Splash Wave
Member
My thoughts exactly!
Giantbomb Letter from the Editor Re: Gamergate
- Thread starter Gestault
- Start date
My thoughts exactly!
7DollarHagane
Banned
Oh my god.
I am disgusted by this comment. I hope that was just some troll trying to get him to react angrily and not someone who honestly believes that.
I don't think they are trolling.
ShockingAlberto
Member
He's not the only one, just the only person I've seen mention this on Jeff's tumblr.
The kotaku in action subreddit, when people angrily unsubscribed over their barely-a-condemnation mention of death threats, had lots of people saying Ryan would have sided with them and the site has gone to shit since he died.
I am not sure people remember how angry Ryan got when people tried to harass Caroline Petit.
soul creator
Member
Silence could be interpreted as "ignoring injustice when you see it, therefore making it more likely to persist". Think of MLK speaking about the white moderate in the 1960's who may have agreed with civil rights on the surface, but spent more time worrying about "don't lump me in with them!" rather than the actual injustices to their fellow human beings. I definitely disagree with that type of silence.
But silence could also be interpreted as "don't legitimize an obviously dumb side as if they have a fair point". That kind of silence would be useful against creationists, climate change deniers, and those types of folks, at least in the media. The CNN approach where they pretend both sides have equally valid views to argue over. I think "silence" in that case would sometimes be more productive, heh.
I think the first type of silence is bad whenever you see people being threatened and harassed. But the second type of silence is probably better if you ever find yourself trying to actually "argue" with the gamergate folks.
But silence could also be interpreted as "don't legitimize an obviously dumb side as if they have a fair point". That kind of silence would be useful against creationists, climate change deniers, and those types of folks, at least in the media. The CNN approach where they pretend both sides have equally valid views to argue over. I think "silence" in that case would sometimes be more productive, heh.
I think the first type of silence is bad whenever you see people being threatened and harassed. But the second type of silence is probably better if you ever find yourself trying to actually "argue" with the gamergate folks.
Look, where I stand on things, harassing game journalists and giving death threats to people over a topic like videogames is absolutely abhorrent. Leaking private information and essentially ruining lives over a topic such as corruption in journalism is just as bad and delegitimatizes any so-called #GG movement.
Now where I do stand is that if it comes to addressing ethics in journalism and talking about conflict of interest issues in the realm of journalism, that is worth discussing. Worthwhile discourse can not happen with smear campaigns from people on both sides. Yes, the people harassing and sending death threats among other things are horrible and straight up people not worth giving the benefit of the doubt or anything. But to go there and then smear everyone on the supporting side of #GG, not supporting the harassment or death threats given to journalists but dismissing all potential allegations of corruption in journalism stifles potentially worthwhile discussion and creates an echo chamber in which only one side's views are heard. And that is not we want.
A common goal should be for civil discourse on the topic of journalism, for there not to be any of these conflict of interest issues, for journalists to be able to do their job without being harassed, for journalists to be held to a standard to their job effectively without having it be clouded by bias or other judgements. Do I stand so highly by this cause that I support the whole of the #GG campaign, no. Videogames are only a small part of my life and as shitty as ethics in videogame journalism is, I'm not losing any sleep over it. But it is a discussion worth having without smear tactics or zealots from either sides arguing for both comparably different things but essentially the same in their extreme nature (death threats to any discussion of issues with women in gaming, everything is a slight against minorities/women in gaming).
I would go a step further and state that if they *really* cared about women in games, maybe they'd hire or signal boost them instead of their exclusive white boys' club.
It would make it easier for them to recognize and be able to perceive issues they normally aren't exposed to. But perhaps that's another topic for another day.
EDIT: This was worded wrongly, judging from the responses. I meant that if GB (and others) would want to go the extra mile in terms of helping with the issues we face in video game culture and industry, then they could diversify their staff or signal boost others. I did not mean that GB doesn't care - obviously they do.
It would make it easier for them to recognize and be able to perceive issues they normally aren't exposed to. But perhaps that's another topic for another day.
EDIT: This was worded wrongly, judging from the responses. I meant that if GB (and others) would want to go the extra mile in terms of helping with the issues we face in video game culture and industry, then they could diversify their staff or signal boost others. I did not mean that GB doesn't care - obviously they do.
Zeouterlimits
Member
That guys tumblr is "politedisagreement"?
Ugh. There's zero politeness in that. A shameful remark. Ugh.
Ugh. There's zero politeness in that. A shameful remark. Ugh.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Yeah, especially when you have people saying 'If you don't say anything you're against us'. I don't see gaf as a whole lining up to denounce gamergate-I don't see why people expect every single person in the gaming media and game developers do line up as well.
Now it sounds like you just have a stone to grind against GiantBomb. Stop making it personal.
Leafhopper
Banned
What the hell?
Snacks the sober sea lion
Member
Wow. A site founded precisely because of the corporate bullshit these puerile morons pretend to be arguing against, and what does this "movement" do? Tell him that his dead friend wouldn't approve of him.
ShockingAlberto
Member
People don't have to do or say anything.
But they're not immune from criticism for being fence-sitters.
I think you're incredibly off-base implying that they don't give a shit about women in games. Every sign and result of their hiring practices has been based on merit and personality. If you haven't seen their frustration about this ongoing issue visible in Tweets, comments and otherwise surrounding their work, you simply don't know what you're talking about. You clearly haven't followed the number of female guests on their live-shows, well before this particular situation came to the fore, and certainly in the time since.
No not at all. It's just a suggestion which is applicable to all gaming media. I dont want to single out GB, as it is a much more systematic problem.
I think Jeff has a tough line to walk. Jeff also doesn't seem like the sort of guy who likes being told what he should be doing. So the more aggressive anti-GG probably annoy him only a bit less than #GG.
I don't envy the position. Even with this measured letter he's exposing himself and GB to the mob of very passionate people.
fucking wow...
Yeah, good points. I just wonder if sites like IGN and Giantbomb have an obligation to speak out against these things. They are very popular and have a large audience (more so IGN). I don't think they have to weigh in on like the corruption stuff. But I think the misogyny stuff and harassment/threats is not okay. Even if you don't agree that the industry has issues with sexism (it does though), but even if you didn't believe it, you shouldn't support harassment/threats.
I dunno. I agree with you it's a hard line to walk. I think from a business perspective too, it might be better to keep quiet vs. rocking the boat. And at the end of the day, some of these sites are a business. They don't want to kick the beehive and bring negative attention. I think, being a passionate gamer and someone that posts on GAF, I feel like being apart of this industry should be more then just being a business. But maybe that's just too idealistic/naive.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
So you're criticizing someone...for not saying anything when they're not obligated to. So I guess we should start criticizing magazines/newspapers that aren't covering this since it's reached that sphere of media thanks to the NYtimes for pointing out the awfulness of GG?
But that's exactly what you did, you singled out GB.
See you say you don't have a stone to grind with gb but this tells me you do even if the stone your grinding isn't valid at all regarding gb. Will they hire a women eventually? Who knows I would be shocked if they didn't especially if one applies that would work well with them.
I'm glad GB made a statement about it, even if I didn't 100% agree with their stance on staying silent. It's better than nothing.
But honestly I'd say Polygon's statement was by far the best. Condemning GG's harassment is one thing, but they went a step further to actually show why their "evidence" of corruption is almost entirely a non-issue.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor
But honestly I'd say Polygon's statement was by far the best. Condemning GG's harassment is one thing, but they went a step further to actually show why their "evidence" of corruption is almost entirely a non-issue.
http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/17/6996601/on-gamergate-a-letter-from-the-editor
There are certainly some major problems with the games press. However I don't know if there is a great solution. It's problems have to do with the lack of financial independence regarding the industry they cover and the fact that game press jobs suck so only the most passionate will stay.
So what standard would we hold them to? I mean this honestly. Right now the standard is to try and divide the ad sales dept from the editorial dept and just let people have their subjective opinions. What bias or other judgment? I mean by definition reviews are subjective and are biased to that persons taste. Editorial features are personal opinions as well. Most 'game news' is just re-iteration of press releases. What standard do we need to hold it all up to?
ShockingAlberto
Member
For the record, I don't really begrudge Jeff for the timing, especially as he explained his reasoning.
I do feel that one paragraph is pretty problematic because it offers the people in the wrong a lifeline. It tells them, no, it's okay, they're condemning the death threats but the people who are against us are also wrong. We didn't lose anything here because the death threats don't come from us in the first place! False flag!
I think there's virtue in not being too extreme, but when people are actively trying to create a culture of fear, giving them an inch is dangerous.
I do feel that one paragraph is pretty problematic because it offers the people in the wrong a lifeline. It tells them, no, it's okay, they're condemning the death threats but the people who are against us are also wrong. We didn't lose anything here because the death threats don't come from us in the first place! False flag!
I think there's virtue in not being too extreme, but when people are actively trying to create a culture of fear, giving them an inch is dangerous.
Then just don't single anybody out and maybe don't frame it in such an antagonizing way. It's perfectly fine to criticise that decision and to wish that they'd hire a woman. Hell I wanted to see Cara Ellison there but to suggest that GB doesn't care about woman simply because they didn't hire one is rather insulting and frankly ridiculous since we know nothing about how that decision came to be. I agree with your core point but these attacks don't serve anyone.
RiccochetJ
Gold Member
God, it's like you are willfully dismissing all the work Patrick has done. Long before Gamergate even existed. He and Zoe had a panel at PAX east for Christ's sake.
Edit: No, actually I'm not going to stop there. You know what Lime? You are toxic to me who vehemently disagrees with Gamergate but are not disagreeing enough to your liking. It makes me just want to ignore the whole thing and hope it goes away naturally.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
A culture of desingenuity is also pretty dangerous.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I am unsure why this is a difficult concept.
I don't think someone can be forced to say anything if they don't want to; I don't think people should be forced. But people can freely criticize them making that choice. I don't think people should be forced to take a shower at gunpoint, but they'll stink and no one will want to be around them if they don't. I don't think people should be forced to to be nice to others, but people are free to think those that choose to be unpleasant are not good people.
Refusing to take a stance is not a neutral position, it's still inherently a political stance, and one not immune to criticism.
It looks like a tough job all around. I mean the pay scales in the actual games industry is lower than the non gaming industry but the game press is dramatically lower still. Almost every outlet is on the bubble or has been. And when you disagree with the mob, they get mad. I mean for non #GG things like giving the last of us 7.5 or bayonetta. The reaction doesn't seem sane.
Little pay, no job security, and your readership will scream at you on your subjective opinions.
It probably will. There were a lot more people into it before. They've lost of lot of their initial momentum.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
There's a problem in singling out that paragraph-By itself yeah, it may seem like offering a 'lifeline'. In reality though, the article Jeff wrote goes together. That paragraph in tune with the rest of the article is well, self-explanatory-That people may have been stringed along one side or the other, but then there's people that take it too far (IE Death threats against women, or those who say 'If you don't speak out then you're enabling those death threats').
He has a point. I've become disillusioned with everything about this whole mess, where I didn't care about GG to begin with, but now the other side is turning a little to extreme by saying 'Gaming Media is at fault for remainign silent!'
I have to disagree here. It's a serious mistake if we aren't comfortable criticizing bad behavior (no matter the "side") because it could embolden the other.
ShockingAlberto
Member
If your opinion on this matter can be swayed because you don't like people against harassment being too strong about it, then I do not know what to say.
TheBaronOfNA
Banned
We can also defend our stance of being neutral. It goes both ways.
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
I'm against GG, but what do you want me to do? I mean pretend I'm a media site like GB. Or hell a regular person? React to every event? Attack those on the other side? Make fun of them? Explain please.
Not really clear on your meaning, sorry.
We (the royal we, literally everyone who condemns the horseshit tactics that GG is using) can absolutely have a real discussion about ethics in games writing & journalism. But this is not something anyone involved with GG has brought up, and in fact is a goal that GG is actively working against by trying to sever advertisers from sites that post honest reviews that they disagree with.
Hell, just last week there was an awards reception funded by games publishers to pat UK writers on the back for being their mouthpieces. Ubisoft gave a bunch of writers free tablets; later, had them review Watch_Dogs on their time. The "Press Sneak Fuck" debacle. The Rab Florence debacle. GG has said nothing about these things because they are the status quo that GG desperately is clawing onto; instead focusing on disempowering women, particularly those who make games independently.
Nobody has said this. Various criticism is saying "look, our shit is fucked up; here's how it can be less fucked up," and some critics feel that our shit is more fucked up than others. But nobody has said that every-actual-thing is a slight against minorities and women in gaming. This is the knee-jerk reaction that people have when they start to understand that there is a problem but don't want to accept that they unconsciously have had a hand in building it.
That was a whole lot of nothing. Jeff almost seems like he was "forced" into speaking about the issue, and in the end said nothing at all. Nor did he outright condemn the garbage that is #gamergate. He was happy to toe some nebulous line between one "side" and the other. When you have people on one end, and excrement on the other, you can't really do this.
He started it, basically. He doesn't like feminists.
Exactly. Or even a stance that isn't neutral, but believes getting more and more people playing "the game" is the intent of the people we think are acting monstrously, and we deliberately don't engage them in the terms they've chosen. No more than we'd engage a child having a tantrum.
This is one of the elements of the editorial I thought was most important.
I wish people would know what they are supporting. Or at least understand what they are attaching themselves to. I see it all the time in real life with politics. People care about a certain issue, and then get swept up in a political party, candidate or movement, thinking that it's about their issue (and they don't educate themselves on the origins of the party or what the party is pushing).
I do agree that the proof is in their actions. And I think at this point, people should be questioning why there is such a focus on specific people like you've said. I think people are shrugging it off as "a few bad apples" that aren't representing what the movement is really about. *sigh*
My mistake (why I edited my post), is that I feel like it's a mistake for Jeff to ignore these aspects of the movement (when it could be argued it's the sole purpose of the movement, even if a lot of people are attached to it for other reasons...it's what the movement is actually being used for).
Remember the good ol' days when you were embarrassed to be a gamer because it just wasn't considered cool? Or even when it was just embarrassingly juvenile? Now it's downright hostile. It's disgusting. I'm glad I haven't made the leap to the next generation yet. I'm not sure this industry deserves our time and money.
I think the article was a fairly stern rebuke of the #GG garbage. Jeff doesn't seem like a person who enjoys being forced into doing things. So he obviously has an opinion and has displayed disgust at #GG in the recent past but people pressuring him into writing about it probably makes him want to do the opposite.
He also is in charge of the livelihoods of a lot of other people. He can't be cavalier with hat responsibility.
Riposte
Member
To be honest, I agree and was the exact same way, but I got over it, because disagreeing with GamerGate is the point (especially as it has become more warped and any good will more exploited), not someone using it as a platform for their fringe beliefs.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Who said anything about my opinion being swayed? What is it with you assuming things and putting words in peoples mouth like you did that paragraph? I disagree with gamergate, it doesn't mean I have to agree with how the other side displays their message either, IE 'You're against us and enabling death threats if you remain silent.'
Look at all these false equivalences! People being forced to take showers? People being nice to others? What are you talking about? You're saying that people who dont' say anything are equivalent to people who don't take showers? What are you even talking about anymore?
Not sure I understand this.
Similar threads
- Locked