even give you a reason to hate them. That's toxic behavior, that is *not* the way of getting people to embrace your message.

I'm pro equality. Pro women's rights, pro minorities, pro humans being good to one another, period.

I am against people using generalizations to harm individuals. I am against people stepping on others to further their own agenda. I am against belittling anyone to make yourself feel superior.

If you truly want things to get better, then we both want the same thing. My point is, insulting and harassing others does not further anyone's good cause. Fighting fire with fire only burns down your house.

The people using gamergate to harass, threaten, victimize, or hurt people are scum. I don't think anyone really disagrees with that sentiment. But let's be real here, there are quite a few gamergate people being harassed as well, and if you truly want to use generalizations to define groups of people, then the only people coming out clean *are* the people not saying anything.

Yet another reason to stay away from generalizations. I feel like I post this a lot here, but it falls on deaf ears. Maybe I'm just weird and dislike the idea of the "righteous mass, smiting the evil" since I generally believe even the most mislead individual can change for the better, but not by being ostracized, but by being shown the right way.

that's a pretty solid way to put it. i agree completely.

also, there was mention earlier in the thread about a video boogie has posted and he even mentioned it himself, but i can't find it on his channel. did he take it down or is it just not linked there? anyone have a link for me please?

 

[Zuhzuhzombie!!]

I mean, they're opinionated people with biases and agendas but they don't make up an industry anymore than Breitbart and Cavuto make up the width and breadth of political journalism.

I'm not really talking about just folks with a different opinion or anything. I like Gerstmann in spite of his love of WWE and dislike of NiGHTS.

I mean, specifically, guys like Kuchera and Gies. Though I appreciate Kuchera's statements in the whole -gate thing.

But as far as Breitbart goes, I think it is similar. There may be a decent person who writes for Breitbart but that person is over shadowed by ignominious personalities like Ben Shapiro.

 

[Lalalandia]

I'd venture to say the bolded statement should tell you *exactly* why they feel like they can't speak up. Because if they backed *any* part of the movement, regardless of how opposed to harassment, sexism, and any social issues, they will automatically be binned as misogynists because in general people seem to think that unlike everything else in life, *this* thing, is black or white, apparently.

Well most folks who I've personally asked to explain why they feel 'constricted' tend to go on to express opinions that are at best described as problematic and worst just outright bigoted so I'm going to go ahead and agree with Lime on this one.

GG is not a starting point for a discussion on ethics in journalism we had a thread thousands of posts long discussing ethics in journalism just fine before this shit show started. GG changed that, GG turned the conversation from 'we need to focus on ethics' to 'SJW fascists are suppressing discussion of ZQ'. It's not possible to discuss ethics when most of the time it swings back around to complaints about 'agendas' or 'politics' being forced on people. This is especially ironic as most of the prominent folks associated with the GG movement are most assuredly in the business of pushing agendas, Boogie is a rare exception in this regard and he is clearly struggling to find a middle ground that excludes the most problematic elements.

 

[JackDT]

I think Boogie's okay and I believe it when he says he wants everyone in gaming to be kind. I just don't think he realizes that when he calls a reviewer "the worst kind of person." for putting their honest feelings about a game out there... to others that comes across as quite hurtful and unkind.

 

[antigoon]

I think Boogie's okay and I believe it when he says he wants everyone in gaming to be kind. I just don't think he realizes that when he calls a reviewer "the worst kind of person." for putting their honest feelings about a game out there... to others that comes across as quite hurtful and unkind.

what?

 

[RicoTheMad]

Well most folks who I've personally asked to explain why they feel 'constricted' tend to go on to express opinions that are at best described as problematic and worst just outright bigoted so I'm going to go ahead and agree with Lime on this one.

GG is not a starting point for a discussion on ethics in journalism we had a thread thousands of posts long discussing ethics in journalism just fine before this shit show started. GG changed that, GG turned the conversation from 'we need to focus on ethics' to 'SJW fascists are suppressing discussion of ZQ'. It's not possible to discuss ethics when most of the time it swings back around to complaints about 'agendas' or 'politics' being forced on people. This is especially ironic as most of the prominent folks associated with the GG movement are most assuredly in the business of pushing agendas, Boogie is a rare exception in this regard and he is clearly struggling to find a middle ground that excludes the most problematic elements.

Why can't GG be a starting point for something positive? If you truly think the movement was meant to only be something negative, then the *best* thing you could possibly do is turn it into a force for good. The people with agendas to push will always go to wherever they can get the tallest soapbox, but again, regardless of the agenda, if someone brings up an idea worth discussing, it should be pursued based on its own merits.

If you want an extreme example, imagine a dictator came up with a way to end world hunger forever, and that it had no downsides. Should we ignore that breakthrough simply because it came from the lips of someone of dubious or bad moral character? Isn't it worth at least analyzing it before condemning it?

Arguments and ideas should be examined separately from the character of the person expressing them. That's only true if we're truly trying to be logical here.

 

[endless dave]

Well most folks who I've personally asked to explain why they feel 'constricted' tend to go on to express opinions that are at best described as problematic and worst just outright bigoted so I'm going to go ahead and agree with Lime on this one.

as a white man who also works in an entertainment field, I can attest to this as well.

 

[JackDT]

what?

In reference to Arthur Gies Polygon review:

When you misrepresent the quality of a game because you reject its female lead, you're being the worst kind of person. Insane.

https://twitter.com/Boogie2988/status/521658278112415744

 

[Baron_Calamity]

I posted an article about #gamersgate become a hate group on twitter and it took less than 40 minutes for me to start getting threats of violence. I have like 20 real followers and no one knew I existed. Does the group sit on the net all day waiting to strike down destining opinion?

 

[antigoon]

In reference to Arthur Gies Polygon review:



https://twitter.com/Boogie2988/status/521658278112415744

*sigh*

here we go again.

I just read the first page of the "Bayonetta and sexualization" thread. Total mistake.

 

[Galactic Fork]

I've stated it about 33 times in this thread but I don't mind a 34th in case people will read it.

My personal goals are
(1)Integrity in the gaming industry
(2)inclusiveness in the gaming industry
(3)ridding the hobby of all unnecessary stigma surrounding it

my goals in gamergate are the same, with one added thing; (4) I want to encourage everyone involved to apply empathy to everyone else involved and try to find a reasonable way for this to end that doesn't damage the hobby.

If somehow I get those things with either my sanity or my career intact, I'd consider that a bonus as well.

(1) This is very vague. Integrity how?
(2) Why are you using GG then? They are going after the advertisers of gaming sites for posting articles about social issues. They are trying to get sites shut down for posting articles they don't like. If you want inclusion, isn't this the exact opposite of what you want?
(3) That isn't going to come from the outside, that's going to have to be done from within, and not because of gamergate. Gamergate is helping the stigma.

(still on 3 here) This is interesting because earlier you posted this:

That's the difference between you and I. People hate it when I use this example but I'm going to use it none the less.

I believe that extremists NEVER represent the whole until a VERY LARGE PORTION of that whole is an extremist. It doesn't matter which example you give here, pick your least favorite and presume I used that one. If there are a million people who believe a thing, and only one... or 10... or 100... or a thousand of those people do something shitty that doesn't mean the entire group is shitty to me.

Whats the cut off for me? I don't know. 75%? too high. Half? Maybe. 25%? reasonable still.

but do I think 25% of gamers are sending death threats and harassing women? not at all. not even close.

Whats your threshold? How many gamers out of the BILLION globally have to be harassing women until, for you, its all of us?

This is not only about gamergate, but can also be about gamers in general. The situation is basically the same actually (this is not an accident). A minority being loud and giving a face to the whole, while making the larger group look bad. The reason this happens is the same for both cases as well.
I said this earlier in the thread about someone referencing your video that if someone says something shitty on xbox live, they don't represent all gamers:

While this can be true, it's not the "bad people" that represent the group, it's the group's response to the "bad people." If a guy says shit over Xbox Live, and nobody says anything, that represents gamers. If lots of people talk shit over Xbox live or MMOs and any complaint or pushback is met with "well go to a different server" or "block them," that represents gamers. It's saying the "bad people" have a definitive place in the community and it's everybody else's job to accept it, or adjust their actions around it. It makes the "bad people" the default, and those who don't want to deal with them "the other." The people not affected by "the bad people" are more put out by the people complaining about the "bad people" than the "bad people" themselves. And that reflects on the community.

One thing we can do to get rid of the stigma on gamers is to stand up and no longer treat the shitty people as the default. Make the environment hostile for them. Don't treat racist, homophobic, sexist slurs spewed while gaming online as the default. Don't tell others to leave the servers to avoid the shit, make those producing the shit leave servers. We've allowed that loud minority to be so loud. We stayed silent while they raised their voices. It's not up to those on the outside to look at us differently, it's up to us to show them.

Another thing we can do is what Leigh Alexander was trying to do, which was get the industry to see there are people outside of the narrow idea of "Gamers". Never did she say "all gamers are X." She said that is how people outside of gaming see gaming. To quote her article "This is what the rest of the world knows about your industry" and it's true. And gamergate is making it worse. Her article was a call for inclusion from the gaming industry. Something you claim you want.

This sentiment applies to gamergate.
You boogie, are telling everybody to ignore the "bad people" and focus on what you think gamergate is about. You have to accept that gamergate is allowing the harassment to occur. They are all under the banner of your message. If you want people to ignore them, get rid of them. If you feel that they are the default and can't be gotten rid of, then you leave.

(4) The hobby was already damaged. The people outside had a view of gaming. And those in the media who are trying to change that view are having gamergaters trying to get their sponsors to pull out. Real inclusion, and the end of the "gamer" stereotype is needed to save the hobby, but that is what gamergate is fighting against.

Earlier you said you were pro-consumer. Well you're not the only consumer. People who are rarely or represented poorly in gaming are consumers, too. Just because you seem to think the stereotype that Alexander was saying no longer needs to apply is the default doesn't mean those who don't fit it aren't consumers.

 

[JackDT]

*sigh*

here we go again.

I just read the first page of the "Bayonetta and sexualization" thread. Total mistake.

It's totally cool to think a reviewer is completely wrong about games. Of course it is. But this one reviews becomes a rallying cry for corruption when really... the fact that not every reviewer agrees about the score is a good thing!

 

[antigoon]

It's totally cool to think a reviewer is completely wrong about games. Of course it is. But this one reviews becomes a rallying cry for corruption when really... the fact that not every reviewer agrees about the score is a good thing!

People saying gameplay is the only thing that should matter in reviews. I just don't understand. He didn't even give the game a bad score! Gamer nastiness manifests itself in the worst way when reviews come out.

 

[Mael]

It's totally cool to think a reviewer is completely wrong about games. Of course it is. But this one reviews becomes a rallying cry for corruption when really... the fact that not every reviewer agrees about the score is a good thing!

Wait a Bayonetta review is used as a rallying cry for corruption or something?
WTF?

 

[partyphone]

People saying gameplay is the only thing that should matter in reviews. I just don't understand. He didn't even give the game a bad score! Gamer nastiness manifests itself in the worst way when reviews come out.

now this is the real gamergate.

that hashtag has never made any goddamn sense.

 

[Galactic Fork]

Hmm So if a company made a game about an exceedingly over exaggerated personification of the gamer stereotype. Seriously shat on the stereotype way worse than Leigh Alexander supposedly did, but had good mechanics. Would they want it to have a good score?

 

[endless dave]

Why can't GG be a starting point for something positive? If you truly think the movement was meant to only be something negative, then the *best* thing you could possibly do is turn it into a force for good. The people with agendas to push will always go to wherever they can get the tallest soapbox, but again, regardless of the agenda, if someone brings up an idea worth discussing, it should be pursued based on its own merits.

I mean the BEST thing it COULD do is change the whole world of journalism for the better! But that's not the realistic thing. Because started as a label for a harassment campaign, is used a cover for a continued others, and will have active, toxic actors who will continue to do so. This is not a flag that needs to be waved because it's a dirty, soiled flag, with NO importance before it was muddied up. There is no need to continue to champion it, certainly if what you need to champion it is to continually waste effort to purge the entrenched scum.

If you want an extreme example, imagine a dictator came up with a way to end world hunger forever, and that it had no downsides. Should we ignore that breakthrough simply because it came from the lips of someone of dubious or bad moral character? Isn't it worth at least analyzing it before condemning it?

Why yes, that IS an extreme example. Extreme enough that it doesn't have any bearing on the situation at hand. We're not talking about ending world hunger forever. We're talking about making video games journalism maybe a bit more transparent. I guess? Again, the goals have never been terribly clear or realistic. So the cost/benefit analysis you want to bring into this sort of goes out of balance. I'd say for the meager, myopic goals they want, even ONE person harassed or threatened is too much and sinks the entire thing.

And if 220 pages solely on GAF isn't enough (not to mention the millions of tweets and plenty of articles at this point), it has been THOROUGHLY analyzed.

Arguments and ideas should be examined separately from the character of the person expressing them. That's only true if we're truly trying to be logical here.

"Logic" as you seem to want it is not something that was put on the table in the first place.