Splash Wave
Member
I think it's best to relegate this to the gamergate thread itself. Also, Shockingalberto made a good criticism of that one paragraph in which Jeff argues that silence isn't complicity:
My thoughts exactly!
I think it's best to relegate this to the gamergate thread itself. Also, Shockingalberto made a good criticism of that one paragraph in which Jeff argues that silence isn't complicity:
Also
http://blog.jeffgerstmann.net/post/...ld-be-so-disappointed-in-you-right-now-buying
This is what Gamergate is. When someone disagrees with them, this is how they react.
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.
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.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be so aggressive.
I would disagree that #GG has mellowed out or changed it's tune. That is all.
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.Their ideas are insipid nonsense. I've done it and it just runs into 9 page dissections of how insane they are. That wastes my time and there is no point to it. Adam Baldwin is nowhere near a level headed person and he's exactly what #GG is. Far right wing people who use the mob to harass people they disagree with.
The core logic that #GG has is so fundamentally flawed that nothing they say has any real meaning. It's 100% rhetoric tricks. Even your post is a 'don't call us out. that's not fair. Instead just give me legitimacy and pretend I have a point.'
Smart words from Jeff, the "us vs them" mentality is the real killer here. This is getting more embarrassing the longer it goes on for.
I would go a step further and state that if they really gave a shit 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.
https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/518293964571418624Granted I'm pretty ambivalent to the whole movement on both sides but there do appear to be level headed people in the #GG movement (Adam Baldwin for one)
Also
http://blog.jeffgerstmann.net/post/...ld-be-so-disappointed-in-you-right-now-buying
This is what Gamergate is. When someone disagrees with them, this is how they react.
Also
http://blog.jeffgerstmann.net/post/...ld-be-so-disappointed-in-you-right-now-buying
This is what Gamergate is. When someone disagrees with them, this is how they react.
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.
I would go a step further and state that if they *really* gave a shit about women in games, maybe they'd hire or signal boost them instead of their exclusive white boys' club.
Now it sounds like you just have a stone to grind against GiantBomb. Stop making it personal.
I actually agree with you. Sorry again, I was just running things in circles. I was just trying to say, WHY I think Jeff was addressing it as such. But still, I don't even agree with how Jeff approached this.
I think we are 100% on the same side. I'm just being stupid. Sorry again.
Also
http://blog.jeffgerstmann.net/post/...ld-be-so-disappointed-in-you-right-now-buying
This is what Gamergate is. When someone disagrees with them, this is how they react.
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.
People don't have to do or say anything.
But they're not immune from criticism for being fence-sitters.
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.
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 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.
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).
for journalists to be held to a standard to their job effectively without having it be clouded by bias or other judgements.
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 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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 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.
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.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.
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).
everything is a slight against minorities/women in gaming
OK, ok. How in the hell did Adam Baldwin get involved in all of this?
We can also defend our stance of being neutral. It goes both ways.
We can all keep shitting on critics who obviously suck up to publishers and seem to be angling for community manager jobs rather than serving their audience like we always have. Just don't use the #GamerGate tag to do it, because that movement started and continues to contain a large element directly involved in harassing women.
Why is someone like Anita Sarkeesian wrapped up in this mess at all, if it isn't about that? She isn't a journalist. She isn't a developer. She didn't "sleep with anyone for coverage" nor has she been accused of it as far as I know. That she is a prominent target of a sizable chunk of the movement should say everything you need to know about it.
I've never understood the idea of joining up with the clearly false pretense of a movement that started under deplorable circumstances, simply because you "agree with what it is supposed to be" or whatever. Just keep doing your thing and stop providing legitimate support for obviously illegitimate things. All it does is provide a veneer of respectability that allows the people who started the movement to keep doing malevolent things.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.