Gamergate

[ptdebate1]

[QUOTE=Atarifever]

Jian Ghomeshi did an interview with Brianna Wu on Q on October 21 where he softballed her questions, did no research, had no alternative viewpoint, and basically left any listener with the idea that if someone is in Gamergate, they are in support of rapists.  It was a very lopsided interview if ever there was one, with no context of any kind.  I only mention that because the interviewer who softballed the questions and took everything at face value was this Jian Ghomeshi.

You know, in the interview he was clearly opposed to gamersgate.  I guess all the anti-gamersgate people must support his behaviour then. I mean, that's the logic, right?  One person contaminates everyone?   

[/QUOTE]

The analogy doesn't really hold for Gamergate, the reason being that not a few, but most vocal supporters of Gamergate espouse deeply problematic views.

Also, it should be noted that the hashtag originated from the Zoe Quinn scandal and Leigh Alexander's article on the growing irrelevance of the "gamer" moniker, not from some general ethics in journalism movement. That was tacked on later to soften the countenance of the ideology and its supporters and to communicate some semblance of a raison d'etre to (rightly) wary "grown-up" media establishments--and yes, at this point I do believe that "Gamergate" represents a fiercely exclusionary, backward-thinking political ideology and little else. Those who are interested in ethics in journalism should form their own movement with an appropriate hashtag--say, #GameEthics, #VGTruth, or something like that.

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=ptdebate]

The analogy doesn't really hold for Gamergate, the reason being that not a few, but most vocal supporters of Gamergate espouse deeply problematic views.

Also, it should be noted that the hashtag originated from the Zoe Quinn scandal and Leigh Alexander's article on the growing irrelevance of the "gamer" moniker, not from some general ethics in journalism movement. That was tacked on later to soften the countenance of the ideology and its supporters and to communicate some semblance of a raison d'etre to (rightly) wary "grown-up" media establishments--and yes, at this point I do believe that "Gamergate" represents a fiercely exclusionary, backward-thinking political ideology and little else. Those who are interested in ethics in journalism should form their own movement with an appropriate hashtag--say, #GameEthics, #VGTruth, or something like that.[/QUOTE]

#VGTruth Baby seals are born to be clubbed.  If you aren't clubbing a seal, you should be killed.

#GameEthics If you see a cat and don't run it over, you need to be murdered. 

Wow, that was hard to disrupt. 

[ptdebate1]

Atarifever,

I understand, I understand. I won't argue with you because you're one of my favorite members on this board, but I humbly disagree that Gamergate has been misrepresented. 

[Atarifever1]

[QUOTE=ptdebate]Atarifever,

I understand, I understand. I won't argue with you because you're one of my favorite members on this board, but I humbly disagree that Gamergate has been misrepresented. [/QUOTE]

Feel free to argue, we'd still be perfectly cool. Some of my favourite threads are ones where people I think are really smart disagree with me.

My final thought is from that article Scotland posted. The choice being presented to the "good" people in gamersgate is between having to always defend themselves or to go back to being ignored.

#Gamersgate is their only microphone, and they are arguing against everyone who owns every other mic. Maybe up to 50% of the people who also have access to that microphone are tools, but no one stepped forward to give the good ones another option. And even if they did, no one can police that other option any better than they policed #gamergate.

[scotland171]

[QUOTE=ptdebate]...Also, it should be noted that the hashtag originated from the Zoe Quinn scandal and Leigh Alexander's article on the growing irrelevance of the "gamer" moniker, not from some general ethics in journalism movement. That was tacked on later to soften the countenance of the ideology...[/QUOTE]

The Leigh Alexander article that you write in part originated this discussion was one of several that came out in about two days, deriding many in the very audience they serve.   So, the ethics in journalism was not tacked on, but was kindling early on. 

When awful people did some awful immature and threateing things to women that committed the crime of voicing their opinions, people got rightly upset.  This lead to pushback by denigrating, ridiculing, snarky bullying, labeling, and general vitriol against those that might voice legitimate journalism issues, painting them with the broad brush.  We know that brush well, its the same one that leads to things like stereotyping, anti-Semitism, rascism, etc. Nothing excuses the awful behavior of some on the pro gamergate side against some women, but using that brush of ostracism was emotional, immature, kneejerk, and served to do nothing fan the flames.

[QUOTE=atarifever]...My final thought is from that article Scotland posted. The choice being presented to the "good" people in gamersgate is between having to always defend themselves or to go back to being ignored....[/QUOTE]

This Slate article, and that outlet has written strong anti-gamergate articles but not one pro-gamergate article I am aware of, is pretty neutral, and about partitioning out the saner moderate voices from gamergate.   It also recognizes, as Anita Sarkeesian herself says, this is not a video game issue, but much much larger.  Here is the closing quote of the Slate article:


"It [ostracism] has led to the endless flame wars that do nothing but prolong harassment, rather than solutions that would end it, in the hopes that if people scream loud enough, Gamergate will go away. In truth, we bear collective responsibility for these larger problems. Not just gaming, not just the Internet, but society itself has a sexism problem, a misogyny problem, a race problem, and a harassment problem. America is Gamergate. Start admitting that, and Gamergate starts dissolving."

[ptdebate1]

Scotland, the "Gamer" articles did not deride the audience they serve. The audience served by Polygon, Gamasutra, and other progressive sites is not the "core," mostly male, xenophobic cult that represents the bulk of the Gamergate movement. I think Anita summarizes this phenomenon well in the Stephen Colbert clip you mentioned. She talks about how one small group is trying to make gaming all about them, when the possibility of that exclusion has long since disappeared because many, many different kinds of groups are talking about and enjoying games.

The dichotomy between "core"--those who stay up all night playing Call of Duty, Dark Souls, or Assassin's Creed--and "casual"--thirtysomething moms playing Candy Crush or Farmville between chauffeuring kids--is a false one. There are many, many possibilities between those two.

I'll repost a link to the Alexander article here:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/224400/Gamers_dont_have_to_be_your_audience_Gamers_are_over.php

"Gamers" are no longer the audience, because "gamer," traditionally understood, doesn't exist anymore. There's no ethical problems in this article--it's cogent, well-researched, and well-written. It's like a very erudite breakup letter to a person whom you no longer recognize.

[scotland171]

[QUOTE=ptdebate]...Anita ...talks about how one small group is trying to make gaming all about them, when the possibility of that exclusion has long since disappeared...The dichotomy between "core"--...--and "casual"--...is a false one. There are many, many possibilities between those two.

"Gamers" are no longer the audience, because "gamer," traditionally understood, doesn't exist anymore. There's no ethical problems in this article--it's cogent, well-researched, and well-written. It's like a very erudite breakup letter to a person whom you no longer recognize.

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the nice reply, my friend.   Its level headed and polite. I always enjoy our discussions.

I do not disagree on the false dichotomy of core v casual.  The mere existence of adjectives and qualifiers shows that the gamer culture is not monolithic. But that is precisely why some gamers are emotional...because articles like this both talk about how much variety there amongst gamers, and then derides all of them by saying the public face of gaming are hateful people in comments sections and how horrible gamers are by association.     In his words "those people [those Alexander calls the hate mobs] do represent your community. That’s what your community is known for, whether you like it or not."  

Mr. Alexander knows all about the massive the diversity in gaming.  Yes, its sad our public face is simplified, but then the goal should be to reclaim our image.  To say 'Gamers means so much more than hateful comments' not "Gamers are all hateful Barbarians, lock the gates". 

He says 'what your community is known for?  How about our community?  He's a gamer too.  He is saying "People say your town sucks, burn it down".   No.  Fix it up.  Tell people why our town is great. 

sidebar: the 'traditionally understood' has never been correct anyway?  There has always been diversity in video gaming.  Not every gamer was a 12 year boy playing Super Mario Bros on their Nintendo in 1988.    

As video games have become more accepted in non-geek culture, gamer was the term that developed to discuss this. [gamer meant different things in the past, such as tabletop dice slinger]  "Are you a gamer" "Sure, what do you game...what do you game on...how often do you" etc.  So many questions to ask a fellow gamer because there is so much diversity in gaming. Today I would say I am a retro gamer, whatever that even means.

To have someone in the industry now tell me that I can't use that term [and if gamer is hateful, then retro gamer must be even worse!], or if I do say I am a gamer than I am tainted as one of those 'hate mobs'.  No sir.  Sure, language, culture, sensibilities change [e.g., the Washington Redskins football team name]...but not all at once, and not by fiat, and not without a great deal more discussion.

Here is a metaphor:
In the United States, "Benedict" is not a common given name, probably due to the infamy of Benedict Arnold.  The surname Booth however, is held by more than 100,000 Americans, despite the infamy of that name.  So, we have a choice.  Is 'Gamer' the next Benedict, tainted forever, or the next "Booth" where we remember there was a bad chap with that name, but it hardly taints everyone else with that name?   And whichever way you go, at least lets have the discussion instead of just condemning the other side on one day and stopping the discussion the next.

[scotland171]

The issue was in many publications over the weekend. Most strongly against, citing the harassment of women. Some for citing misandry and political correctness. Salon savaged the Slate article. Brietbart talks about toxic feminism.

Some interesting ones were a short article on law and criminology that asks why clearly criminal behavior (federal crimes no less) but no criminal prosecutions...possibly nothing even reported.

Another one here at Vox
http://www.vox.com/2014/11/1/7136343/gamergate-and-the-politicization-of-absolutely-everything
showing how in America political orientation is trumping even race. Certainly race and politics are related, but this speaks to an increasingly partisan America. This tribalism is part of the gamergate standoff, and how its written about in the press, and the growing politicization of video games.

[Vexer1]

I roll my eyes whenever I hear the phrase "Toxic feminism/masculinity".