Drama in indy gaming and games journalism

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

I listed several different reasons why they might not have come out in support, and made the statement that trying to come up with a reason why they haven't is folly.

I'll join in the wild mass guessing regardless, and hazard the guess that they're of the eminently reasonable "oh my god, this whole thing is dumb" opinion.

Nice dodge.

 

 

Not  really, its a very valid reason said in a polite way why Obsidian wouldn't want to be associated with GG

 

I wouldn't if I was a developer. End of the day I consider you guys the more moderate supporters of GG but there are real misogynists who regularly participate in GG. Why would you think that Obsidian that is company that takes its view of gender representation seriously  want to be associated with people like that?

[Blarghagh]

Them stepping out for or against GG could change the tide of the battle.

 

See, this is why it's become impossible to take a side here. Because the sides don't see it as what it is - consumer revolt. They see it was a battle, a war. And bad stuff that happens is casualties of war. At this point, both sides have become the bad guy because of people's penchant for being overdramatic.

 

Maybe the reason that Obsidian doesn't openly support GG is that they fundamentally don't support it because they feel the way Zoe and others have been treated is worse than any perceived outrage certain gamers feel  due to the subjective definition of a word?

 

 

End of the day I consider you guys the more moderate supporters of GG but there are real misogynists who regularly participate in GG. Why would you think that Obsidian that is company that takes its view of gender representation seriously  want to be associated with people like that?

 

 

You realize that the reason these people are angry is because they have been falsely misrepresented as being associated with abuse and that this is what you're doing? When you make posts like this, you become part of the problem. As much as people like to pretend, this was never and will never be about gender representation. If it was, people (well, most) here would not support it. This is about censorship, freedom of speech and being free from stereotyping. Consistently I have seen people make good points and calm arguments and still be like "nuh uh, Zoe Quinn" as if her name is some kind of ear plug to criticism.

 

But what do I know? I'm just too stupid to understand what the definition of the word "gamer" even though it was never redefined by either person or context to what you have projected those articles "really meant" well after the fact.

 

EDIT: Whoops, double negative turned my meaning around there.

Edited September 24, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

I listed several different reasons why they might not have come out in support, and made the statement that trying to come up with a reason why they haven't is folly.

I'll join in the wild mass guessing regardless, and hazard the guess that they're of the eminently reasonable "oh my god, this whole thing is dumb" opinion.

Nice dodge.

 

 

Says the guy whose knee-jerk reaction to a fairly likely explanation of why Obsidz might not want to wade in this whole mess is "DOESN'T MATTER IT'S FOLLY TO THINK ABOUT IT".

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I listed several different reasons why they might not have come out in support, and made the statement that trying to come up with a reason why they haven't is folly.

I'll join in the wild mass guessing regardless, and hazard the guess that they're of the eminently reasonable "oh my god, this whole thing is dumb" opinion.

Nice dodge.

Not really, its a very valid reason said in a polite way why Obsidian wouldn't want to be associated with GG

 

I wouldn't if I was a developer. End of the day I consider you guys the more moderate supporters of GG but there are real misogynists who regularly participate in GG. Why would you think that Obsidian that is company that takes its view of gender representation seriously want to be associated with people like that?

I'm not saying it isn't an acceptable reason, I'm saying that the reason is unknown and attempting to guess why is a waste of time and is frankly irrelevant.

 

What I take issue with is the characterization of GG as a bunch of entitled white guys upset that they are being driven out, as "perceived outrage certain gamers feel due to the subjective definition of a word" implies. Part of the reason I support GG is because the one-sided coverage of it by the press at large. To me, it is the straw that has broken the camels back after years of biased reviews, publisher smooshing, and a low quality in standards.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I listed several different reasons why they might not have come out in support, and made the statement that trying to come up with a reason why they haven't is folly.

I'll join in the wild mass guessing regardless, and hazard the guess that they're of the eminently reasonable "oh my god, this whole thing is dumb" opinion.

Nice dodge.

Says the guy whose knee-jerk reaction to a fairly likely explanation of why Obsidz might not want to wade in this whole mess is "DOESN'T MATTER IT'S FOLLY TO THINK ABOUT IT".

Nice dodge.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Nice dodge.

 

 

"No."

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

 

Nice dodge.

 

"No."

Nice dodge.

[Blarghagh]

 

Actually "for many people, the fact that GG has its roots in what's widely perceived as an organized harrassment campaign against Zoe Quinn is enough to turn them off the whole movement on principle, regardless of what it's morphed into since (which is not necessarily a very rational stance, but there you have it)" is a perfectly valid argument on Bruce's part, which you haven't addressed thus far.

 

 

It's not a perfectly valid argument to make since it's not true. GG has no roots there. The movement was founded on the principle that Gamers are NOT the people organising a campaign. Everything else has been a misrepresentation to fit a false narrative created by journalists. The roots fall squarely in a series of slanderous, offensive articles regarding that campaign and not the campaign itself.

 

Added:

 

I found this post on the Escapist forums to be interesting reading. A little high on the conspiracy theory, but there are some interesting things in it especially regarding Silverstring Media. It also has a source where TJ Miller (username Polar Roller), game developer and originator of #NotYourShield claims that he has been fired and been accused of being a child porn distributer over his involvement in GamerGate.

 

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources?page=260#21430845

 

 

Listen & Believe

Well, can't blame me for trying, can you? It seems to work for some people.

I think this conversation has spent so long going around in circles, being derailed, being put back on the rails, and then going in circles again, that people have forgotten what really matters here. As we sit here arguing the finer points of whether or not someone personally thinks journalistic ethics have any purpose, or what a group would or wouldn't like to be called, or how to best appeal to nonexistent moderates that have somehow been listening to all of this for six weeks, but just really don't have any idea what it is all about, or where they stand on it, there are people losing their jobs, journalists and devs getting blacklisted, people being intimidated and threatened, allegations of extortion, contest rigging, and a stifling overall atmosphere of fear throughout the whole industry.

https://twitter.com/j_millerworks/status/513268615144296448

http://techraptor.net/2014/09/12/interview-daniel-vavra/

http://www.nichegamer.net/2014/09/real-gamedevs-sound-off-regarding-the-gamergate-controversy/

http://gamesnosh.com/fez-investors-outed-judges-2011-igf-award/

The question is, if this has been going on for years, why now? Why this sudden revolt? The short answer is, because they decided to do this, planning it more than a year in advance, but events pushed their hand, and they declared gamers dead a little sooner than they intended, and before they had laid all the ground work to lull their audience into it.

http://www.reactionzine.com/an-open-letter-to-games-media/

So instead of their plan, they just went with 11 articles in 24 hours.

https://archive.today/l1kTW

https://archive.today/YlBhH

https://archive.today/2t93l

https://archive.today/i928J

https://archive.today/9NxHy

https://archive.today/jVqJ8

https://archive.today/rkvO8

https://archive.today/L4vJG

https://archive.today/HkPHc

https://archive.today/11OEl

https://archive.today/wptL5

But who are "they?" That is the question I am constantly asked, as though some nebulous "they" proves that it is all just a shadowy conspiracy theory, cooked up from paranoia and insanity. Except, to be quite specific, "they" would happen to be:

Ben Abraham

Jenn Frank

Akira Thompson

Rami Ismail

Ben Kuchera

Brenden Keogh

Anita Sarkeesian

Anthony Burch

Anna Anthropy

Phillip Kollar

Ian Miles Cheong

Mattie Brice

Kris Ligman

Zoya Street

Adrienne Shaw

Leigh Alexander

Alan Williamson

Chelsae Van Valkenberg

Samantha Allen

Lucas Johnson

Andrew Grant Wilson

ceMelusine

Maya Felix Kramer

Devin Vibert

Danniele Livengood

Brian Clark

Kayla Kinnunen

J.C. Hutchins

Melinda Johnston

Jonathan McIntosh

Zach Alexander

Eric Swain

Lindsey Joyce

Mark Filipowich

Cameron Kunzelman

Lana Polansky

Zolani Stewart

Alex Lifschitz

Samantha Allen

Joe Köller

Oscar Strik

Michel McBride-Charpentier

Michael Clarkson

Erik Hanson

Denis Farr

David Carlton

Katie Williams

And several others who are clients of Maya Kramer.

And what makes that list of names a "they?" Every person on that list is financially connected to a company named Silverstring Media, and it's web publishing arm Critical Distance.

So what is Silverstring Media? From their own webpage:

That's great, but what does it actually mean?

 

We strive to be leaders in the industry, forging onward in innovation and inclusion. We strongly believe that entertainment can be art, that games can be meaningful, that stories have the power not only to make people think, but to help them. Other worlds can help us navigate this world, just as strongly as this world affects others.

They also work with an academic group named DiGRA, where:

Part of working with a feminist ethos is working to create networks of support in the place of systems of oppression. We want to see people thrive by working together and standing in solidarity with each other, without demanding conformity and marketability in order to succeed.

We are a feminist company. We've said it before, but we believe that all people deserve to be represented in art, games, and media, and that too little out there does so. We will make stories about women and LGBT people and people of colour because it's important. Period.

Silverstring Media makes art. We are a game developer. We consult with other game devs to help them write better stories for their games, and we make our own games

And who is this Samantha Allen? She is a professed misandrist, who by her own admission has a hate for men so boundless, it cannot be contained in any short, cute phrase. She is also a writer for Polygon, the author of that Open Letter above, and one of the people on that list with financial ties to Silverstring.

We talked a big game at DiGRA about dismantling hegemonic masculinity through intimate friendships. Tearing down those emotional walls that are part of the infrastructure of gendered oppression. Pursuing that male emotional fulfillment that Samantha Allen writes about as essential to the liberation of women.

So what, exactly, is it they want and what are they trying to do?

Well, ask Alex Lifschitz, speaking at their conference, in defense of his current girlfriend's game:

 

 

Well, clearly they hate games, the games industry, the games press, and gamers. Or perhaps I'm reading too much into

Did I mention that this was from April of this year, long before any of the recent unpleasantness had even started?

are mice that roar. Dishonest sacks of hot garbage that should be broken on racks.

We want to muzzle your experience, and call it 'journalistic impartiality.'

A thoroughly besotted, narcissistic industry, that fabricates its integrity from whole cloth.

AAA travesties, and the Unreal engines that power them

Put simply, these people want to destroy everything you know as the games industry, and they are doing everything they can, with no regard for ethics or the law. More on that later.

 

The quotes system messed up. Read it at the link if this was unclear.

Edited September 24, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[Gorth]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.860762-GamerGate-Discussion-Debate-and-Resources?page=260#21430845

We talked a big game at DiGRA about dismantling hegemonic masculinity through intimate friendships.

So, they want to turn us all into Girls

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Them stepping out for or against GG could change the tide of the battle.

 

See, this is why it's become impossible to take a side here. Because the sides don't see it as what it is - consumer revolt. They see it was a battle, a war. And bad stuff that happens is casualties of war. At this point, both sides have become the bad guy because of people's penchant for being overdramatic.

 

 

Yeah, basically. Also don't forget the whole "you can't really be a moderate/neutral party here" angle, when the self-proclaimed moderates on one side are throwing around charming phrases like "social justice fascists want to force all games to conform to their deplorable and morally bankrupt worldview".

 

 

 

You realize that the reason these people are angry is because they have been falsely misrepresented as being associated with abuse and that this is what you're doing? When you make posts like this, you become part of the problem. As much as people like to pretend, this was never and will never be about gender representation. If it was, people (well, most) here would not support it. This is about censorship, freedom of speech and being free from stereotyping. Consistently I have seen people make good points and calm arguments and still be like "nuh uh, Zoe Quinn" as if her name is some kind of ear plug to criticism.

 

But what do I know? I'm just too stupid to understand what the definition of the word "gamer" even though it was never redefined by either person or context to what you have projected those articles "really meant" well after the fact. 

 

 

On the other hand, I'm firmly of the opinion that... when you take it at face value, the GG narrative just doesn't really add up. There is the assumption that the events of the last few weeks were "just the straw that broke the camel's back". (It's a phrase I've heard repeatedly from various GG-related people.) That means GG-ers haven't put much stock into what game journalism says... let's say since 2012, when another (actually, in my opinion, much better argued and more insightful) article came out about corruption in game journalism. But if it's established that they're crooks, why does anyone find it such a huge betrayal that a journalist sleeps with an indie developer (who, by the way, unlike big publishers, has very limited influence and therefore impact on the industry as a whole)? If their opinion doesn't matter, who cares what they write about "gamers", whatever they mean by that label? If GG-ers haven't given their money to game journalists, even the "they are insulting their customers!" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention the fact that most of us are adults with various jobs, responsibilities and hobbies, gaming being only a small portion of it. Is "gamer" really such a core part of our identities as to warrant this reaction when threatened by people we don't give a **** about?

 

No, I'm fairly convinced this whole thing isn't about games journalism (which deserves to die in a fire, though, so be my guests to do the pitchfork-y/torch-y thing).

[kirottu]

Frankly, I don't think Obsidian as a company should take a stand. I think they make games, because they like games. There's no need to bring any agenda to it, especially any company wide agenda. Bringing an agenda to their reporting is one the reasons why some gaming journalists suck. Their agenda started mean more to them than their job.

 

I think both sides are spreading too much hate around, especially the anti-GG crowd with their "gamers are sexist" campaign and not reporting any positive news about women in gaming, like TFYC. 

 

Still, I would like to see some kind of positive message non gamergate related kinda thingie... Tweet akin to the good old "by gamers for gamers." Just saying that we like games, you like games, we aren't evil for making games and you aren't evil for playing games.

Edited September 24, 2014 by kirottu

[Blarghagh]

Alum, I agree this isn't about games journalism. It's about cultural marxism and censorship.

 

I hate the fact Gamergaters don't seem to believe in sources. I'm trying to find sources for the claim that Rantic Media, the media group now spearheading the #shutdown4chan campaign, actually owned the website that was used to make the (alleged 4chan) threat of "releasing Emma Watson nude photos". I suppose the fact that emmayournext.com now redirects to rantic.com means something but I'd prefer to get some actual sources for once. That's the problem with censorship. If it's true, it's another case of maliciously and willfully misrepresenting innocent people as being misogynist.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

Actually "for many people, the fact that GG has its roots in what's widely perceived as an organized harrassment campaign against Zoe Quinn is enough to turn them off the whole movement on principle, regardless of what it's morphed into since (which is not necessarily a very rational stance, but there you have it)" is a perfectly valid argument on Bruce's part, which you haven't addressed thus far.

 

 

It's not a perfectly valid argument to make since it's not true. GG has no roots there. The movement was founded on the principle that Gamers are NOT the people organising a campaign. Everything else has been a misrepresentation to fit a false narrative created by journalists. The roots fall squarely in a series of slanderous, offensive articles regarding that campaign and not the campaign itself.

 

Except a/ the whole mess originated on the 4chan message boards in Aug 18., in response to which said articles were written. If you search back the public archives they've released, you'll see Quinn's name mentioned over a 100 times in the first few days, while "journalism" comes up <20 times. "Ethics" doesn't even get mentioned until we're 4 days in.

 

Also, b/ note my usage of "perceived as".

[BruceVC]

 

 

Them stepping out for or against GG could change the tide of the battle.

 

See, this is why it's become impossible to take a side here. Because the sides don't see it as what it is - consumer revolt. They see it was a battle, a war. And bad stuff that happens is casualties of war. At this point, both sides have become the bad guy because of people's penchant for being overdramatic.

 

 

Yeah, basically. Also don't forget the whole "you can't really be a moderate/neutral party here" angle, when the self-proclaimed moderates on one side are throwing around charming phrases like "social justice fascists want to force all games to conform to their deplorable and morally bankrupt worldview".

 

 

 

 

@ TN

 

I  also want to add that some of you guys, and I mean Nonek specifically, have started throwing around the word SJF.."Social justice fascists" as way to now describe SJW, it was bad enough that for many people the word SJW is actually meant as an insult on most forums but now you have to call us fascists? Do you really think this is fair and reasonable ?

 

What's next? I'm expecting someone to say SJN  " Social Justice Nazi's " because that is the way this drama is going for some people

[Fighter]

So now that pro-GG people are getting doxxed and SJWs are trying to mess with their livelihood directly by harassing them at work I'm waiting on all these anti-GG people to practice what they preach and take responsibility for the crazies amongst their ranks.

 

Waiting... Oh, right, they can only demand this of other people.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Alum, I agree this isn't about games journalism. It's about cultural marxism and censorship.

 

 

Which is a lofty idea I'd be much more receptive to, if it didn't seem to mean "fighting thereof by shouting down criticism I don't agree with".

 

 

So now that pro-GG people are getting doxxed and SJWs are trying to mess with their livelihood directly by harassing them at work I'm waiting on all these anti-GG people to practice what they preach and take responsibility for the crazies amongst their ranks.

 

Waiting... Oh, right, they can only demand this of other people.

 

 

I don't really know where the idea of "SJWs have to make gestures we are unwilling to make, BECAUSE REASONS" is coming from, but it looks like a huge steaming pile of horsecrap from where I'm standing.

Edited September 24, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Blarghagh]

Alum, while I agree that some people seem to be using this as an excuse to that overall I do not believe that is what has been happening. It's not what I want either. I welcome criticism of gender representation in games myself (and in fact I have brought up issues like this many times on this very forum).

 

Bruce, I'm not sure how that is relevant but yes, I find it very irritating to be labled an "SJW" but this word has always had negative connotations as it denotes hardline cultural marxists. To be fair, I've found the use on this forum to be very unfair in general (especially considering the only ones here that could be labeled as working for social justice, including yourself, are moderate at best).

[Fighter]

I don't really know where the idea of "SJWs have to make gestures we are unwilling to make, BECAUSE REASONS" is coming from, but it looks like a huge steaming pile of horsecrap from where I'm standing.

 

The other way around. They are hypocrites.

[Zoraptor]

Which is a lofty idea I'd be much more receptive to, if it didn't seem to mean "fighting thereof by shouting down criticism I don't agree with".

 

Meh, the SJW crowd is worse at that particular aspect. Both sides shout a lot, and some intimidate, dox etc. But there's only really one side that is standing for and enforcing censorship- the ultimate method of shouting down, by ensuring the other side can't even speak- and that ain't the GG side.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Alum, while I agree that some people seem to be using this as an excuse to that overall I do not believe that is what has been happening. It's not what I want either. I welcome criticism of gender representation in games myself (and in fact I have brought up issues like this many times on this very forum).

 

 

If you say so. I respect your opinions, and the fact that you are putting a lot more energy into digging up stuff related to this thing, therefore you're probably way better informed than I am. Still, from what I've seen here, this is a pervasive and undeniable attitude present in a huge chunk of GG-related stuff that has been linked to.

 

 

I don't really know where the idea of "SJWs have to make gestures we are unwilling to make, BECAUSE REASONS" is coming from, but it looks like a huge steaming pile of horsecrap from where I'm standing.

 

The other way around. They are hypocrites.

 

 

Let me get this straight. Anti-GG spokespeople get harrassed. They respond to this by collectively calling GG-ers abusive backwards cavemen or something. GG-ers brush this off and get their pitchforks. The sight of pitchforks awakens atavistic impulses in certain elements of anti-GGers, who start to harrass GG-ers. GG-ers collectively call anti-GG-ers bad names, and when they do the exact same thing GG-ers have done a few days ago when faced with name-calling based on the actions of a deranged few, it's a proof of their inferiority and lack of moral backbone?

 

 

 

Which is a lofty idea I'd be much more receptive to, if it didn't seem to mean "fighting thereof by shouting down criticism I don't agree with".

 

Meh, the SJW crowd is worse at that particular aspect. Both sides shout a lot, and some intimidate, dox etc. But there's only really one side that is standing for and enforcing censorship- the ultimate method of shouting down, by ensuring the other side can't even speak- and that ain't the GG side.

 

 

...Yeah, I'm not sure it's that cut-and-dried.

Edited September 24, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Blarghagh]

http://theralphretort.com/exclusive-milo-boogie-baldwin-apparently-doxxed/

 

Several key GamerGate people have been reportedly doxxed, including Adam Baldwin. I wouldn't report it because it's a biased source with biased people but Boogie2988 cut ties with GamerGate over two weeks ago and denounced it and he confirmed that he was actually doxxed, which gives it more credibility to me. https://twitter.com/Boogie2988/status/514624753756536834

[Fighter]

Let me get this straight. Anti-GG spokespeople get harrassed. They respond to this by collectively calling GG-ers abusive backwards cavemen or something. GG-ers brush this off and get their pitchforks. The sight of pitchforks awakens atavistic impulses in certain elements of anti-GGers, who start to harrass GG-ers. GG-ers collectively call anti-GG-ers bad names, and when they do the exact same thing GG-ers have done a few days ago when faced with name-calling based on the actions of a deranged few, it's a proof of their inferiority and lack of moral backbone?

 

Let me put it in non convoluted way:

 

Harassment is bad. If you take a side and paint your opponents with the same brush and demand they take responsibility for random idiots on the internet speaking on their behalf. Then when this happens from your side you have to practice what your preach or your previous outrage is null and void and so is your moral authority. Period.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Harassment is bad. If you take a side and paint your opponents with the same brush and demand they take responsibility for random idiots on the internet speaking on their behalf. Then when this happens from your side you have to practice what your preach or your previous outrage is null and void and so is your moral authority. Period.

 

 

Yyyeah, that's not how human beings operate, really, and expecting the other side to consist literally of a host of saints who are perfectly willing to make concessions to the other side they not only find deplorable, but that has also presented itself to be unwilling to make the same concessions is unrealistic.

 

Of course, if your goal is to hold your opponents to an unrealistic standard and decry them morally bankrupt when they don't hold up to that standard, it's a completely reasonable expectation.

Edited September 24, 2014 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Longknife]

 

 

I don't really know where the idea of "SJWs have to make gestures we are unwilling to make, BECAUSE REASONS" is coming from, but it looks like a huge steaming pile of horsecrap from where I'm standing.

 

The other way around. They are hypocrites.

 

 

Let me get this straight. Anti-GG spokespeople get harrassed. They respond to this by collectively calling GG-ers abusive backwards cavemen or something. GG-ers brush this off and get their pitchforks. The sight of pitchforks awakens atavistic impulses in certain elements of anti-GGers, who start to harrass GG-ers. GG-ers collectively call anti-GG-ers bad names, and when they do the exact same thing GG-ers have done a few days ago when faced with name-calling based on the actions of a deranged few, it's a proof of their inferiority and lack of moral backbone?

 

 

 

 

He's merely asking you to put yourself in their shoes.

 

AKA....

 

GG supporters allegedly took part in harassment.

SJW asked them to stop the harassment.

The harassment continues to occur off and on, but the collective group claims to not condone the actions.

SJW supporters allegedly took part in harassment.

GG asked them to stop the harassment.

??????

 

 

The point is either:

 

A) Why haven't they publicly stated they don't condone or support the actions? It's radio silence on their end.

 

or in my opinion more importantly

 

B) You'll find yourself responding with "how the HELL do you expect me to stop a bunch of strangers on the internet who happen to hold the same stance as me from taking part in harassment? I can't and I can't be held responsible for them."

 

 

Grats, neither can we.

 

That's the point, that's the message. It's a message stating that bringing up and discussing the few who take part in harassment is unproductive. You or Bruce or Batman or Jesus H. Christ himself will not get ANYWHERE coming to this obscure corner of the internet - the Obsidian forums - and asking us to answer in the name of the harassers. We can't, because we simply don't know who they are or how to stop them. Most we CAN do is make it known publicly that such actions are not condoned, but that's it. I'm sure it's exactly the same for you.

 

 

I think the overall message is that if harassment were completely ignored and looked over since we can't do anything to stop it from either side and instead we focused on productive discussion and debate, it would hurt gaming journalists the most. It's simple: gaming journalists have a job and customers. They have to appeal to their customers to keep that job. If allegations are made that they did this or that poorly or they are corrupt, and they cannot properly respond to those allegations, it hurts them. If everyone remains distracted by something else though so that they're never asked to own up to certain actions or even try to provide a response....? Well, that's just hunky-dorey for them now isn't it?

   And hell, it IS even plausible there are perfectly reasonable explanations to be heard on behalf of several accused parties. In that sense it would be in THEIR best interests to respond, so as to seperate themselves from the bad egg that is guilty and not be tossed into the same group that the more hardcore members of GG will boycott out of sheer principle and skepticism.

   In the end, productive debate and discussion is what we need, and finger-pointing at a bunch of nameless anonymous harassers that neither side can name or stop is not productive. So let's stop, shall we?

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

I don't really know where the idea of "SJWs have to make gestures we are unwilling to make, BECAUSE REASONS" is coming from, but it looks like a huge steaming pile of horsecrap from where I'm standing.

 

The other way around. They are hypocrites.

 

 

Let me get this straight. Anti-GG spokespeople get harrassed. They respond to this by collectively calling GG-ers abusive backwards cavemen or something. GG-ers brush this off and get their pitchforks. The sight of pitchforks awakens atavistic impulses in certain elements of anti-GGers, who start to harrass GG-ers. GG-ers collectively call anti-GG-ers bad names, and when they do the exact same thing GG-ers have done a few days ago when faced with name-calling based on the actions of a deranged few, it's a proof of their inferiority and lack of moral backbone?

 

 

 

 

He's merely asking you to put yourself in their shoes.

 

AKA....

 

GG supporters allegedly took part in harassment.

SJW asked them to stop the harassment.

The harassment continues to occur off and on, but the collective group claims to not condone the actions.

SJW supporters allegedly took part in harassment.

GG asked them to stop the harassment.

??????

 

 

The point is either:

 

A) Why haven't they publicly stated they don't condone or support the actions? It's radio silence on their end.

 

or in my opinion more importantly

 

B) You'll find yourself responding with "how the HELL do you expect me to stop a bunch of strangers on the internet who happen to hold the same stance as me from taking part in harassment? I can't and I can't be held responsible for them."

 

 

Grats, neither can we.

 

That's the point, that's the message.

 

 

Weird, I thought this was the message:

 

 

They are hypocrites.

 

 

 

How silly of me. After all, this is merely what he's written.

 

 

(Snark aside, your post is well-argued and completely reasonable. But that doesn't change the fact that it's not the sentiment he's expressed.)