Journalism and sexism in the games industry

[pseudonymous]

Part of the reason journos and media are corrupt is because they got inflitrated by SJW's.

 

So Brianna, Anita and Zoe - they have impacted us by crying "mysogony" and spinning their narrative. A narrative the media was too quick to jump on to.

 

The 3 are a symptom of a problem, and technically small fish. But make no mistake in thinking we're just fighting against game journos. Even if we were to win, the SJW's won't stop attacking us.

 

If they are really worried about misogyny, why aren't they using their megaphone to advocate for women with real problems like the Yazidi women being repeatedly raped before they are sold off?

 

They are basically whining about cartoons while women are being raped and sold as property so it is incredibly difficult to take them seriously.

[Oerwinde]

 

Producers didn't want the full story of gamergate according to journalist:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/11/producers-didnt-want-the-full-story-of-gamergate-according-to-journalist/

 

http://www.ombudsman.cbc.radio-canada.ca/en/

 

CBC has somewhere to complain about problems with their journalism. Spread it around, if they get enough complaints they have to address it.

[Namutree]

Producers didn't want the full story of gamergate according to journalist:

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/11/producers-didnt-want-the-full-story-of-gamergate-according-to-journalist/

What a surprise.

[Meshugger]

Gawker owner Nick Denton admits trying to sabotage #GamerGate and compares it to "smashing a giant"

 

http://theralphretort.com/gawker-owner-nick-denton-admits-gamergate-sabotage/

 

Did you hear that guys? Gawker thinks that GamerGate is a giant now May this empire burn to the ground, utterly and completely.

[Malcador]

All these people need to die.

[Enoch]

But that scrutiny does not get to dictate the narrative, which is what it's doing (or in some cases attempting to do) now. :U

 

And yes, I would be inclined to question how they got here because those guys aside, our game journalists have been corrupt for a while now. No one even denies this. What I see now is a symbiotic relationship between the two where journalists use the feminist clique as a convenient shield for any corruption allegations while the feminists utilize their corruption and the heat they're receiving as a unique opportunity to spread their voice and their opinions to a degree they'd likely never see via transparency.

 

So yes, I will question how much of that scrutiny is deserved and to what degree it's "neccesary." Neccesary as a part of our community the same way EVERY opinion has a place, absolutely, but as the MAIN opinion that gets preached and that we're all expected to listen to...? I see no justification for this, especially since people don't seem to want to listen and especially since ultimately the people will dictate what gets read and what doesn't, whether the journalists like it or not. Even if you wanted to make a case this is neccesary, the methodology is ridiculous, both for how it denies people from having discerning opinions and in how it denies that this is a case where the free market WILL dictate things in the end; I'm not blathering about the free market cause I'm some obsessed libertarian who thinks all government intervention is a pest and the free market is flawless (definitely not), I'm saying this because it's the reality of the gaming industry.

The justification for games journalists to speak out about the toxicity of games commentary towards women was really quite clear-- they and friends of theirs experienced it first-hand, they decided that it wasn't the kind of thing they couldn't continue to abide silently, and they made a statement against it.  They did this with no clear financial incentive (other than the normal "I get paid to write a column" stuff), and in doing so risked alienating a portion of their audience and attracting the ire of those hateful **** at the core of the problem. 

 

Is that "dictating a narrative"?  I dunno.  Columnists are paid for their opinion, and they delivered it. 

 

It seems to bother you that their opinion didn't bubble up from the folks you consider "average gamers."  I'm not sure where you're getting that most gamers are or should be up in arms about all this.  In reality, most people who play games are ambivalent.  Sure, if you press them, they'd say that folks who comment on gender politics in games don't deserve the abuse they have historically gotten for speaking their mind, and that reviewers shouldn't allow their work to be affected by the ads that games publishers buy on their employers' site.  But if those beliefs influence them to change their behavior at all, it's only to avoid reading comments and twitter replies to certain articles and to develop their opinions of games from sources outside paid games media. 

 

Ultimately, the stakes on the GG'er side are so low that the people who appear to care intently about the cause all either look pretty weird, or are motivated by opportunism (drawing attention/clicks/follows by ratifying the views of supporters) or hateful tribalism (see Trashman's "I'm really in this because I hate SJWs" post above).  This is why "actually, it's really about ethics in games journalism" has become a laugh line-- anybody who cites that as a basis for the kind of emotional intensity you see from much of the GG crowd either has humorously bizarre priorities or is lying to you (possibly deliberately, possibly because he lacks the self-awareness to understand his own motivations). 

Edited November 4, 2014 by Enoch

[Namutree]

All these people need to die.

Take it down a notch.

[kirottu]

All these people need to die.

 

We'll kill them with emails to their advertisers. 

[Malcador]

 

All these people need to die.

Take it down a notch.

 

Never! Just irritating to be aware they exist, much like Rob Ford. Still, the amusing thing about this is that all the, ahem, victims are doing pretty well. Why I laugh when I read people post about how terrible this and the lives "ruined".

 

Rather surprised it has kept going, though I shouldn't be. War waged on social media where everyone must be a snarky **** at any given moment and SJWs that can't pass up on bait to prove they care.

[Namutree]

 

Part of the reason journos and media are corrupt is because they got inflitrated by SJW's.

 

The fact that they are SJWs is not important. The corruption is the problem, and any group is capable of being corrupt. We've already made post discussing the christian game sites, and how we approve of their methods. This situation could easily be the reverse; where zealous christian journalists were the corrupt ones and it was the SJW game sites that are the admirable model.

 

 

 

So Brianna, Anita and Zoe - they have impacted us by crying "mysogony" and spinning their narrative. A narrative the media was too quick to jump on to.

 

The 3 are a symptom of a problem, and technically small fish. But make no mistake in thinking we're just fighting against game journos. Even if we were to win, the SJW's won't stop attacking us.

 

The 3? What are they; some kind of super villains in a western fantasy? These three are just anti-gamergate critics. Their only importance is what you give them. If we win; they can attack us all they want; after all, we will have won. The day gamergate is about anything but corrupt journalism; is the day I (and anyone reasonable) loses interest in gamergate.

 

 

 

GamerGate is about ethics in game journalism - this may be the only reason *some* GGers joined. 

 

From what I understand it's why *most* joined, and it's the only cause that justifies the term 'gamergate'. If gaming journalism isn't the point of gamergate; don't you think it's a misleading term? 

 

 

 I fight for ethics and professionalism in the media (ALL media) too, but to me personally, the main fight is against SJW's.

The game journos are just the fist fight. Once they are taken care off, we can move onto other targets.

 

Gamergate should NOT have a political agenda. Gamergate is first and foremost a consumer revolt. This isn't about politics, or social engineering. This is about corrupt gaming journalism, and how gamers are being mistreated by these websites. If fighting SJWs is your goal; go ahead and start a movement against them rather than join a consumer revolt about journalistic ethics.

 

Also, if gamergate even does have a battle after we win this fight; cleaning up mainstream journalism would be a better net step than going after SJWs some more.

Edited November 4, 2014 by Namutree

[Keyrock]

All these people need to die.

I'd just like to state that I in no way condone or associate myself with this statement.

 

/rapidly backs away from Malcador

[Enoch]

 

All these people need to die.

I'd just like to state that I in no way condone or associate myself with this statement.

 

/rapidly backs away from Malcador

 

What, that wasn't a trenchant comment on the human condition?  A memento mori, if you will? 

 

These people, as all people do, need to die someday.  So consider, perhaps, how much of your dwindling time as a conscious being you are willing to spend worrying about what they say, do, or think. 

[Namutree]

 

All these people need to die.

I'd just like to state that I in no way condone or associate myself with this statement.

 

/rapidly backs away from Malcador

 

What he said...

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

 

All these people need to die.

Take it down a notch.

Never! Just irritating to be aware they exist, much like Rob Ford. Still, the amusing thing about this is that all the, ahem, victims are doing pretty well. Why I laugh when I read people post about how terrible this and the lives "ruined".Rather surprised it has kept going, though I shouldn't be. War waged on social media where everyone must be a snarky **** at any given moment and SJWs that can't pass up on bait to prove they care.

[Malcador]

Funny thing is, he may very well be dead soon. Tumour did not respond to first round of chemotherapy/.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I'm surprised he made it this long. You think he would've od'd or had a heart attack with his weight and habits.

 

[Meshugger]

 

But that scrutiny does not get to dictate the narrative, which is what it's doing (or in some cases attempting to do) now. :U

 

And yes, I would be inclined to question how they got here because those guys aside, our game journalists have been corrupt for a while now. No one even denies this. What I see now is a symbiotic relationship between the two where journalists use the feminist clique as a convenient shield for any corruption allegations while the feminists utilize their corruption and the heat they're receiving as a unique opportunity to spread their voice and their opinions to a degree they'd likely never see via transparency.

 

So yes, I will question how much of that scrutiny is deserved and to what degree it's "neccesary." Neccesary as a part of our community the same way EVERY opinion has a place, absolutely, but as the MAIN opinion that gets preached and that we're all expected to listen to...? I see no justification for this, especially since people don't seem to want to listen and especially since ultimately the people will dictate what gets read and what doesn't, whether the journalists like it or not. Even if you wanted to make a case this is neccesary, the methodology is ridiculous, both for how it denies people from having discerning opinions and in how it denies that this is a case where the free market WILL dictate things in the end; I'm not blathering about the free market cause I'm some obsessed libertarian who thinks all government intervention is a pest and the free market is flawless (definitely not), I'm saying this because it's the reality of the gaming industry.

The justification for games journalists to speak out about the toxicity of games commentary towards women was really quite clear-- they and friends of theirs experienced it first-hand, they decided that it wasn't the kind of thing they couldn't continue to abide silently, and they made a statement against it.  They did this with no clear financial incentive (other than the normal "I get paid to write a column" stuff), and in doing so risked alienating a portion of their audience and attracting the ire of those hateful **** at the core of the problem. 

 

Is that "dictating a narrative"?  I dunno.  Columnists are paid for their opinion, and they delivered it. 

 

It seems to bother you that their opinion didn't bubble up from the folks you consider "average gamers."  I'm not sure where you're getting that most gamers are or should be up in arms about all this.  In reality, most people who play games are ambivalent.  Sure, if you press them, they'd say that folks who comment on gender politics in games don't deserve the abuse they have historically gotten for speaking their mind, and that reviewers shouldn't allow their work to be affected by the ads that games publishers buy on their employers' site.  But if those beliefs influence them to change their behavior at all, it's only to avoid reading comments and twitter replies to certain articles and to develop their opinions of games from sources outside paid games media. 

 

Ultimately, the stakes on the GG'er side are so low that the people who appear to care intently about the cause all either look pretty weird, or are motivated by opportunism (drawing attention/clicks/follows by ratifying the views of supporters) or hateful tribalism (see Trashman's "I'm really in this because I hate SJWs" post above).  This is why "actually, it's really about ethics in games journalism" has become a laugh line-- anybody who cites that as a basis for the kind of emotional intensity you see from much of the GG crowd either has humorously bizarre priorities or is lying to you (possibly deliberately, possibly because he lacks the self-awareness to understand his own motivations). 

 

 

12 major sites declared that there is a gamer culture, that it is dead, that everyone disagreeing is a white, womanhating neckbeard, and there is no debate to be had. It is indefensible. They should all appologize, fire the ones writing the articles and everyone involved with patreons and other non-professional conducts to developers.

 

This "oh, we are really about higher standards in gaming, removing toxic culture of name-calling and highlighting unnecassary titillation"-bruuuha is so irrelevant that not even dinner-party liberals bother to discuss that over a cup of Latte.

[Blarghagh]

Funny thing is, he may very well be dead soon. Tumour did not respond to first round of chemotherapy/.

 

Yes, funny.

 

 

No, that's not an important thing. It cannot be important how she acted before this because she is not important in this. She may be irritating but she has nothing to do with GamerGate. GamerGate should be focusing on biased and corrupt journalism, not witch-hunting opponents. Nothing Brianna has done has impacted me or anyone else, it's just a lot of empty posturing.

 

Hmm... not entirely correct.

 

GamerGaters are fighting against those who slander and attack them.

Part of the reason journos and media are corrupt is because they got inflitrated by SJW's.

 

So Brianna, Anita and Zoe - they have impacted us by crying "mysogony" and spinning their narrative. A narrative the media was too quick to jump on to.

 

The 3 are a symptom of a problem, and technically small fish. But make no mistake in thinking we're just fighting against game journos. Even if we were to win, the SJW's won't stop attacking us.

 

GamerGate is about ethics in game journalism - this may be the only reason *some* GGers joined. But not all. Don't get me wrong, I fight for ethics and professionalism in the media (ALL media) too, but to me personally, the main fight is against SJW's.

The game journos are just the fist fight. Once they are taken care off, we can move onto other targets.

 

 

"Infiltrated" by SJWs? TrashMan, you're currently running on the same "terror organisation" nonsense they use against GG. "SJWs" are not a institution, it's at most a label for people who are moral authoritarians, but it's not even a very good label. I've spent a fair amount of time just on this forum talking about how I feel game developers should put more effort into stopping toxicity, especially toxicity towards women (because it does happen, it's fine to say "trolls just attack your weakness" but it's telling that the "weakness" they're attacking is that they're female) in game communities and that was enough for some to label me as an SJW. And you know what? If caring about getting rid of toxicity and sexism at all makes you an SJW? ****, slap it on me. That doesn't mean I'm goddamn infiltrating anything, it means I care about something. This is about ethics in games journalism, and if it isn't for you then no offense but you can just **** right off as far as I'm concerned. It's true I used the term SJW early on this debate, but only out of shorthand for GamerGate opponents.

 

 

But that scrutiny does not get to dictate the narrative, which is what it's doing (or in some cases attempting to do) now. :U

 

And yes, I would be inclined to question how they got here because those guys aside, our game journalists have been corrupt for a while now. No one even denies this. What I see now is a symbiotic relationship between the two where journalists use the feminist clique as a convenient shield for any corruption allegations while the feminists utilize their corruption and the heat they're receiving as a unique opportunity to spread their voice and their opinions to a degree they'd likely never see via transparency.

 

So yes, I will question how much of that scrutiny is deserved and to what degree it's "neccesary." Neccesary as a part of our community the same way EVERY opinion has a place, absolutely, but as the MAIN opinion that gets preached and that we're all expected to listen to...? I see no justification for this, especially since people don't seem to want to listen and especially since ultimately the people will dictate what gets read and what doesn't, whether the journalists like it or not. Even if you wanted to make a case this is neccesary, the methodology is ridiculous, both for how it denies people from having discerning opinions and in how it denies that this is a case where the free market WILL dictate things in the end; I'm not blathering about the free market cause I'm some obsessed libertarian who thinks all government intervention is a pest and the free market is flawless (definitely not), I'm saying this because it's the reality of the gaming industry.

The justification for games journalists to speak out about the toxicity of games commentary towards women was really quite clear-- they and friends of theirs experienced it first-hand, they decided that it wasn't the kind of thing they couldn't continue to abide silently, and they made a statement against it.  They did this with no clear financial incentive (other than the normal "I get paid to write a column" stuff), and in doing so risked alienating a portion of their audience and attracting the ire of those hateful **** at the core of the problem. 

 

Is that "dictating a narrative"?  I dunno.  Columnists are paid for their opinion, and they delivered it. 

 

It seems to bother you that their opinion didn't bubble up from the folks you consider "average gamers."  I'm not sure where you're getting that most gamers are or should be up in arms about all this.  In reality, most people who play games are ambivalent.  Sure, if you press them, they'd say that folks who comment on gender politics in games don't deserve the abuse they have historically gotten for speaking their mind, and that reviewers shouldn't allow their work to be affected by the ads that games publishers buy on their employers' site.  But if those beliefs influence them to change their behavior at all, it's only to avoid reading comments and twitter replies to certain articles and to develop their opinions of games from sources outside paid games media. 

 

Ultimately, the stakes on the GG'er side are so low that the people who appear to care intently about the cause all either look pretty weird, or are motivated by opportunism (drawing attention/clicks/follows by ratifying the views of supporters) or hateful tribalism (see Trashman's "I'm really in this because I hate SJWs" post above).  This is why "actually, it's really about ethics in games journalism" has become a laugh line-- anybody who cites that as a basis for the kind of emotional intensity you see from much of the GG crowd either has humorously bizarre priorities or is lying to you (possibly deliberately, possibly because he lacks the self-awareness to understand his own motivations). 

 

 

Nice negging in your last line there. I do really care about ethics in games journalism. I also welcome cultural critique. The problem is that games websites are offering cultural critique under the guise of consumer advocacy. They didn't write columns or editorials to say. 90% of the original articles that sparked this nonsense was in the NEWS sections of their respective sites. Similarily, there is a difference between a review and a critique. A review is consumer advocacy, a critique is something else. They're scoring these games for the consumer, yet they're saying "we're not doing consumer advocacy, we're doing cultural critique", well you can't have ****ing both at the same time because they're completely different things. Reviews affect different things than cultural critique does. If they were being seperated, we would not have this mess. It's like what Longknife points out about the Christian Gamer site. Nobody has a problem with that, because they seperate the consumer focused portion from the cultural critique and promoting things for their morals or because they're friends with the creators, and if other games journalists did that everything would be fine. Hell, I'd be bloody fine if they added a seperate "morality" score but you can't lower consumer advocacy grades like gameplay because "the cutscenes pandered to make gaze imo" (an argument that is heterosexist in the first place).

 

Also, they saw their friends getting harassed and said "this has to stop"? I don't believe a single article told anyone to stop anything. Nope, they just said "hey guys, you're terrible human beings for having this hobby". They didn't even say "we want to adress toxicity in gamer culture and see if we can fix it", they just straight up went "gamers are a lost cause and they should piss off". Maybe that's not what they meant, like Bruce points out ad nauseum, but they didn't redefine the term Gamers so that's the received message. Death of the Author and everything, any interpretation is a valid interpretation and intended message is generally not the perceived message. For the record, I believe it to be the intended message as well. The constant use of "consumer" as a slur in those articles clinches it for me. The fact that these people are our consumer advocates but they absolutely hold no respect for consumers is problematic in itself.

 

Also, "They did this with no clear financial incentive and in doing so risked alienating a portion of their audience and attracting the ire of those hateful **** at the core of the problem." Which is exactly what happened to turn GG in what it is today? So you're saying this is the risk they took but you're against it actually happening? I'm not sure what the point is you're making.

 

It's very clear that not all of GG is good. You need not point it out, we all know. Yes, there are misogynists and abusive jerks and people co-opting it for their own purposes and politics. It sucks. Yes, there is a clear correlation between GG and the inherent disagreement with libertarians and authoritarians. But it is, for most people, about consumer advocacy and ethics in games journalism. It's why people like TotalBiscuit are in it. And you know what? Saying my efforts to talk about my opinion about journalis is defined by these bad parts? Well, you're just wrong. Guilt by association is not a thing. It will never be a thing. Especially when that association is as flimsy as using a freaking hashtag. The presence of abusive **** does not dictate what I can or cannot talk about. Letting them dictate the conversation, whether in or against their favour, is ridiculous and unethical and I won't do it. I think there needs to be changes in games journalism and the fact that some other people who also say that are **** isn't relevant.

 

Anyway, I've already written at length as to why I'm in this so I will just link it http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/69052-journalism-and-sexism-in-the-games-industry/?p=1528850 (for the record, that developer that was made out to be a "drama queen" earlier on in this thread has had his concerns validated over and over in his worries just in the last few weeks when games journalists lied about and slandered the developers of "Hatred" as being an organisation of Neo-Nazis simply because they didn't like the game, good luck getting over an accusation like that) but there is another problem I have with the "being in GG is bad" argument: You have no other choice if you want to actually talk about journalistic ethics right now. I know because I tried everything I can to change that.

 

At first, someone told me "we can have this conversation if you leave GG". So I did. I left the movement behind, stopped using the hashtag. What you get is endless variants of "if you still want to talk about it, you're still GG" or "we can't talk about it while GG is still here" or even "this is an argument misogynists want to have, if you still want to have it, you're a misogynist". Someone else told me if I wanted to have this conversation, I should denounce harassment. Well, since one of the cornerstones of the movement is "I condemn personal threats", easy. I did that. I got the same arguments back. "Harassment is still happening, can't talk about it while it's still happening and while misogynists are still making the same argument". I pointed out that I had no more ability to stop anonymous internet trolls as they did, but I tried and spent a lot of time reporting trolls and retweeting the harassment patrol. Well, the response to that was even more hostile: "You're a ****ing joke and you're not even trying". I decided to put my money where my mouth is and donated to anti-cyberbullying charities. Apparently, that was just a PR stunt to hide my misogyny? It's a ****ing smokescreen. They made GG into a bigger villain by consistently signal boosting trolls and doing everything except literally saying "if you attack a woman in the game industry we'll give you the attention you so crave" so it can taint the entire conversation. You can't have this conversation outside of GG because of GG, so the only way to have it is strength of numbers and forcing their hand with consumer boycotts and letter writing campaigns.

[Malcador]

What, that wasn't a trenchant comment on the human condition?  A memento mori, if you will? 

 

These people, as all people do, need to die someday.  So consider, perhaps, how much of your dwindling time as a conscious being you are willing to spend worrying about what they say, do, or think.

Well beyond reading it in this thread, can't say I spend much time 'worrying' about it. Significant chunks are pretty entertaining - Cheong's stuff is hand wringing goodness sometimes - particularly the jargon in some of these arguments.

[Gorgon]

 

All these people need to die.

I'd just like to state that I in no way condone or associate myself with this statement.

 

/rapidly backs away from Malcador

 

Dont write stuff like that (Malacador). It's more potential work for the mod squad. Find some other way to 

 

[Malcador]

Fine, all these Twitter snarks should break their big toes. Better ?

[pmp10]

At first, someone told me "we can have this conversation if you leave GG". So I did. I left the movement behind, stopped using the hashtag. What you get is endless variants of "if you still want to talk about it, you're still GG" or "we can't talk about it while GG is still here" or even "this is an argument misogynists want to have, if you still want to have it, you're a misogynist". Someone else told me if I wanted to have this conversation, I should denounce harassment. Well, since one of the cornerstones of the movement is "I condemn personal threats", easy. I did that. I got the same arguments back. "Harassment is still happening, can't talk about it while it's still happening and while misogynists are still making the same argument". I pointed out that I had no more ability to stop anonymous internet trolls as they did, but I tried and spent a lot of time reporting trolls and retweeting the harassment patrol. Well, the response to that was even more hostile: "You're a ****ing joke and you're not even trying". I decided to put my money where my mouth is and donated to anti-cyberbullying charities. Apparently, that was just a PR stunt to hide my misogyny? It's a ****ing smokescreen. They made GG into a bigger villain by consistently signal boosting trolls and doing everything except literally saying "if you attack a woman in the game industry we'll give you the attention you so crave" so it can taint the entire conversation. You can't have this conversation outside of GG because of GG, so the only way to have it is strength of numbers and forcing their hand with consumer boycotts and letter writing campaigns.

That's just begs the question of why do you bother?

You won't break the 'misogyny' narrative.

Might as well have GG embrace harassment.

[Nonek]

For me it's quite simple, a bunch of (mainly) spoiled corrupt white men slandered and accused millions of men, women and children from all races, creeds and sexualities of being misogynistic, racist, homophobic etcetera. Quite reasonably these consumers protested as is their right, also their frustration with a medium that has been unfit fo purpose for many years had been steadily accumulating, prompting a ferocious reaction against this latest round of abuse.

 

The gaming media tried to hide behind their supposed self righteousness, which is revealed by the makeup of their group to be bogus, and further demonised the millions they had allready slandered. Sinking to the level of schoolground taunts and hatemongering. But interestingly they also revealed their true fascistic agenda, which is not improvement of gaming (which has problems that are being overcome,) but censorship and control according to their biased, blatant and childish agenda.

 

They do not want innovation, improvement or representation, they want blatant preaching and clumsy moralising that fits in with their pampered, privileged worldview. And for all to be forced to abide by the decisions of these few spoiled white children. Furthermore they want games to regress to badly written, non interactive graphical picture books, which are for them the height of technology.

 

Quite frankly I can't see why anyone would want these morons, raving and gibbering nonsensically in the McIntosh Zone, to be allowed anywhere near game development. They're against game developers whom they slander, they're against a broad spectrum of players covering every demographic whom they feel free to villify and they're against the medium improving at all.

 

That's just my personal view however.

[Blarghagh]

 

At first, someone told me "we can have this conversation if you leave GG". So I did. I left the movement behind, stopped using the hashtag. What you get is endless variants of "if you still want to talk about it, you're still GG" or "we can't talk about it while GG is still here" or even "this is an argument misogynists want to have, if you still want to have it, you're a misogynist". Someone else told me if I wanted to have this conversation, I should denounce harassment. Well, since one of the cornerstones of the movement is "I condemn personal threats", easy. I did that. I got the same arguments back. "Harassment is still happening, can't talk about it while it's still happening and while misogynists are still making the same argument". I pointed out that I had no more ability to stop anonymous internet trolls as they did, but I tried and spent a lot of time reporting trolls and retweeting the harassment patrol. Well, the response to that was even more hostile: "You're a ****ing joke and you're not even trying". I decided to put my money where my mouth is and donated to anti-cyberbullying charities. Apparently, that was just a PR stunt to hide my misogyny? It's a ****ing smokescreen. They made GG into a bigger villain by consistently signal boosting trolls and doing everything except literally saying "if you attack a woman in the game industry we'll give you the attention you so crave" so it can taint the entire conversation. You can't have this conversation outside of GG because of GG, so the only way to have it is strength of numbers and forcing their hand with consumer boycotts and letter writing campaigns.

That's just begs the question of why do you bother?

You won't break the 'misogyny' narrative.

Might as well have GG embrace harassment.

 

 

Hell no. I condemn harassment and personal threats, so does most of GamerGate. Their narrative doesn't define me, it doesn't define GamerGate and we certainly shouldn't prove it right.

 

EDIT: Ninja'd, so added quote.

Edited November 4, 2014 by TrueNeutral

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

12 major sites declared that there is a gamer culture, that it is dead, that everyone disagreeing is a white, womanhating neckbeard, and there is no debate to be had.

 

 

Except that didn't actually happen.