GamerGate - and it's continuing aftermath.

[BulletMagnet]

But I really don't see ANY fans getting "offended" about the butt slap.

As I posited in a previous post, I'd say that's an accurate summation; that said, while pretty much nobody has gone the "you've lost a buyer" route, there have been more than a few "isn't that a bit much?" comments from players who have been following SF5's development, and just because they're not going totally ape doesn't mean Capcom's not aware of them. Again, nobody but the developer knows exactly what prompted the tweaks in question, but the fact that we're seeing camera angle adjustments instead of full-scale character removal/redesign suggests, to me at least, that they were prompted by more measured fan criticism as opposed to the creeping miasma of political correctness peering threateningly over the horizon.

Don't get me wrong: I, like most everyone else, could complain at considerable length concerning both the state of gaming journalism and the occasionally-surreal manifestations of the hyper-PC set, but to be so obsessed with it to, among other things, instantly blame one or both for every "unsavory" decision a game company makes, not to mention largely look the other way as genuinely misogynistic elements creep into the fold, strikes me as less than reasonable. Not every "pro-gamergate" person is like that, of course, but the ones that are tend to be the loudest, and to overpower the rest more than they ought to.

[Opus131]

not to mention largely look the other way as genuinely misogynistic elements creep into the fold

Like what?

[BulletMagnet]

The ones sending rape and death threats, for starters.

[evil_ash_xero]

The ones sending rape and death threats, for starters.

I really don't see this. I mean, you hear about it so much, that you'd think it would be all over the place. And I've been suspicious about it, and I keep looking around for it.
I even asked Harmful Opinions, if he saw any of this. He said that the vast majority, of what he saw, was just criticism. That's what I'm seeing too. But maybe I'm missing something. But a lot of people are missing something, as well, because no one can ever be like "yes, here is a hive of harassment. Take a look".

EDIT: Unless we are talking about one of the Chan forums. Funny enough, in the GG forum on 8 Chan, doxing isn't allowed. But they have whole threads there, devoted to doxing people, and stuff like that.
But the Chan sites are kind of pushing it. I don't even know how they don't get into more trouble, with it. Seems like some kind of laws are being broken. But I'm not an expert on the law.
But these types of sites date way before any kind of GG type thing. And I've always known them to be pretty...well, they're not for me.

The main place for GG, is Kotaku In Action. The place that Brianna Wu says is a place where people organize harassment campaigns.
This is nonsense. That place has about as tight moderation, as this site.

There is no doxing, as that isn't allowed. It will be deleted, and you will be banned (usually for a short period).

The "threats" I have seen, on Twitter, are mainly just shit talk. Yeah, "you fucking suck" isn't nice, but it's not a big deal either.
There have been a few, but there have been just as many, from people on the other side of the argument. (the first few get togethers of GG had bomb threats, for one. Total Biscuit got some weekly, he said. People have been sent syringes, and other things. It's pretty nasty)
Honestly, I don't know WHO is doing this at all. It just seems like random people, or trolls. AntiGG and GG both don't like this, so no one is gonna be like "yeah, I sent a death threat!".

If you ask me, I think the main "problem", is that Twitter is moderated like shit. That's where all the "harassment" is coming from, and Twitter should clean that shit up themselves.
Because, you are NOT going to be able to stop that kind of thing, on such a huge, anonymous, open platform, without trolls and shit talkers.

Hell, when Mushihimesama came out on Steam, there was that guy that gave it a poor review, on YouTube. And people gave him death threats, for that. And you know damn well, it was probably a forum member. There was a link to the review here, so I'm pretty sure of it. And there's not that many shmup fans, and most are members.
But I wouldn't say this is a hate site. That would be ridiculous.

But if anyone can actually point me in the direction, of seeing all this harassment...please do. I don't want to be blind, to anything.
However, I don't even know if Anita was "harassed" as much as Joss Whedon, for his portrayal of Black Widow. And that was done by feminists.
And for the record, I have seen a few sent to Sarkeesian and Wu. I just think the numbers are REALLY low. And I haven't seen any sent in ages.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

The ones sending rape and death threats, for starters.

Reminder: Only the threats made against gamergate were confirmed as 'credible' by police.

Twitter bantz is definitely happening and is quite unpleasant. Fortunately, Tyler the Creator has the solution (incidentally the same solution works for people who are offended by cartoon asses). I wish I could close the screen and walk away from corrupt journalism and SJW but it's ruining the hobby and in some cases - people's lives.

[evil_ash_xero]

The ones sending rape and death threats, for starters.

Fortunately, Tyler the Creator has the solution (incidentally the same solution works for people who are offended by cartoon asses).

[Opus131]

The ones sending rape and death threats, for starters.

Most of which are either trolls or are actually hoaxes perpetrated by SJWs themselves to bolster their professional victim Paetron gains (Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian are experts in this). What about all the death threats sent to pro-GG people, including many pro-GG women? What about all the shit Jack Thomson had to suffer through? Was that because of all the "misogynists" in gaming?

I think this entire internet harassment thing is a load of shit. This picture captures what is actually happening to perfection:

http://i.imgur.com/LddFK4O.jpg

See, there is really no "two sides" in this story. SJWs are the only villains. They are the one who routinely sent death threats to cancel any talk about GG. They are the ones who actually dox people, and seek to fire them from their jobs. What happened to Gregory Elliot is a perfect illustration of how feminists and SJWs operate, and what happened with GG is no different. While it is true that the internet can often be a rough place, that has nothing to do with GG specifically and certainly nothing to do with women per-se.

[BulletMagnet]

Again, I haven't been following this stuff as closely as some of you apparently have, but a quick bit of Wiki browsing seems to offer a pretty substantial list of this sort of thing...I don't know how many of them have been dismissed by the GG crowd as either false or "not really all that serious", but methinks claims of "we're the only real victims here" tend to ring rather hollow (the howling response to the John Oliver piece earlier this year struck me as particularly self-indulgent).

...actually hoaxes perpetrated by SJWs themselves to bolster their professional victim Paetron gains (Brianna Wu and Anita Sarkeesian are experts in this).

I'll posit you the same question posed to me above: if this is really happening and credible, why hasn't it been posted everywhere, and why do these people still have a voice?

[shoryusatsu999]

I wouldn't trust that Wikipedia article at all. The article has some heavily biased editors running the show, and most attempts to try and make the article more neutral have ended with the person in question getting banned for questionable reasons. Granted, I don't think there is a truly unbiased page on GamerGate, but that wiki page is probably one of the most biased accounts there is.

As for why the info on the threats isn't prevalent? Well, there are several places where you'll end up banned just for talking about GamerGate, and mentioning how the threats could be faked may lead to accusations of bringing GamerGate into the topic. In addition, you're underestimating the sheer power of news media. Millions of people still trust what they have to say, and most of them support people like Sarkeesian. If they don't bring it up, it's essentially not going to get talked about, and anything in opposition to what the news says will be viewed with suspicion.

And if you're still questioning why they have a voice, there are two simple answers to that: money and politics. The USA has only recently gotten out of a string of right-wing presidents (the last couple of which have been rather bad), and the best known examples of right-wing news media are so extreme that they make even the more extreme left-wing news places look centrist in comparison. Modern feminism lines up perfectly with left-wing politics, allowing them a better chance to appear favorably in left-wing media and events and a bigger audience due to the average US citizen not being able to tell whether, say, CNN is left-wing or not. Even if they aren't looked upon favorably, they have money, and lots of it. Money now speaks louder than ever, and with the right amount of money, even the most virulent opponent is liable to change their tune.

[MathU]

Yeah seriously, that Wikipedia "article" is a piece of comically biased trash and has been squatted on by a group of partisans for over a year now. I've been following the drama around it pretty much since its inception and a major reason why it's so bad is that there is a group of admins that has systemically banned pro- and neutral editors, while the blatantly anti- editors who flout the rules of neutrality and bully opposing viewpoints have received very little punishment on their end. If you have the time to have a closer look at the people who have been banned or blocked by "discretionary sanctions" over the topic area, you will find that maybe roughly 90% (this is not an exaggeration) of them are pro- or neutrals and many of which who followed the rules and acted civilly. A number were also blocked outside of the sanctions on dubious "sockpuppetry" claims so you won't find them on the list. Very, very few of the anti-GG users who constantly attempt to hound and goad pro- users or neutrality advocates into making the single mistake used as justification to ban them have been dealt with, and most of that only happened during the GamerGate Arbitration Committee ruling from last year.

Speaking of harassment, one of the more notorious anti-GG editors was finally blocked after 9 months of bad behavior when it came to light that they were harassing a neutral editor off-wiki (the editor claimed to be anti- in the past actually, but I guess it wasn't anti- enough!).

They also invented a new editing rule on Wikipedia just for the article where you have to have 500 edits and an account 30 days old in order to do anything on it, and it's been rapidly spreading to other contentious areas of the encyclopedia. It's an effective tactic of preventing people from editing topics they have an interest in (because not many want to go edit a bunch of garbage they don't care about to get "access" to what they do) and goes heavily against the notion of Wikipedia being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit".

This whole Gamergate thing has really opened my eyes to how easily Wikipedia can be gamed by people with a view to push and how untrustworthy it is generally when it comes to current events or controversial topics. I mean I sort of had a feel it wasn't so good for that stuff before, but the way it can be used so blatantly as a tool of propaganda makes my gorge rise.


Edit: Actually that 500/30 rule might have come about from another article, but if so the GG article was the second one to use it.

[BulletMagnet]

I appreciate folks taking the time to respond (though as far as the Wiki thing is concerned I would have preferred a specific criticism or two from its list versus "the whole thing is a sham"), but I'm honestly not sure where this discussion is supposed to go at this point...it almost strikes me the same way as talking heads on TV get away with saying ludicrous things because "well, the rest of the media is xyz, I'm just providing balance". A piece of evidence goes one way and "there's your proof!", but another piece goes another way and it's assailed as the product of some manner of conspiracy, ignorance, or both. As I said earlier on, there are a lot of preconceived notions at play here, and there seems no chance of most of them budging to even a small degree; indeed, there simply cannot be "two sides" to this story for it to go on as it has, there must be one irredeemable villain and one crusader for justice. I find it very, very difficult to believe that this is truly how it's come to pass, as such situations very, very rarely arise under any circumstances, but apparently coming at this thing from such a standpoint makes me "part of the problem". So what's someone like me to do but give up attempting some degree of dialogue and let the chips fall where they may? Or would that be the preferred outcome...and if it is, how is that any different from what the SJW radicals supposedly want?

[Durandal]

I'm afraid that's what it has come to.
If you're with Gamergate, you're gonna get blocked by an autoblocker Twitter account, called a nazi MRA conservative reactionary misogynist, and you'll most likely end up on some kind of blacklist by some journalistic outlets. Wanting some standards in journalism and cleansing gaming journalism from corruption? Why would you be against that?
If you're against Gamergate, you will be seen as a SJW sympathisant cuckold who donated to the Feminist Frequency Kickstarter, and depending on how outspoken you are in your views, pro-GGers will try to convince you otherwise or spread rumors to not buy your games. Harassing female developers out of the industry? Why would you support that?
Of course, there's being neutral and "neutral", the latter being just calling all other parties involved ridiculous and being proud about not participating in some childish debate about nothing. Which doesn't really earn you points with anyone.
There's nothing stopping you from saying that you agree that gaming journalism needs to be cleansed, and that you don't think Gamergate works as a hashtag, but people are too eager to classify you in one of the two camps so they know what they are dealing with.

This is the unfortunate result of dominant biases in news outlets who are not interested in properly representing both sides of a debate. I think it's fair to assume that nowadays most mainstream media tend to be more liberal in their opinions and news they publish, so when liberal media and mainstream media say one thing, and a conservative outlet says otherwise, the conservative outlets tend to be waved away as biased conspiratory nonsense, as opposed to liberal outlets which the majority of people are content with consuming. Not to say that conservative outlets aren't biased, but he who influences the mainstream media, influences the majority of people's opinions on various matters.

Consequently, it affects the communities. When moderators and important community members of various forums become biased in some way, it more than often happens that said moderators won't tolerate other ideas and viewpoints under the guise of being morally abhorrent (case in point, NeoGAF), making the forum a more comfortable place for people who share the same bias as the staff, while those with viewpoints considered unacceptable retreat to their own sites. Basically, it results in hugboxes. Most people are not comfortable with having their viewpoints and ideals (constantly) challenged, and would rather mingle with crowds who think alike. Staff members who would allow all kinds of opinions are replaced with people who share the same bias as the community, much to the community's liking. Even if the staff allows various opinions, in hugboxes the community will usually not take you seriously (case in point, /pol/, at least depending on how well argumented your posts are), and in most cases, trying to do so is pointless because you'll rarely change anyone's mind.

So what happens when two hugboxes are in a 'war' with eachother? Less people are willing to do their own research, and instead accept whatever screencaps the people who were at the front brought home, only showing the worst of the other party. Both parties assume the other consists of irrational madmen not willing to talk things out like a rational person, and basically you end up with two kids standing at the opposite ends of a sandbox with their backs turned to eachother. Nobody is willing to make a compromise, and little progress is made towards whatever cause both parties claim to be fighting for. This doesn't go for everyone involved, obviously, but people should be wary of not falling into the trap of hugboxes and information filters.

I kind of feel like a hypocrite, as I do believe that alot of SJWs are indeed irrational madmen, and could be considered 'the bad guys'. But I also know that there are people who share the same progressive far-left ideals and aren't as close-minded about it. At the same time, I don't want to point at SJWs and blindly proclaim them the bad guys. I think your opinion about this matter will be mostly influenced by how much experience you have in the field. You don't have to get into a Twitter fight per se, but it could at least help you understand.

[Mischief Maker]

I can't help but feel I'm repeating myself by posting this, but my view is much more prosaic. Games Journalists aren't the only dirty players in the mass media, they're just the worst at covering their tracks because the internet gives you verbal (textual?) diarrhea. The mainstream media has a vested interest in keeping the GG fire quenched so that it doesn't spread to their domain and they can continue to act like Brian Williams was some bad apple outlier. Then there's also the angle that video games are a serious competitor to TV and movies, so there's an incentive for old media to demonize gamers and dissuade their customer base from wanting to become one of them!

I think what everybody is missing about the SJWs is that they possess no actual power. Universities and corporations can at any time stop listening and their reign of terror is ended. To me it's a question of utility.

On one hand you can try to change the activities of a motley mass of thousands of individual SJWs, many of whom are just plain trolling, and convince them all to stop. On the other hand, you can convince a handful of decisionmakers at universities to change their policies so tenured professors can't just be automatically blackballed because of a twitter flareup. Which is more likely to succeed, especially as an older generation out of touch with internet etiquette retires and is replaced with people who understand that getting upset by an internet troll is like reading "Fuck you" scrawled on a bathroom stall and saying, "Fuck me?!! How... how DARE they?!!"

In the meantime, the annoying thing about SJWs is they are attached to legitimate issues. If they eventually do lose total credibility, they're taking those issues down with them. That's the reactionary backlash I fear. Years ago I was working as a professional political activist and visited another group's office, on the wall they had a magazine article entitled "10 life tips for activists" that made an impression. I forget 9 of the tips, but one of them was, "Being an activist does not exclude you from being an asshole."

[Opus131]

Of course, there's being neutral and "neutral", the latter being just calling all other parties involved ridiculous and being proud about not participating in some childish debate about nothing.

Except the debate is neither childish nor it is about "nothing". This is a war between the authoritarian progressive left and basically social libertarians who just want to be left alone and not be accused of terrible things by PC ideologues who see misogyny and racism under every bed. Did you per chance miss the part where Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn went to the frikking UN to argue in favor of the censorship of the entire internet because some feminist agitator got called names on the Twitter?

Also, the only people who are actually driving women out of the gaming industry is SJWs themselves. Any woman who speaks in favor of GG is automatically attacked and ostracized.

As far as i'm concerned, to remain "neutral" when the abuse is so blatantly one sided is like to remain neutral in argument about the pros and cons of pedophilia. The question is too black and white. SJWs are quite clearly in the wrong, and GGers are quite clearly in the right. There is no middle ground.

[Durandal]

I think what everybody is missing about the SJWs is that they possess no actual power. Universities and corporations can at any time stop listening and their reign of terror is ended. To me it's a question of utility.

On one hand you can try to change the activities of a motley mass of thousands of individual SJWs, many of whom are just plain trolling, and convince them all to stop. On the other hand, you can convince a handful of decisionmakers at universities to change their policies so tenured professors can't just be automatically blackballed because of a twitter flareup. Which is more likely to succeed, especially as an older generation out of touch with internet etiquette retires and is replaced with people who understand that getting upset by an internet troll is like reading "Fuck you" scrawled on a bathroom stall and saying, "Fuck me?!! How... how DARE they?!!"

There's nothing stopping anyone from not giving a fuck about what anyone else says while just going on with their lives (vote Trump!), but in the case of colleges where the vocal minority has become the majority (AFAIK), as an administrator you ideally want to please the majority. It's easier said than done to stick to your own rules when the majority of the community you are in charge of does not agree with said rules. After all, a king is powerless without his servants. And like I mentioned before, the usual course of action is that the king gets replaced with someone who is willing to listen to the new community. Other people are getting the message that you should conform to SJW ideals because it's the right thing to do/you're gonna get screwed otherwise. Smaller communities like forums can ignore such outrage because they can still go on with their business, as a community does not change in a day, but it can be harmful to smaller businesses if SJW-lenient forums and journalistic outlets decide to blacklist, spread nasty rumors about and your products solely because someone in said business expressed the 'wrong' opinion on social media, as your incomes will dwindle. The latter depends largely on your audience, you're not gonna lose much sales if you make fetishbait visual novels though (if the Play-Asia debacle has proved anything, standing up against the SJW menace will increase your sales).

Of course, there's being neutral and "neutral", the latter being just calling all other parties involved ridiculous and being proud about not participating in some childish debate about nothing.

Except the debate is neither childish nor it is about "nothing". This is a war between the authoritarian progressive left and basically social libertarians who just want to be left alone and not be accused of terrible things by PC ideologues who see misogyny and racism under every bed. Did you per chance miss the part where Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn went to the frikking UN to argue in favor of the censorship of the entire internet because some feminist agitator got called names on the Twitter?

I wasn't particularly referring to Gamergate in that case, but just any issue in general.

Also, the only people who are actually driving women out of the gaming industry is SJWs themselves. Any woman who speaks in favor of GG is automatically attacked and ostracized.

As far as i'm concerned, to remain "neutral" when the abuse is so blatantly one sided is like to remain neutral in argument about the pros and cons of pedophilia. The question is too black and white. SJWs are quite clearly in the wrong, and GGers are quite clearly in the right. There is no middle ground.

I don't disagree with you at all, but the point I was trying to make in my previous post is to not fall into the same trap of seeing everything in a monochrome perspective. One reason why many people are neutral in the case of Gamergate is because they see two extreme sides of the same coin who either say you are with or against us, and thus would rather stay out of it without doing further research because they are "rational people". Unlike pedophilia, Gamergate is not illegal in nearly all countries and considered morally abhorrent. That is not to say that having only two sides in a debate is a bad thing, but the issue here is how most people come across to the general public. People are more inclined to engage in debates where the atmosphere isn't as aggressive.

[Mischief Maker]

Zoe Quinn went to the frikking UN to argue in favor of the censorship of the entire internet because some feminist agitator got called names on the Twitter?

That was an embarrassing moment, yes, but the real legacy of Zoe Quinn is Steam adding the ability to delete games from your library after so many assholes gifted depression quest to their friends like digital herpes.

[evil_ash_xero]

I appreciate folks taking the time to respond (though as far as the Wiki thing is concerned I would have preferred a specific criticism or two from its list versus "the whole thing is a sham"), but I'm honestly not sure where this discussion is supposed to go at this point.

Well, for me, I would like another person to realize that GG is not a hate group. That's the biggest lie, and it's basically slander. The specifics can all be debated on, but this character assassination is just wrong.

[BulletMagnet]

Well, for me, I would like another person to realize that GG is not a hate group.

GG is such a loose coalition that it's impossible to place its members under any particular umbrella; there are, at the minimum, those most concerned with game journalists not being qualified to cover the source material, there are those focused on the "SJW" angle, and every degree of what course and degree of action people think ought to be taken mixed in. I don't think any good-faith observer would maintain that everyone associated with the movement is automatically a terrible person, but finds himself wary of the unsavory elements lurking around its fringes...and tends to get warier when the incredulous claims come hard and fast that any record of said elements must have been conjured up by a conspiracy to bring the movement down.

[Opus131]

This talk about all those supposed unsavory or fringe elements lurking about the GG "movement" (if we can call it such) is sort of amusing when SJWs are in and of themselves the unsavory fringe of the left.

BTW, i'm just going to leave this one here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... ter_being/

Imagine if this had happened to an anti. That's all you need to understand who the real villains are here, and it is not the GG people.

[Durandal]

Here's another interesting situation:

https://archive.is/ZSdJD

One of the newest Steven Universe episodes has a same-sex dance scene (if polymorphic rocks can have genders, that is) which was censored/altered/removed/self-censored/localized/changed in the UK by Cartoon Network UK in order to make it more comfortable for children, or to not offend anyone.
Tumblr and sites like Polygon are in a riot because a progressive scene like this was censored. The same kind of people who claim that censoring partial nudity from overseas games is just 'localization' so it can fit our cultural standards better. But when it happens to a cartoon show, it's different. I don't like that stuff like this has to happen before people start to understand what kind of stupidity 'self-censorship' constitutes, but I think this serves as a good wake-up call of how censorship feels when it affects things you like. Encouraging censors to censor things you think is problematic is a double-edged sword, what's to prevent censors from censoring things you like because the censor thought that content was problematic as well?
In the future SJWs will probably handwave the SU debacle and censorship in games away as a false moral equivalence, but I do hope they learn the moral of this episode.

[BIL]

"OH NOES NOT MY CARTOON SEXORZ" Turns out it's not just budding psychopaths and waifu connoisseurs who have something to fear. ^__^ Commiserations with children's television enthusiasts.

also GET ADULT INTERESTS YOU WEIRD FUCKS (like this ) Cartoon Network rofl. Yall niggas know it for the children! WHERE AM I GONNA GO FOR MY HARDCORE SUPERSEX ADULT BEACH VOLLEYBALL SIMULATOR

[louisg]

This talk about all those supposed unsavory or fringe elements lurking about the GG "movement" (if we can call it such) is sort of amusing when SJWs are in and of themselves the unsavory fringe of the left.

BTW, i'm just going to leave this one here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... ter_being/

Imagine if this had happened to an anti. That's all you need to understand who the real villains are here, and it is not the GG people.

Yeah, I saw that I wonder whatever happened with -- I was following American McGee on Twitter when that broke. Very sad and worrying.

I don't think there is one "real villian"-- it's just zealotry that's the enemy here: Unbalanced individuals that glom onto various causes and think that their "correct" position gives them the license to attack and threaten people. I've been following both sides of this thing for a while and I'm positive now that neither one has a monopoly on horrible behavior. It's pretty much the same playbook: deny any wrongdoing from your side, say the other side is making up anything bad that happens to them, play off any racism/etc as "can't you take a joke?", and repeat. Super gross all around.

But the best part is that I can make vague statements about it and people always think I'm talking about "those other guys" I've had both pro and anti people fave my tweets sometimes because of that (I tend to talk in general principles and don't care much about the teams involved).

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

Here's another interesting situation:

https://archive.is/ZSdJD

One of the newest Steven Universe episodes has a same-sex dance scene (if polymorphic rocks can have genders, that is) which was censored/altered/removed/self-censored/localized/changed in the UK by Cartoon Network UK in order to make it more comfortable for children, or to not offend anyone.
Tumblr and sites like Polygon are in a riot because a progressive scene like this was censored. The same kind of people who claim that censoring partial nudity from overseas games is just 'localization' so it can fit our cultural standards better. But when it happens to a cartoon show, it's different. I don't like that stuff like this has to happen before people start to understand what kind of stupidity 'self-censorship' constitutes, but I think this serves as a good wake-up call of how censorship feels when it affects things you like. Encouraging censors to censor things you think is problematic is a double-edged sword, what's to prevent censors from censoring things you like because the censor thought that content was problematic as well?
In the future SJWs will probably handwave the SU debacle and censorship in games away as a false moral equivalence, but I do hope they learn the moral of this episode.

If they were really that afraid of "right-wing" backlash they would have overhauled the entire series to a much greater extent than that; who are they supposed to think they're placating with a slight camera shift?

[Opus131]

I don't think there is one "real villian"-- it's just zealotry that's the enemy here: Unbalanced individuals that glom onto various causes and think that their "correct" position gives them the license to attack and threaten people. I've been following both sides of this thing for a while and I'm positive now that neither one has a monopoly on horrible behavior. It's pretty much the same playbook: deny any wrongdoing from your side, say the other side is making up anything bad that happens to them, play off any racism/etc as "can't you take a joke?", and repeat. Super gross all around.

Sorry, but that's complete and utter nonsense. There is only one bad side, and it is the SJW side. It is so blatantly obvious it is almost impossible not to see it. The very article i linked to is full of people asking others not to be too quick to blame SJWs what for happened there. You would never, ever see something like from the SJW side.

I think most so called "neutrals" are just disgruntled leftists who deep down are actually in agreement with the SJWs and want to try to mitigate the damage the latter are inflicting upon their point of view by weaving this false dichotomy between two "ideological" sides (when only one side is ideological), or perhaps are just people who are afraid for the automatic social ostracization that comes with defending GG, seeing that SJWs are pretty much the mainstream at this point.

[Durandal]

This talk about all those supposed unsavory or fringe elements lurking about the GG "movement" (if we can call it such) is sort of amusing when SJWs are in and of themselves the unsavory fringe of the left.

BTW, i'm just going to leave this one here:

https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction ... ter_being/

Imagine if this had happened to an anti. That's all you need to understand who the real villains are here, and it is not the GG people.

Yeah, I saw that I wonder whatever happened with -- I was following American McGee on Twitter when that broke. Very sad and worrying.

I don't think there is one "real villian"-- it's just zealotry that's the enemy here: Unbalanced individuals that glom onto various causes and think that their "correct" position gives them the license to attack and threaten people. I've been following both sides of this thing for a while and I'm positive now that neither one has a monopoly on horrible behavior. It's pretty much the same playbook: deny any wrongdoing from your side, say the other side is making up anything bad that happens to them, play off any racism/etc as "can't you take a joke?", and repeat. Super gross all around.

But the best part is that I can make vague statements about it and people always think I'm talking about "those other guys" I've had both pro and anti people fave my tweets sometimes because of that (I tend to talk in general principles and don't care much about the teams involved).

My opinion stems mostly from experience of arguing on social media, and thus I do think there is a real villain involved. You didn't just describe Gamergate, but most two-sided debates in general. For an outsider it is easy to look at the surface and make sweeping generalizations based on your first impression, because you either don't care much about the matter at hand, or because you don't want to get involved because you don't think the issue clearly lies with one side, as all debates where you are either pro- or anti- tend to be populated by radicalists.
If it's one of the above reasons, then I can't convince you if I don't want to come off as some brainwashed right-wing stormfront nut, other than telling you to talk about Gamergate in pro/anti leaning forums and deduce your stance on Gamergate based on the responses you get.
Or by reading one of Kazerad's blogs, a guy who I consider to be fairly neutral on the matter:
http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/10140570 ... e-fracture
http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/98113646 ... imerfinale

[Mischief Maker]

Gamergate is best described as a the original "Ethics in Gaming Journalism" debate participants parasitized by SJW and MRA headcrabs.

The Ethics in Jornalism human is going, "Mmph! Mmmmmrph!" trying to say, "I'm sick of getting recommendations for non-games like Mountain and Depression Quest because the designers are friends with the reviewer clique!" but through the MRA headcrab it comes out, "We must stop the SJWs, they want to censor everything!"

Or another Ethics in Journalism human is going "Mmmrph! MMMMPH!" trying to say, "I just want reviewers with knowledge enough to tell the difference between a game with depth, and a flashy shallow Dragon's Lair clone!" but through the SJW headcrab it comes out, "I just want strong female characters in videogames who don't wear revealing outfits because it pollutes the minds of all the impressionable 9 year old girls playing Blood Skull Annihilation Hyper!"

Am I just posting the same thing over and over again in this thread? All I'm trying to do is make people understand that 2+2=4 OH SHI-

[evil_ash_xero]

TotalBiscuit wrote up his opinion on GG.

I agree with a lot of what he says. Although I totally fit into the category of people who want to fight SJWs, because we feel they are the reason the journalists are being unethical. Because of their ideology.
He disagrees with that, but that's fine.

http://imgur.com/a/32nhY

[MathU]

Unscrupulous, misguided social justice assholes are just a distraction from the real issue honestly. While they definitely are a cancer that undermines the Left and should be dealt with already, I don't think they should really be the focus of this.

In the end the red herring for ethical impropriety could have been anything; the problem is dishonesty and unprofessionalism in the game journalism industry at large. It's the fact that the system of sending early-release free review copies so publications are beholden to publishers has always been ripe for abuse and anti-consumer behavior. It's the fact that a number of journalists don't understand or care about the concept of professional distance between themselves and their subjects. It's the fact that a very small percentage of people who write about video games actually have journalism degrees and thus have no formal ethical training. Even if you eliminate spurious social justice culture, it won't just make these problems go away.

Now certainly, there are issues with lax standards in the media at large these days (due to both the rise of 24-hour news stations and the displacement of print media by the internet), so it's not like game journalists have the best role models in the first place. But video games is literally the biggest entertainment industry now. It's high time the games media scene grew up already and adopted a truly pro-consumer attitude.

[louisg]

My opinion stems mostly from experience of arguing on social media, and thus I do think there is a real villain involved. You didn't just describe Gamergate, but most two-sided debates in general. For an outsider it is easy to look at the surface and make sweeping generalizations based on your first impression, because you either don't care much about the matter at hand, or because you don't want to get involved because you don't think the issue clearly lies with one side, as all debates where you are either pro- or anti- tend to be populated by radicalists.
If it's one of the above reasons, then I can't convince you if I don't want to come off as some brainwashed right-wing stormfront nut, other than telling you to talk about Gamergate in pro/anti leaning forums and deduce your stance on Gamergate based on the responses you get.
Or by reading one of Kazerad's blogs, a guy who I consider to be fairly neutral on the matter:
http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/10140570 ... e-fracture
http://kazerad.tumblr.com/post/98113646 ... imerfinale

Oh trust me, I've had my head bitten off by pretty much everyone! No, you don't come off as a stormfront crazy at all. Those seem, at a glance, like well-reasoned essays and I'll definitely browse through them later-- I always want to get different points of view and see what other peoples' experiences are. Some of what I skimmed over jibes with what I've seen: I've been as grossed out by the antis as I have by, say, Nero (who I really dislike; I'm not a fan of Internet tabloids either because I think they're often reductionistic and thrive on stirring the pot).

[evil_ash_xero]

Good vid about "self censorship", by Sargon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=midDbZSOTLw