Support NeoGAF

[vcc]

Thanks alot guys.

So people are just that stupid? How can one be against feminism? It blows my mind.

It's weird, but they aren't exactly against feminism. Mens Rights style groups are one of the core groups that pushes #GG but they aren't exactly anti-feminist. They are a strange mutation of feminism but only as it relates to men.

So for instance they think cultural ideas about men being always responsible for their actions and women aren't responsible is bad. Feminists would agree. Women should be regarded as having just as much agency as men.

But while feminism blames the structure of society for that, Mens Rights blames feminists.

Basically for every inequality between men and women, Men's rights blames feminists for and sometimes women in general.

If you hang out on reddit you can see their influence in a lot of places. AdviceAnimals has pretty frequent allusions to holding the door open for a women and then the women spazzing out in a feminist rage. Which I have never seen happen in all my 35 years but seems to occur daily to AdviceAnimal posters.

 

[Hubb]

Thanks alot guys.

So people are just that stupid? How can one be against feminism? It blows my mind.

This is the internet.

 

[Metroidvania]

I disagree with this part. I sincerely think that, as a group, they want attention much more than they want approval, and silence is an attempt to deprive them of that attention.

While possibly true in regards to the latter, the silence also helps to perpetuate the death threats, on some level. If you're not actively saying 'don't do this stupid shit,' people aren't going to learn.

The problem that arises is that while you may (with help from the authorities) make the 'fringe' elements doing said threats to back off, you're at the same time inciting all those masses who aren't to keep up with their perception of being persecuted.

It's not applicable to most of the people following the hashtag, but the 'lifeguard shouting to the kid running' analogy isn't always easy to understand. I'm not sure why.

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.

Sigh.

Yes, it's clear that GB doesn't 'really' care.

3. In case you want to make video games coverage more diverse and have different viewpoints, then signal boost, include or even hire different people with different backgrounds and different experiences. Remaining stagnant and being homogenous can result in cases where you dont notice or are aware of specific aspects. Relinquish some of your power and give platform to people usually marginalized in the games industry and culture.

Admittedly, I haven't seen any of Patrick's weekly write-ups recently(haven't been around the site as much for w/e reason), but doesn't he already have a clear history of signal boosting?

 

[vcc]

Sigh.

Yes, it's clear that GB doesn't 'really' care.

I think that's far too harsh.

edit: hmmm. I misread that. I agree it's clear they care.

 

[Prax]

GamerGate can Westboro Baptist Church it up for all they care, but I need to see less "both sides/but they are just hurt by meanie media/feminine wiles are bad" sympathizers.

Silence makes people who being harassed feel alone. They need to know they have support and that others are fighting with them or for them.

And well, some GamerGaters also should probably be arrested for attempting to hack bank accounts, making threats, etc. "Neutral stance" people who are ignorant/apathetic or too dumb to connect the dots need to see that what the rabid gamergaters are doing is wrong or will get them into trouble. This way "neutrals" don't so they don't ho hum into "well maybe they had good ideas" mindset as if this was ever a valid cause.

 

[Surface of Me]

GB is a small, niche website that caters to a niche. They are a bunch of silly dudes that like games and are funny. They make their livelihood off this. While changing this to include some women or other audiences would be noble, I dont think you can criticize them for not doing it. Furthermore, to insinuate that you need to be a part of a group to sincerely care about that group is disgustingly insulting.

 

[hodayathink]

While possibly true in regards to the latter, the silence also helps to perpetuate the death threats, on some level. If you're not actively saying 'don't do this stupid shit,' people aren't going to learn.

...

It's not applicable to most of the people following the hashtag, but the 'lifeguard shouting to the kid running' analogy isn't always easy to understand. I'm not sure why.

That assumes that they don't already know that what they're doing is wrong. They absolutely do. And they keep doing it because it provides them with the results they want.

 

[faceless007]

Re: "Just ignore it, and they'll go away": This entire debacle erupted because of the perception that every major gaming site in the industry was ignoring what they thought was a legitimate beef (but was of course nothing more than an angry diatribe by a jilted ex so emotionally wrecked he wanted to try to publicly shame his ex). Most sites, including NeoGAF, started by giving absolutely no attention to the people who thought this was a valid story and deliberately choosing to ignore it. "Just ignore it and they'll go away" is precisely what they did at the beginning.

How'd that work out?

 

[Prax]

Re: "Just ignore it, and they'll go away": This entire debacle erupted because of the perception that every major gaming site in the industry was ignoring what they thought was a legitimate beef (but was of course nothing more than an angry diatribe by a jilted ex so emotionally wrecked he wanted to try to publicly shame his ex). Most sites, including NeoGAF, started by giving absolutely no attention to the people who thought this was a valid story and deliberately choosing to ignore it. "Just ignore it and they'll go away" is precisely what they did at the beginning.

How'd that work out?

Are you saying they should have just said it was invalid drivel and a waste of time and invasion of privacy, to set the record straight and go on with regular business?

Because I hope so. Maybe that would have nipped it in the bud.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

That assumes that they don't already know that what they're doing is wrong. They absolutely do. And they keep doing it because it provides them with the results they want.

Pretty much.

Think the GGers who say the death threats or idiotic things don't know that death threats are wrong and disgusting? They're doing it to illicit a response, and when they get it, hoo boy do they get a boner at the thoughts of people being riled up over it.

Like I said before, you can shout at GGers and think you're doing the right thing by being vocal-Except the only thing you're doing is making them shout back louder. This isn't High School where they can get detention for shouting at you, this isn't real life where if they say a death threat, they'll be locked away immediately following that. This is the internet, where people hide behind proxys before saying death threats and make it hard for them to be found. Where if you try shouting or being vocal against them, you're simply talking to after-images and ghosts, whilst they're hiding away in a hole laughing at you before they strike again.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

GamerGate can Westboro Baptist Church it up for all they care, but I need to see less "both sides/but they are just hurt by meanie media/feminine wiles are bad" sympathizers.

Post Modern Godwin's Law?

Re: "Just ignore it, and they'll go away": This entire debacle erupted because of the perception that every major gaming site in the industry was ignoring what they thought was a legitimate beef (but was of course nothing more than an angry diatribe by a jilted ex so emotionally wrecked he wanted to try to publicly shame his ex). Most sites, including NeoGAF, started by giving absolutely no attention to the people who thought this was a valid story and deliberately choosing to ignore it. "Just ignore it and they'll go away" is precisely what they did at the beginning.

How'd that work out?

Well, a reporter threatened with an 'army' and a shitty actor posted a tweet.

 

[Ogimachi]

The "anti-gamergate side" surely earned a lot of criticism. The harassment and threats come from a minority, that's an obvioust fact. They're still insane and horrible, but they cannot be used to call such a large group "racist, misogynist" and so on.
As recognized by many journalists, gamergate had perfectly valid concerns and criticism, but the response to them was so dishonest, aggressive and toxic that we've apparently reached a point where being silent for whatever reason is just as wrong as publicly supporting that kind of abuse.

Shadowbans on reddit, dozens of articles closed for comments, threads being removed and people being censored all over the major communities was bad enough, but the co-ordinated response with dozens of articles against the "gamer culture" on the same day definitely earned my distrust.

Anyway, from my perspective, and I admit I haven't been following the controversy a lot, both sides are wrong and have small groups of toxic people poisoning the well, except most journalists involved aren't being as sincere as their critics.

 

[hodayathink]

Are you saying they should have just said it was invalid drivel and a waste of time and invasion of privacy to set the record straight?

Because I hope so. Maybe that would have nipped it in the bud.

Except that that's exactly what Evilore did when he allowed the first Zoe Quinn thread to actually continually exist. And it stopped nothing.

 

[faceless007]

Are you saying they should have just said it was invalid drivel and a waste of time and invasion of privacy, to set the record straight and go on with regular business?

Because I hope so. Maybe that would have nipped it in the bud.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I said nothing of the sort. All I'm saying is, some people are positing the hypothesis "Just ignore the trolls and they'll go away", and we have empirical evidence that proves that false.

 

[Prax]

Post Modern Godwin's Law?

Well, I don't have any other pop culture analogue for "rabid trolls against a certain kind of people for stupid reasons but claim it's because of ethics/morality". SO if that what they be, that what they be.

 

[Bornstellar]

I don't know about others, but I sure as hell haven't said anything because to this day I'm not sure what is going on other than jerks are being jerks.

 

[daegan]

I guess it could have been at the formation, but since the hashtag, it has just been sexism and attacks. I believe anyone against GJ abandoned ship. GG is just a rotten, shitty movement to troll people now, by 4chan and Reddit and a mouthpiece for harrasment.

Maybe I wasn't clear, so let me try and restate, but less rambling - if people want to discuss ethics in games writing and journalism, they must do so without any ties to GG because NOT ONLY is GG a hate movement that harasses and threatens people, BUT ALSO because they have ZERO credibility because they have not at any point addressed any actual ethical concern in games writing and journalism. The examples I gave were all things that GG has never addressed and many of their more identifiable members have ALSO never addressed, choosing instead to harass Anita Sarkeesian for the better part of years because THAT is the only thing they're interested in.

I do believe that there is always a discussion to be had about how games writing/journalism can be more ethical and serve its readers better, but (analogy incoming) GG doesn't deserve a seat at that table or any other, because they can't even identify a seat or a table. Better?

Is this the narrative being pushed? That they were going after websites who gave a game they might like a less than stellar review?

You don't think, instead, they were going after websites for posting the "all straight white male gamers are racist and sexist assholes" type articles?

Their going after Polygon for Gies' review is their most recent "action" with regards to what they interpret as "ethics".

I do believe they ALSO went after websites for posting articles they did not like, but that is not an example of their most recent action. Further, if you read any of those pieces, not a one said "all straight white male gamers are racist and sexist assholes". They all pretty much said "assholes are assholes, maybe you shouldn't identify as an asshole if you're not an asshole."

 

[Surface of Me]

The "anti-gamergate side" surely earned a lot of criticism. The harassment and threats come from a minority, that's an obvioust fact. They're still insane and horrible, but they cannot be used to call such a large group "racist, misogynist" and so on.
As recognized by many journalists, gamergate had perfectly valid concerns and criticism, but the response to them was so dishonest, aggressive and toxic that we've apparently reached a point where being silent for whatever reason is just as wrong as publicly supporting that kind of abuse.

Shadowbans on reddit, dozens of articles closed for comments, threads being removed and people being censored all over the major communities was bad enough, but the co-ordinated response with dozens of articles against the "gamer culture" on the same day definitely earned my distrust.

Anyway, from my perspective, and I admit I haven't been following the controversy a lot, both sides are wrong and have small groups of toxic people poisoning the well, except most journalists involved aren't being as sincere as their critics.

It is just sexist drivel and the people against it have a right to label that ahole group as it is. If some in there really arent sexist bigots and just care about games journalism conspiracies, they clearly still dont mind being associated with sexist bigots. If I was one of them I would start a separate Gate as soon as the sexism invaded, as you say. No one has done this, so they can all be bundled up.

 

[vcc]

The "anti-gamergate side" surely earned a lot of criticism. The harassment and threats come from a minority, that's an obvioust fact. They're still insane and horrible, but they cannot be used to call such a large group "racist, misogynist" and so on.
As recognized by many journalists, gamergate had perfectly valid concerns and criticism, but the response to them was so dishonest, aggressive and toxic that we've apparently reached a point where being silent for whatever reason is just as wrong as publicly supporting that kind of abuse.

Shadowbans on reddit, dozens of articles closed for comments, threads being removed and people being censored all over the major communities was bad enough, but the co-ordinated response with dozens of articles against the "gamer culture" on the same day definitely earned my distrust.

Anyway, from my perspective, and I admit I haven't been following the controversy a lot, both sides are wrong and have small groups of toxic people poisoning the well, except most journalists involved aren't being as sincere as their critics.

No. Your narrative of the events aren't correct.

The shadow bans came from people brigading into other subs through np.reddit links. They are automatic to exclude one sub messing with another. This happens to SRS and bestof all the time as well.

All of the rest was moderation. You don't need 40 threads on the front page about the same topic and most of them were incredibly toxic with nothing of value at all.

Even the articles, is some writers frustration with the toxicity and outrageously over blown 'concern'.

There isn't exactly 2 sides. There is massively toxic #GG, a much smaller less toxic anti-GG and everybody else who just wants #GG to go away because they don't have anything relevant to say.

 

[KimonoNoNo]

He started it, basically. He doesn't like feminists.

One thing I've learnt from this affair that I didn't before is that Baldwin really is a piece of shit.

I was under the impression that he got involved after Jos Whedon came out in support of Sarkeesian's videos, but that may of been just a coincidence.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Well, I don't have any other pop culture analogue for "rabid trolls against a certain kind of people for stupid reasons but claim it's because of ethics/morality". SO if that what they be, that what they be.

The Legion of Doom vs Superfriends?

 

[ShockingAlberto]

One thing I've learnt from this affair that I didn't before is that Baldwin really is a piece of shit.

I was under the impression that he got involved after Jos Whedon came out in support of Sarkeesian's videos, but that may of been just a coincidence.

I would genuinely love if Whedon came out and said "We had plans to revive Firefly, but because of Baldwin's toxic associations, we chose to shut it down forever."

 

[Prax]

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I said nothing of the sort. All I'm saying is, some people are positing the hypothesis "Just ignore the trolls and they'll go away", and we have empirical evidence that proves that false.

I felt you tried to imply that giving trolls a voice or space to discuss their misguided grievances would have helped in some way. If that's not what you meant, then sorry!

I think I was thrown off by the NeoGAF inclusion because the "discussion" probably would have devolved into gossip about someone's sex life that point in the game. I don't think that was silence. That was a clear message that this was a stupid thing occurring and shouldn't be discussed, but maybe it wasn't strong or clear enough, as people started believing it was censorship or something.

I generally agree that trolls and "concerned audiences" probably can't be ignored away, but I believe in taking a hard stance against harassment behaviour and shutting down tinfoilhattery and trolling with silence (and bannings lol) afterward. Is this what you meant?

 

[JDSN]

Read Jeff post above (MonsterDunk).

I did read it, and if GB feels they should have no stake on it then its their prerogative, I dont care about the site and im not for forcing people into speaking out, but once they start to willingly comment on something people are allowed to talk about it, like a damn good writer said "Strong criticism is neither an act of betrayal toward a work nor the first step toward censorship; it leads to illumination and improvement."

 

[Ogimachi]

It is just sexist drivel and the people against it have a right to label that ahole group as it is. If some in there really arent sexist bigots and just care about games journalism conspiracies, they clearly still dont mind being associated with sexist bigots. If I was one of them I would start a separate Gate as soon as the sexism invaded, as you say. No one has done this, so they can all be bundled up.

That's what I meant by poisoning the well. Reasonable debate has been abandoned, it seems to be about labels and harassment now, which is stupid and the reason why most people probably want this to be over already.

No. Your narrative of the events aren't correct.

The shadow bans came from people brigading into other subs through np.reddit links. They are automatic to exclude one sub messing with another. This happens to SRS and bestof all the time as well.

All of the rest was moderation. You don't need 40 threads on the front page about the same topic and most of them were incredibly toxic with nothing of value at all.

Even the articles, is some writers frustration with the toxicity and outrageously over blown 'concern'.

There isn't exactly 2 sides. There is massively toxic #GG, a much smaller less toxic anti-GG and everybody else who just wants #GG to go away because they don't have anything relevant to say.

There's plenty of evidence showing unethical admins/mods and unfair bans in many message boards and subreddits. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Were they a conspiracy? I'm sure many of them deserved it, but it was handled very poorly, specially on reddit.

As for the sides, as far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't fit any of these groups. I'd rather see both sides gone, but apparently saying nothing will also earn hostility from anti-gamergate groups, so it is likely that this will go on for a long time.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I felt you tried to imply that giving trolls a voice or space to discuss their misguided grievances would have helped in some way. If that's not what you meant, then sorry!

I think I was thrown off by the NeoGAF inclusion because the "discussion" probably would have devolved into gossip about someone's sex life that point in the game. I don't think that was silence. That was a clear message that this was a stupid thing occurring and shouldn't be discussed, but maybe it wasn't strong or clear enough, as people started believing it was censorship or something.

I generally agree that trolls and "concerned audiences" probably can't be ignored away, but I believe in taking a hard stance against harassment behaviour and shutting down tinfoilhattery and trolling with silence (and bannings lol) afterward. Is this what you meant?

I think you are right. But outside of the tinfoil "PAIDREVIEWSFEMNAZI" there is a genuine feeling of mistrust in many gaming related sites. Even 4chan decided to be stricter (they were since a while ago in certain boards, being fair...but it was weird)

 

[JABEE]

People have different opinions in how to deal with social progressive issues even when they agree with the core idea... Who knew?

It's almost like it's okay to have different approaches to solving complicated problems. Things don't have to turn into tribal warfare. Things don't have to be "us vs. them" conflicts that require "battle cries" and "armies" to fight for the good of all.

People can have different opinions and approaches to issues without being called out as complicit to harassment and crimes.

 

[Lime]

Sigh.

Yes, it's clear that GB doesn't 'really' care.



Admittedly, I haven't seen any of Patrick's weekly write-ups recently(haven't been around the site as much for w/e reason), but doesn't he already have a clear history of signal boosting?

GB is a small, niche website that caters to a niche. They are a bunch of silly dudes that like games and are funny. They make their livelihood off this. While changing this to include some women or other audiences would be noble, I dont think you can criticize them for not doing it. Furthermore, to insinuate that you need to be a part of a group to sincerely care about that group is disgustingly insulting.

Both of you are severely misreading my post. I am definitely not saying they don't care. Of course they do! I am saying that if they "really want to go the extra mile" in terms of diversity, then they could diversify their staff or through signalboosting. Klepek has done some really great things in regards to this, so big kudos to him, certainly. I am just stating that there is room for improvement is all.

"really care" is meant as "if they want to do even better".

 

[stupei]

I dunno, sometimes it works not to feed trolls.

Silence only quiets the trolls when your very existence doesn't offend them. I'm a queer woman, and simply wanting to sometimes see people who are like me in video games is somehow considered "political." By simply existing in the gaming space, I am a political being in the eyes of some people, whether I choose to be or not. I don't get the same access to the luxury of silence that the guys at Giant Bomb have.

I appreciate most of what Jeff said, and I can understand that he felt under attack given his circumstances. But I'm disappointed in the people here who think "if you ignore it, it goes away" has ever worked for the people actively being harassed. It just allows the viewers on the periphery to ignore what's still happening.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

I did read it, and if GB feels they should have no stake on it then its their prerogative, I dont care about the site and im not for forcing people into speaking out, but once they start to willingly comment on something people are allowed to talk about it, like a damn good writer said "Strong criticism is neither an act of betrayal toward a work nor the first step toward censorship; it leads to illumination and improvement."

I was talking about this:

At some point it's a personal note that would probably be taken by people as something of an excuse (and it's something that people involved in the Giant Bomb community are already a little more aware of), but I had a death in my family last month that took 100% of my attention away from anything happening in games or the internet. It's made a lot of the "WHY AREN'T YOU CONDEMNING THIS AS FORCEFULLY AS I AM RIGHT NOW" things that have been slung my way over the last chunk of time have a fairly nasty tinge to it. It's also left me quite disappointed by the people who automatically assume that not saying anything means that I/we were somehow complicit or that we stood in approval of various things. Maybe that would have made that entire point make more sense had it been included, but at some point my personal life is just that... my personal life.

People can argue all they want about the timing, and obviously there's no way to please everyone, but there you go.

 

[JDSN]

Ok, you are still showing me the same post I read.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

That's what I meant by poisoning the well. Reasonable debate has been abandoned, it seems to be about labels and harassment now, which is stupid and the reason why most people probably want this to be over already.


There's plenty of evidence showing unethical admins/mods and unfair bans in many message boards and subreddits. Nothing will convince me otherwise.

 

[vcc]

There's plenty of evidence showing unethical admins/mods and unfair bans in many message boards and subreddits. Nothing will convince me otherwise. Were they a conspiracy? I'm sure many of them deserved it, but it was handled very poorly, specially on reddit.

As a member of many of the subs involved, the moderation was apt. They had 1 stickied thread in each major sub dedicated to the topic. That's not censorship. That was far more exposure than the topic deserved. Especially since most of the #GG folks weren't natives of the sub. They all came from elsewhere as piemonkey of /r/games made note of this fact.

Conspiracy? No. It's simply that #GG is so clearly toxic that proper moderation always removes a large portion of them. Go to any of the moderated threads in /r/pcgaming or /r/video. It's just a large number of people circle jerking about a topic and massively down voting any other opinion.

I don't need to convince you because nothing will as you noted. I just want to point out you are wrong.

 

[JABEE]

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 that's exactly what you did, and the sharp rhetoric was a choice you made for a reason. Giant Bomb can defend themselves, but the controversy surrounding Giant Bomb hiring a "white boy" always seemed a little cruel to me. Singling out Dan Ryckert under the crosshairs of this controversy.

There is little doubt that the games writing industry is a close-knit group of mostly white males, who are recycled at different outlets, but I don't know what Dan did to get hounded for being the prime example of institutionally racist hiring practices.

 

[Alucrid]

I would genuinely love if Whedon came out and said "We had plans to revive Firefly, but because of Baldwin's toxic associations, we chose to shut it down forever."

oh. i had thought adam baldwin was just a random internet guy, not actually adam baldwin. well that sours the show for me a bit now

 

[chrominance]

I am not a huge fan of the letter stating "silence isn't complicity" for reasons that have already been gone over multiple times in this thread. I do understand where Gerstmann's coming from, especially the part about "silence might just be trying not to legitimize the assholes," though I disagree with that approach.

All of the disagreement surrounding that part of the statement, to me, is minor compared to the step Giant Bomb took of posting a condemnation statement in the first place. So while I don't think the statement is 100% perfect or unassailable, I'm happy to see they thought it was worth making one. Maybe you can say, "we should expect more from Giant Bomb and the gaming media." I've definitely seen people disappointed that it took this long for the major gaming sites to chime in, and you can count me amongst them.

But it finally happened, and ultimately they did it for good reasons--not because they necessarily felt bullied into it, or because advertisers threatened to pull out, but because the staffs of those sites decided they needed to say something to set things right. So today, I'm relieved that the tide might finally be turning on this thing. Thanks, Giant Bomb. Thanks, Polygon and USGamer and Eurogamer and Gamespot.

Spoiler

And thank you too, NeoGAF.

 

[RiccochetJ]

Geez, people really get upset. I hope I haven't hurt anyone by suggesting that diversifying would be a good idea - if I did, I'm sorry.

Look, it's cool that GB and others *finally* speak up about this and to some extent condemn Gamergate. I appreciate what they are doing. Thanks a lot.

But my posts in this thread are suggestions on how it could be better and how they could improve themselves in the future. These are:

1. Please condemn hate campaigns within your culture sooner. I can't believe it had to be on the frontcover of NYT before the games media got off their asses. Comparatively, as soon as the release date of the next AAA game is released, the news spread like wildfire.

2. Being silent does not help or improve a situation where people are victims of harassment. Making a stand in a space where you have power and influence can do a ton of good for everyone!

3. In case you want to make video games coverage more diverse and have different viewpoints, then signal boost, include or even hire different people with different backgrounds and different experiences. Remaining stagnant and being homogenous can result in cases where you dont notice or are aware of specific aspects. Relinquish some of your power and give platform to people usually marginalized in the games industry and culture.

The above are the things I am saying. I fail to see why they should be so controversial.

Wow. It's like you glossed over what I was talking about. Patrick at Giant Bomb has been front and center a long time before gamergate was even a thing. If you were attempting to point at specific things with your numbers, you have still failed miserably. You are toxic and are not helping. Even responding to you makes me feel dirty considering the people posting here and in the gamergate thread who actually care.

So if you respond to this, stop typing like you're talking down to people. It pisses them off.

Edit: So for your talking points:
1. Jeff had a death in the family. Patrick was still talking about it.
2. Patrick has been front and center about this, but it apparently was not enough. We had to get dunked on why which is shameful.
3. I have no clue what point you're trying to make here.

Edit 2: I have misgivings about giantbomb. I think the application process when they were hiring was a farce. The critical condemnations against them was deserved in my opinion. I think Jeff wanted Dan and Jason. I think everyone else who applied was just GB going through the motions.

Don't get me wrong. I love Dan and Jason. My critique is that everyone else wasn't even in the running and they wasted a whole lot of people's time.

 

[Gestault]

Both of you are severely misreading my post. I am definitely not saying they don't care. Of course they do! I am saying that if they "really want to go the extra mile" in terms of diversity, then they could diversify their staff or through signalboosting. Klepek has done some really great things in regards to this, so big kudos to him, certainly. I am just stating that there is room for improvement is all.

"really care" is meant as "if they want to do even better".

There's a difference between misreading and it being composed with different meaning. You're changing the tone of your statements toward Gianbomb, partly I think on account of people pointing out that you knew next to nothing about their actual output. That's good, but please don't insult people's intelligence by pretending that the post you edited to add asterisks to, just to convey your contempt, meant something different.

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.

 

[Metroidvania]

That assumes that they don't already know that what they're doing is wrong. They absolutely do. And they keep doing it because it provides them with the results they want.

If as many people are knowingly pushing for the exclusion of others as the media surrounding their existence seems to hint at, I fear for the video game industry on a foundational level.

Alternatively, I guess I'm saying I hope that a good number of the masses are just misguided, rather than willfully ignorant or actively malicious.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, but I said nothing of the sort. All I'm saying is, some people are positing the hypothesis "Just ignore the trolls and they'll go away", and we have empirical evidence that proves that false.

But at its core, the pushback is probably only going to break apart the gamergate hashtag, if that.

And that's not a bad thing, by any means. It will take away a podium for those hiding behind their sexist (in this instance) beliefs.

But on some level, you can't make someone change their opinion. You can disband a movement, involve the authorities for the related threats and the like, but the greater end goal here (or at least, presuming it to be the ceasing of harassing women/minorities over video-game related concerns, both in the games themselves, and in the press) isn't going to be 'won' by disbanding the GG movement.

Again, not saying the anti-GG stuff is somehow worthy of being put out there/that it should be silenced, but I'm at a bit of a loss on how to solve the greater issue of dragging anyone with sexist beliefs into the 'modern' age of enlightenment.

I am just stating that there is room for improvement is all.

Forgive me for my misreading into your original post, then. The

"I would go a step further" and 'if they really cared"

alongside

'exclusive white boys club'

generally don't imply positive association, in my experience.

There's always room for improvement from any individual or organization, of course.

 

[Noaloha]

I think there's something worthwhile in considering who you're actually referring to in #GamerGate when you say "they".

The movement pretty clearly seems to comprise ringleaders with express anti-social justice motivations and 'useful idiots' who, I'm sure in many cases, are just a victim of their own initial gullibility and lack of fact-checking coupled with their ongoing ignorance or ego-saving selective blindness. I don't think the yolk and the white of the #GG egg would see eye to eye when it comes to how they treat silence. I'd argue that the ringleaders, those whose goal in this has always been to make outspoken feminists' lives miserable to the point of removing them altogether, aren't looking for attention unless they hit the political spin jackpot and it's outright supportive, and I don't think they expect approval. They just want the momentum of a mob, for as long as possible. 2000 accusatory tweets a day pushes a person's capacity for harassment a lot more effectively than half a dozen tweets. (Numbers pulled from my ass.)

 

[Corto]

Silence was reinforcement. It's wonderful that Polygon and Giantbomb finally took an editorial stand against Gamergate, but it's natural to criticise: why only know? Mainstream media picked this last week, gaming media was living this from the inside from the start, with colleagues and sites being directly targeted by this movement. They should have reacted earlier.

But both are great texts, damning and exposing gamergate.

 

[njean777]

Seems like they are taking the Taoist position of action through inaction.

 

[Zomba13]

I decided to make a summary that's really quick and succinct.

Oh gosh that is great lol.

 

[JABEE]

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.

It's like saying we should allow some monsters to poison the general discourse, because it would mean letting the bigger, scarier monsters off the hook in some way. People should be able to criticize those who are using the disgusting opposition as a chance to bring out their own less hostile form of hate and dismissiveness.

We should still be able to point out the ridiculousness and viciousness of the winning or righteous side of this war. (I really hate these analogies) I would rather the assholes of the anti-gamergate side or basically the rational side not shape the future discussion when all this hate and "warring" subsides.

 

[BUNTING1243]

Jeff is definitely one of the smartest people in the industry, and it's nice to see Giant Bomb as an outlet publicly condemning this bullshit.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Ok, you are still showing me the same post I read.

Dunno what to tell you, then.

 

[stupei]

I think there's something worthwhile in considering who you're actually referring to in #GamerGate when you say "they".

The movement pretty clearly seems to comprise ringleaders with express anti-social justice motivations and 'useful idiots' who, I'm sure in many cases, are just a victim of their own initial gullibility and lack of fact-checking coupled with their ongoing ignorance or ego-saving selective blindness. I don't think the yolk and the white of the #GG egg would see eye to eye when it comes to how they treat silence. I'd argue that the ringleaders, those whose goal in this has always been to make outspoken feminists' lives miserable to the point of removing them altogether, aren't looking for attention unless they hit the political spin jackpot and it's outright supportive, and I don't think they expect approval. They just want the momentum of a mob, for as long as possible. 2000 accusatory tweets a day pushes a person's capacity for harassment a lot more effectively than half a dozen tweets. (Numbers pulled from my ass.)

Very good point. There have been a handful of people who showed up in the thread here on GAF to say that they had been misinformed about what the movement actually stands for and have changed their mind about it since finding out more.

Yes, there will always be certain crazy extremists who want to cause other people suffering, and pointing out that they're doing that won't slow it down. But as you say, there are thousands of other people involved who I have to hope are simply misguided and idealistic.

 

[BlastProcessing]

I disagree with this part. I sincerely think that, as a group, they want attention much more than they want approval, and silence is an attempt to deprive them of that attention.

I understand that viewpoint. The thing is, attention is not the only thing they are feeding on, they are also fueled by a mountain of fabrications, half-truths, and innuendo. Those things thrive in silence. So you have this Gordian Knot where there is no clear solution.

Personally, I fall on the side of speaking out. I feel that laying out the facts in a clear and public way shines a light on the movement, from there people can make up their own minds.

But, again I acknowledge that attention is a thing they want and that sucks. I don't think there is a clear answer. It all just sucks.

 

[TharpDaddy]

I think it's a good write up by Jeff. It sucks that he had to deal with all this at the same time as family issues.

Both of you are severely misreading my post. I am definitely not saying they don't care. Of course they do! I am saying that if they "really want to go the extra mile" in terms of diversity, then they could diversify their staff or through signalboosting. Klepek has done some really great things in regards to this, so big kudos to him, certainly. I am just stating that there is room for improvement is all.

"really care" is meant as "if they want to do even better".

Maybe it's just poorly worded, but the tone of your posts definitely come across as militant about your views and how others should act.

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.

That's a really poor way to express "if they want to do better", as it comes across like you saying because they didn't hire a woman they don't actually care all that much. You also throw in an insult at the end by stating it's a "white boys' club". Jeff just put up a article expressing opposition to GG but it didn't meet the standard you have so you insult them. No offence, but it's easy to misunderstand when your posts come across as needlessly aggressive and insulting. I understand this topic is one that can be aggravating, but you may want to think on the tone you're taking in posts.

 

[Lime]

@JABEE, Gestault, Metroidvania, RiccochetJ

The post was too abrasively worded and it obscured the point of me suggesting that GB (and others) could improve by taking action to combat inequities within video game culture (they don't have to, but it would be nice). I am already familiar with what Klepek does and I can understand why discussing hiring practices in the matter of GB is a sensitive issue for its fans after what happened a couple of months back. Similarly, it is difficult to discuss a topic of institutionalized and systematic discrimination through what only amounts to a symptom. So I very much apologize for the abrasiveness of the post, especially in the context of such a complex & sensitive topic, and like I said, it's a conversation that fits another thread.

EDIT: haha, thanks for the correction, gestault.

EDIT2: TharpDaddy, "white boys club" wasn't meant as an insult but I can see why some might find it offensive. Thanks for the commentary/suggestion - I'll keep it in mind.