Gamergate

[consortium11]

"Gamergate" has been touched on a lot in other threads so it's probably worth getting one up to focus on it specifically.



What is Gamergate?

How long do you have?

Depending on who you ask Gamergate is a followup to earlier issues (such as the horribly named Doritogate and Lauren Wainwright controversy) with (the lack of) journalistic integrity and ethics in the video game media and/or a reassertion of the "video gamer" identity/sub-culture against pressure that it no longer existed and/or a reaction to what is seen as an attempt to force politics into gaming (and a further reaction to people believing they were being co-opted or used in a campaign they didn't believe in; see #NotYourShield) and/or a whole bunch of other stuff and/or basically a harassment campaign from misogynistic men who hate women.

In truth it's probably a bit of all of them... and depending on who you ask larger elements of each.

To give a very basic, very canned history:

Female indy game developer's ex-boyfriend puts up a blog about how she cheated on him and was in a relationship with a journalist at the video game website that gave her some coverage (although not during their relationship).

Everything explodes.

Basically the debate immediately split. On one hand some people focused on the integrity implications that came with this. As above the integrity (or lack thereof) of video games journalism has been a topic for a long, long time and while the direct accusations in this example were groundless it caused an upsurge of interest and comment, especially when there appeared to be a mass censorship attempt by much of the video games media. There have been lots of discussions about seemingly inappropriate relationships, the revealing of an "insider" mailing list where games journalists communicated with each other and seemed to have breached some barriers that shouldn't really be breached by journalists (as well as a possible illegal blacklisting) and a whole lot more.

On the other hand, especially in the wake of Anita Sarkeesian and the controversy she's caused (and threats she's been subjected to) and things like Dickwolves, some use it as an excuse to go on a harassment campaign against females involved in gaming in general and, more specifically, the much maligned S(ocial)J(ustice)W(arriors). There's been misogynistic insults, threats, death threats, doxxing... basically the full run of what happens when a Twitter-storm turns into a Twitter-Day-After-Tomorrow. And it hasn't been pretty... from either side.

Those two branches have remained pretty strong trends... but they've also branched off themselves.

One addition was more mainstream media getting involved, largely with a "gamers are dead, long living gaming" style approach where a lot of articles in a short place of time all delved into the issue of what constituted a "gamer", what constituted "someone who plays video games" and whether "gamer" as a subculture existed any more. This led to a fightback by those who still considered themselves gamers and in turn to mainstream journalists getting drawn into the wider Gamergate battle. Arguably the biggest story out of this is a targeted campaign to get advertisers to drop Gawker after one of their journalists made a number of "jokes" about bullying nerds during bullying awareness month and there was no real apology.

The other addition was the previously mentioned #NotYourShield. As a reaction to the misogynistic harassment being thrown at women in the game industry some people tried to paint "gamers" as being a misogynistic, racist, transphobic etc etc toxic whole... and in turn a number of gamers who fell into those minorities came back by saying that they were proud gamers and that someone shouldn't try to use them to make their point... in essence, don't use me as your shield to make an argument. So right there we have a debate about (to use over dramatic language) the "soul of video gaming".

Have you followed that?

Well, I'm struggling to and I'm writing this stuff. And only really touching the surface.



So, where do I stand?

In an awkward position.

On the journalistic integrity point? Heavily pro gamergate. Journalistic ethics have always been pretty dire in video games and this just reinforces the point. Too many "journalists" end up rewriting press releases as articles, too many accept too many freebies and junkets without feeling the need to declare them, the games PR and games reporting industries are far too close (not helped by a stint as a video games writer seemingly being one of the first steps in a career path to games PR) and as this series of events have revealed too many journalists and writers are too close to each other without disclosing it.

On the "gamers vs the world" point... still pretty pro gamergate. People who play video games have long been denigrated by more mainstream media, written off as "geeks" and "nerds" and generally made fun of. As difficult as it is to define I think there is a distinct "gamer" culture and I don't think it does anyone any good to either write it off as dead or pigeonhole it too much; the sort of people who play competitive MOBA's are a different group to those who pour hours into FPS's are a different group to those who play fairly hardcore wargames who in turn are different to those who delve into serious RPG's. I think it's only fair to "gamers" to reassert their existence and the fact that they're a subculture in and of themselves despite wider acceptance; lots of people drive cars but there are still car enthusiasts for example.

On the harassment? It's a disgrace. I'm not sure how much is directly related to video games and how much is more related to the way any woman who sticks her head above the parapet is basically immediately attacked online, but there has been a distinctly nasty misogynistic streak to much of the abuse. Frankly both "sides" have got their hands dirty; the likes of Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu have got the headlines when it comes to threats but one could likewise look at the treatment of Milo Yiannopoulos or this actually quite uplifting tale of someone who was doxxed and received death threats but was able to track the perpetrator down and have a conversation about what she had done. Suffice to say there's been a lot of shit thrown, a lot of insults and a lot of terrible behavior that paints no-one in a good light.

It's too late now but the best thing would have been if early on the term gamergate had been split... there are legitimate concerns about journalistic ethics just as there are legitimate concerns about the horrific way people are being treated. But the journalistic concerns get brushed under the carpet because they're lumped in with the misogynistic harassers and the abuse gets written off as people trying to distract attention for the ethics concerns. Then we could perhaps have another term for the "gamer vs non-gamer" debate and hell, lets throw in another one for the whole "NotYourShield" stuff and whether people can be said to speak for others.

As it is we have a mess. A big ol' mess.

Anyone else want to jump in?

[Steampunkette]

Well the first thing to note is: The reviewer never reviewed her work.

Ever.

At all. Before, during, or after their relationship.

ALL of that "Journalistic Integrity" argument coming out of Gamergate is just a smokescreen over a lie to hide the fairly rampant misogyny involved in it, from start to finish. There are people who legitimately want to talk about the Journalistic Ethics surrounding gaming websites and the lavish parties, bribes, and so forth. But you can't wave the Gamergate flag while doing it and remain morally or ethically viable.

If someone is seriously worried about the journalistic ethics of gaming websites then they need to spin of from Gamergate, disassociate themselves completely from the political baggage that comes with it, and start working from scratch.

Anything else is itself ethically repugnant. By using that banner, with all the nastiness and hatred it has had from the moment it was formed as a revenge-plot with a series of lies meant to discredit a female game developer, a person would be benefiting from the buzz of gamergate itself. All the lies, rape threats, death threats, doxxing, hacking, and everything else is a part of the name because that's what it was specifically founded for. Justice-oriented as someone might be, you cannot disassociate the two.

Also anything with "Gate" at the end is just silly, at this point. Watergate was the name of a hotel that was completely irrelevant to the crimes going on that were being exposed. We should stop with the -gate scandal suffix.

[Kunoichi]

Hello, pro-GamerGate person here, though I will admit to having spent more time watching from the sidelines than actively participating in anything.  I've been watching since week 1, though, way back in August, and I'd say that everything you've said in that basic, canned history is about as accurate as you can get with a simple, quick summary.

Like you said, though, it's a big ol' complicated mess, overall.  Two months is practically forever in internet time, and probably the only reason GG has lasted this long has been because something happened pretty much every other day to keep people interested in continuing the fight.  Any full summary of everything that's gone on would probably take hours to read through.  TFYC, the breaking news about GameJournoPros, the day 4chan was kill, Intel pulling all advertising from Gamasutra, and more...

Though if anyone does have a significant amount of time to kill and an interest in learning more, have a timeline of events.

More importantly, I think a little safety information would be useful in this thread, because things have started getting a lot more intense since GamerGate hit the mainstream media.  Stay safe, everyone!

[Melusine]

I've been following the Gamergate drama tangentially. Their stated goal (if it truly is their stated goal and not just a smokescreen, as steampunkette said) is positive. Journalistic integrity is practically non-existent in gaming publications.

However, I feel that the name Gamergate has become irreversibly tainted. For the longest time I just avoided the whole debacle, since misogyny upsets me, and gamergaters have quite the reputation. I've seen some, quite frankly, appaling posts. The movement is completely anonymous and it's difficult to hold people accountable for their misogyny and separate them from the ones that just want to have a debate about gaming journalism. Also, the defensiveness in some parts of Gamergate doesn't help. If they're unwilling to hold the bad apples within the movement accountable, why should I take them seriously? The #NotYourShield proves nothing to me. Just because women and people of color exist in a movement doesn't necessarily mean it's friendly to these social groups.

Also, the fact that they so eagerly adopted the name Gamergate by a man who compares gay marriage to incest doesn't exactly lend them legitimacy.

And another thing: it seems that even the ones who are into it for journalistic integrity disagree within themselves for the meaning of the word. A portion apparently believes that game reviews should just focus on the mechanics/graphics/technical aspects/gameplay of the game, without criticising the story and potentially harmful attitudes that the game presents uncritically, otherwise the reviewer is just a "SJW".

Games, as a medium, are evolving. They're getting better storylines, more complex characters. There's an ongoing debate on whether or not videogames can be art. While this is besides our point, it's a disservice to the medium to want it to remain juvenile for the escapist benefit of a few. Games are grown up now and it's time we treat them like grown ups, and feel free to critique unsavory or hurtful aspects that have nothing to do with gameplay mechanics.

I find the "gamers are dead" articles somewhat silly. A subculture (and several sub-subcultures) exists, and it's not going anywhere in my opinion. However, I'm not overly bothered by them. I really don't think gamers as a group are persecuted (at least nowadays), but perhaps this is strictly my own experience as a gamer.

[Steampunkette]

It is kind of annoying how hard we struggled for YEARS to get games recognized as an art form to have other gamers try to drag it back down. Like... why? Why wouldn't you want gaming to be critiqued on the story, it's motives, the themes? Why would you want to go back to games being viewed as quarter-sucking wastes of time?

Every form of art is, by nature, political. And deserves political discourse. It isn't just pretty colors and flashing lights. Y'know?

[Oniya]

Also anything with "Gate" at the end is just silly, at this point. Watergate was the name of a hotel that was completely irrelevant to the crimes going on that were being exposed. We should stop with the -gate scandal suffix.

'Watergate' was the name of the office complex where the Democratic National Committee had their headquarters at the time of the 1972 break-in.  The complex consists of three apartment buildings, two office buildings, and a hotel/office building, the sixth floor of which housed the DNC headquarters.  So, to say that it was 'completely irrelevant' is inaccurate.

[consortium11]

ALL of that "Journalistic Integrity" argument coming out of Gamergate is just a smokescreen over a lie to hide the fairly rampant misogyny involved in it, from start to finish. There are people who legitimately want to talk about the Journalistic Ethics surrounding gaming websites and the lavish parties, bribes, and so forth. But you can't wave the Gamergate flag while doing it and remain morally or ethically viable.

If someone is seriously worried about the journalistic ethics of gaming websites then they need to spin of from Gamergate, disassociate themselves completely from the political baggage that comes with it, and start working from scratch.

However, I feel that the name Gamergate has become irreversibly tainted.

These points strike me as little more than the tone argument... and not even a particular strong tone argument at that.

"You may have valid points but we're not going to engage or deal with them because someone else who claims membership to the same vague and wide grouping as you said something nasty"

If the points about ethics are valid then it doesn't matter in the slightest if there's a #gamergate afterwards or if the person who wrote them is a proud supporter and member of that vague "pro-gamergate" community. Truth be told if we actually stick to pure logic it doesn't matter if the person who made those points is also a vile misogynist who abuses women; one can certainly question their motives but it doesn't impact on the strength of the point itself; it stands or falls on its own basis, not that of who said it.

Furthermore, where else do we expect this of others?

Do we expect Muslims to give up the term "Islam" and rename their religion because of the vile fundamentalists who do things in its name?

Do we expect communists to change the name of their political viewpoint because of the horrors the 20th century version of communism brought us?

Do we expect feminists to drop the term feminism due to the pretty deeply ingrained transphobia of many second wave feminists (and second wave feminists with big platforms)?

Hell... do we expect those on the anti-gamergate side and/or the social justice side to give up those terms because of the actions of some of their peers... be it doxxxing, death threats or abuse? Brianna Wu is somewhat of a figurehead for the abuse women take in the field... but she herself is happy to use ablist insults (although I should note she says her twitter was hacked).

As in my original post I wish the two aspects hadn't been conflated together; it makes points both sides make get ignored with comments about ethics written off as being part of this misogynistic attack and comments about abuse being ignored as part of a coverup/smokescreen to hide the lack of integrity. But the fact is right now Gamergate is both aspects and it can't really be separated. Demanding one part of it changes it's tone (or the hashtag attached to its points) before they will be taken serious is a fallacy.

[kylie]

'Watergate' was the name of the office complex where the Democratic National Committee had their headquarters at the time of the 1972 break-in.  The complex consists of three apartment buildings, two office buildings, and a hotel/office building, the sixth floor of which housed the DNC headquarters.  So, to say that it was 'completely irrelevant' is inaccurate.

In that particular original case, yes.  But without meaning to talk over steam (who I'm most certain can show up with her own words any time quite regardless of what I may guess)...  I really don't think that was the heart of the concern.  Personally, I think that's picking at piddly stuff a bit.  But I'll try to do better: 

        When it came to Water--gate, yes of course it was part of the complex name and thus no one did find a need to add -gate to anything for effect.  It was already in there.  But what about these later cases?  Do we really gain a lot by bundling the idea "Christie or his people did something worthy of prosecution by tangling city traffic to make a political point" into some buzzword "Bridgegate," or is this simply a cheap way of evoking "Watergate" -- and with it, the memory of a particular president and a war that killed tens of thousands of American troops and tangled policy choices for decades -- to stoke people up?  I suspect it's more a matter of stoking, and however much I think every life threatened by the Christie faction's activity was precious and that should be a punishable action, it's still...  Not really anything nearly on the same scope of awful. 

          And we should not be buzzing around thinking all we need to do is add -gate to a word to make people afraid of prosecution or draw more and more cycles of media coverage.  It's becoming a kind of cheap code for "Look here!  We are really gonna raise a stink and try to hurt someone with some level of political following cause we really hate them!"  How much more meaning does it really have, now?? 

          To take another one, I imagine the Republicans in many cases would just love to say "Benghazigate" over and over in some wildly flailing hope it would make Obama personally culpable.  And really, preferably impeachable, cause some of them would just reach for that word too on any turn of a dime they can concoct - damn it, they wonder, why doesn't the guy bang some intern! if only, it could be a much simpler -gate...  That is to say, culpable  for some outlandish plot far more unbelievable than what I can imagine was probably going through many officials' heads at the time.  But saying Benghazi-gate doesn't roll of the tongue very well at all, now...  How horrible that many foreign words don't fit the format. 

          And again, even if one happens to think people should have been much more careful and maybe just maybe say, someone might be punishable for something, it's hardly proof to keep tossing out a syllable that evokes Watergate over and over.  It may be at least in part, more evidence of how rightists these days will do anything to attempt to appear to play to the spriit of lefty politics (including not only such historical victories but also more postmodern identity politics) -- while often in fact rather abusing the language to create similar sounding complaints with pretty different questions at the heart of them.  They may also be dreaming about impeachment of a president or trouncing of a political opponent sure.  But the why should anyone listen, is completely different in the substantive portion and the attempts to evoke a comparison to Watergate at that level can become pretty ridiculous.   

[Melusine]

These points strike me as little more than the tone argument... and not even a particular strong tone argument at that.

"You may have valid points but we're not going to engage or deal with them because someone else who claims membership to the same vague and wide grouping as you said something nasty"

I never argued against engaging or dealing with them. I even said it in my post! Their stated goal is certainly positive. But people have every right to be put off when portions of the Gamergate movement are so hateful. If I want to talk about journalistic integrity, I can do it without having to endure misogynistic insults that make my blood pressure skyrocket.

If the points about ethics are valid then it doesn't matter in the slightest if there's a #gamergate afterwards or if the person who wrote them is a proud supporter and member of that vague "pro-gamergate" community. Truth be told if we actually stick to pure logic it doesn't matter if the person who made those points is also a vile misogynist who abuses women; one can certainly question their motives but it doesn't impact on the strength of the point itself; it stands or falls on its own basis, not that of who said it.

And the point is certainly valid. No one is arguing against that. But we're talking about Gamergate as a whole, with its good and bad aspects. I don't care if an abuser makes a valid point; I don't want to know them, I prefer to erase their existence from my mind. This is for my own emotional health and no, I'm not going to be purely logical about it. I can recognize the merits of an argument (and I did in my last post) without mindlessly supporting everyone who espouces it. And I certainly don't have to engage with people who deny my humanity.

Furthermore, where else do we expect this of others?

Do we expect Muslims to give up the term "Islam" and rename their religion because of the vile fundamentalists who do things in its name?

Do we expect communists to change the name of their political viewpoint because of the horrors the 20th century version of communism brought us?

Do we expect feminists to drop the term feminism due to the pretty deeply ingrained transphobia of many second wave feminists (and second wave feminists with big platforms)?

Hell... do we expect those on the anti-gamergate side and/or the social justice side to give up those terms because of the actions of some of their peers... be it doxxxing, death threats or abuse? Brianna Wu is somewhat of a figurehead for the abuse women take in the field... but she herself is happy to use ablist insults (although I should note she says her twitter was hacked).

Everyone is free to distance themselves from Islam, communism and feminism if they believe these movements do more harm than good. I'm not expecting gamergaters to do anything and I certainly cannot force them to do anything. I'm just pointing out how the controversy has tainted the message.

However, major political/religious movements like Islam or feminism are much more varied and less homogeneous, while Gamergate is extremely small. Also, these movements have inspired positive social changes despite their flaws (which, to many people, justifies their existence) while Gamergate hasn't. I don't think it's valid to compare them. Feminism has, for example, achieved monumental victories for women, like the vote. Until the Gamergate movement leads to a major positive change in gaming journalism, I don't think we can compare it to these movements.

As in my original post I wish the two aspects hadn't been conflated together; it makes points both sides make get ignored with comments about ethics written off as being part of this misogynistic attack and comments about abuse being ignored as part of a coverup/smokescreen to hide the lack of integrity. But the fact is right now Gamergate is both aspects and it can't really be separated. Demanding one part of it changes it's tone (or the hashtag attached to its points) before they will be taken serious is a fallacy.

I don't demand they change their tone; it's some of their arguments I have a problem with, and the misogyny within the movement. Please, don't conflate this with tone. We're not talking about simple anger here, we're talking about rape threats.
And as I said, I demand nothing. I'm merely pointing out how Gamergate is perceived in certain circles. But why is it impossible to separate the good from the bad? Can't the hateful elements within the movement be ousted? If responsible gamergaters create an atmosphere where misogyny is not tolerated in discussions, these elements will feel unwelcome and walk out the door.

[Dice]

From my point of view, the danger is no longer some guy who's name I have never heard at IGN writing up some rehashed press release and effective advertising a game. It's not the rampant culture of forcing preorders or cutting up games for dlc, no, to me the danger is the shit that goes on behind the scenes on YouTube.

I don't read reviews, I don't buy games before they come out, I think if you do and the game is Shit, well your the dick that paid for it, bigger fool you. I WATCH reviews. I want to see a game in action and when you end up with back room deals from Microsoft or whoever else to up someone's pay per view on a Vid or this recent shit with that new Lord of the Rings game, that's when I get pissed. Because writing a rehashed press release is just not worth my time, but I would like to think that when someone sits down, edits a vid and puts out their views with a backing of actual fucking game play, then at that point I would like to know that no backroom deal is the driving force behind what he or she is saying.

That to me is where the issue lies today. 17 year old kids who somehow ended with with an opinion that matters on YouTube being offer a few extra bucks and not really caring if what they say happens not to be the whole truth. As for traditional media? Yea, magazines are dead and soon you will be too.

On the subject of death threats, moronic acts and people waving their dicks in the air, I think they should be banned from the dam internet. I might not like what you have to say, but that does not stop you from having the right to say it. It also means I have a platform form which I can debate your ideas and push my own. But if every moron with a inferiority complex online wants to go out and attack you for what you have to say, I find myself less interested in debating you and more interested in standing with you. Because I just hate bully's.

As for the points that these women are making, they seam to be rather valid. Granted they over reach on some matters, but I feel like females in games HAVE to look sexy while guys get all doors opened to them. You can have a fat scared man who likes bombing shit in MGS, but do note that all the girls in that game look like the kind you would find at a bucks party. A dominate, self sufficient woman who does not look like a super model and needs a guy to hold her hand and save her ass? Yea that's really dam rare. Women have to conform, they have to look a set way, they almost always fit the same set roles and they otherwise get slot in behind the men doing all the heavy lifting.

That is a valid point to make and no one should be threatened with rape/greavous bodly harm/death/whatever the fuck else for saying it. And defenently not rape, I mean how stupid is it to go "I don't like you saying women are mostly treated as sex symbols in game so I am going to rape you"? It's just foolish and if anything, helps cement the point that there is something fundermentally fucked up with this whole situation.

[Ephiral]

GamerGate isn't about journalistic integrity. At all. They talk a lot about it, sure. But... the actual integrity issues in games journalism have to do with things like publications being in bed with game companies, advertising and advance copies being linked to good reviews (!), and so on. These are actual, very serious issues that could do with some serious pushback from their audience.

Instead, what does GamerGate attack with incredible vehemence? Female developers, anyone who dares to say "feminism" without the approved amount of sneer, and an alleged conspiracy run by Zoe Quinn's vagina.

I have not seen them do a single thing to actually address anything that looks like a real journalistic ethics issue; instead, I've seen them distract from these issues by being vicious to women and causing a much bigger problem.

Also... I have to say, this:

More importantly, I think a little safety information would be useful in this thread, because things have started getting a lot more intense since GamerGate hit the mainstream media.  Stay safe, everyone!

is just some straight-up bullshit. Threats and harassment received by "both sides"? Please show me the sheer torrent of abuse and threats thrown at any participant in GamerGate by an organized campaign whose goal is to destroy their career and/or life. This is just plain false equivalence. On to the actual points:

1. "If you don't report every single thing said immediately, despite the fact that police are very clear about being uninterested unless it rises to a frankly ludicrous level, it's not really a problem." Bullshit.
2. "Don't you dare get angry at targeted campaigns of hatred and bigotry. If you do, we'll accuse you of being irrational."
3. Okay, finally something valid, assuming you can actually get law enforcement interested in the first place.
4. "Don't you dare talk about what we're doing to you. Because it's tearing public perception of us apart."
5. "Don't try to show people just how bad it's gotten. Because then they might take it seriously. Also, it could maybe be an actual safety issue, if you were to do something blatantly stupid that doesn't apply in any of the cases where people were actually forced from their homes."
6. "Don't expose the slimy and dangerous tactics we engage in to the light."
7. "Let us dictate your actions by how vile we are to you."

It's well-established at this point that GamerGate's defense is to pretend they're being reasonable, through the use of careful tone control in talking to the general public (but not to female developers or anyone who uses a platform to criticize them), and building a shield of useful idiots who can't see past that carefully-neutral tone.

Don't be a useful idiot.

[Formless]

I'll start by saying, I'm not with Gamergate , or any other league for that matter.

The reason if you're interested.

Why? Because the world loves label these days , and it is not for the benefit of the cause that label presents, but for an easier definition of said labeled person. And that means you'll bear the same stereotypes , misconceptions and all the shit that anyone of those who shares the same label did. And I for one have been in the gaming community for far too long to know I don't want any of that crazy related back to me.

Now as for the journalistic integrity. Is it any different in the gaming world than it is in any form of media? There's as much problems with it with the gaming community as there is all over the internet. What truly differs about it is how it is heavily populated by the younger generation. And that's where the real focus should be.

The young generation has a lot of aspirations. High ambitions. And with that comes competition. To say that any media has a fully ethical journalistic practice is kind of ... Immature. There's bound to be some backhanded deeds. cutthroat , sabotaging or even demolishing the competition. Be it within journalistic standards , or video gaming standards , since we're discussing both of these aspects.

I came to a habit where I ignore a game's review. Because who chooses to write a review is biased. And that can be seen in any triple A title's review starting from 2010 and onward. What is surprising is to realize that some of these biased opinions are not influenced by bribery , promotions or any of elements that we can associate with inaccurate or misleading criticisms. It comes from sheer passion. See most reviewers started their journey in the gaming world as players. ( Not using the word Gamer as it seems to invite unnecessary discussions. ) And as they grew up , their passion evolved from being on the seat of the player , to the seat of a speaker to other players. And they'd like to promote their passion to others. That could come in a positive review , or a negative one. And when you read such reviews , you realize that they hardly touch on the game for its mechanics , story , characters ... etc. Its just some player who went happy-trigger with what he likes. Now what happens when that reviewer was compelled to comment on a gaming event that doesn't involve a game that he can play and comment on?

This is where things goes astray. Those reviewers now comment on anything that happens in the gaming industry. They have no true journalistic values aside from their ' passion '. So logically whatever they would say will be processed through their passionate mind and there's no filter for what they will say. They also bear the stigma of the ' geek/dork '. Imagine how they would react when someone touches on that stigma in provocative ways? As you see , the average gaming journalist lacks more than he has when it comes to journalism. Just because someone played a game , doesn't make them  a journalist in that field. I have a degree in a certain major , but that will never make me a journalist even when I have over a decade of experience in it.

Anyway , the very few professional journalists within the gaming community aren't saints either. Bribery and persuasions comes in many forms that some may mistake them for something else , which puts their integrity under the microscope. ( If you wish to do so of course. )

But what does that has to do with Gamergate? Well , I really don't know how some woman who cheated on her boyfriend created this phenomenon. I'm not going to talk about the death threats feminists post on their twitters , because they are never proven true , and end up being another cry for attention and a reinforcement campaign to a certain project that they want to promote.

Its actually funny how this whole gamergate event was actually the result of decades and decades of mistakes done by the female community themselves. I always search through history , trying to find a defining mark where ' women were forbidden ' to play video games. It was just a consciousness built within them for a long time. And sadly , now they act upon it as if it is a fact , when in reality , no one pushed them out of the crowd for trying to play the games when they first came into markets. And the male side of the argument didn't help either. Most of the male side of the gaming community are immature teenagers who acts foolishly. And we , the older portion of that community has to take the blame for these irresponsible actions made by our younger portion.

[Kunoichi]

is just some straight-up bullshit. Threats and harassment received by "both sides"? Please show me the sheer torrent of abuse and threats thrown at any participant in GamerGate by an organized campaign whose goal is to destroy their career and/or life.

The Harassment No One is Talking About in #GamerGate

Any other requests?

[Steampunkette]

Okay. Wow.

These points strike me as little more than the tone argument... and not even a particular strong tone argument at that.

No, dude. It's not a Tone argument. It's about being tied directly to a movement who's EXPRESS PURPOSE FOR BEING CREATED was to harass and attack female game developers with the thin veil of "Journalistic Integrity" as literally a lie told to add fuel to the fire. It was birthed out of an act of violent misogyny and has maintained that "Taint" throughout it's entire existence. That's not a taint, that's the backbone.

"You may have valid points but we're not going to engage or deal with them because someone else who claims membership to the same vague and wide grouping as you said something nasty"

No. You could have valid points, but you're using the abuse of women as your platform. The Foundations of the movement were about intentionally violating the privacy and safety of a woman and expanded to women in the industry and then some "Journalistic Ethics" based on the lie that created the whole thing. It's not about some Vague or Wide grouping because people "Claim Membership"... It's because it was FOUNDED on misogyny and violence.

If the points about ethics are valid then it doesn't matter in the slightest if there's a #gamergate afterwards or if the person who wrote them is a proud supporter and member of that vague "pro-gamergate" community. Truth be told if we actually stick to pure logic it doesn't matter if the person who made those points is also a vile misogynist who abuses women; one can certainly question their motives but it doesn't impact on the strength of the point itself; it stands or falls on its own basis, not that of who said it.

No. It does matter. Because it's how you got to where you are. Using a Hate Movement's political clout and strength of social impact to get across your point by agreeing with that Hate Movement "On this topic Only" is unethical as using medical research that was extracted from unwilling participants (See the Tuskeegee Experiment). You are using a violent and harmful movement to further your own cause.

Furthermore, where else do we expect this of others?

Do we expect Muslims to give up the term "Islam" and rename their religion because of the vile fundamentalists who do things in its name?

Fuck no. Because it wasn't FOUNDED ON HATRED. It wasn't created with the EXPRESS INTENT of harming someone. This is a False Equivalence.

Do we expect communists to change the name of their political viewpoint because of the horrors the 20th century version of communism brought us?

Fuck no. Because it wasn't FOUNDED ON HATRED. It wasn't created with the EXPRESS INTENT of harming someone. This is another False Equivalence.

Do we expect feminists to drop the term feminism due to the pretty deeply ingrained transphobia of many second wave feminists (and second wave feminists with big platforms)?

See Above.

Hell... do we expect those on the anti-gamergate side and/or the social justice side to give up those terms because of the actions of some of their peers... be it doxxxing, death threats or abuse? Brianna Wu is somewhat of a figurehead for the abuse women take in the field... but she herself is happy to use ablist insults (although I should note she says her twitter was hacked).

See Above. The "Anti-Gamergate" side of the matter is responding to violence directed at women. Not designed from the outset day one as an excuse to harm dudes. Same thing with social justice minded folks.

As in my original post I wish the two aspects hadn't been conflated together; it makes points both sides make get ignored with comments about ethics written off as being part of this misogynistic attack and comments about abuse being ignored as part of a coverup/smokescreen to hide the lack of integrity. But the fact is right now Gamergate is both aspects and it can't really be separated. Demanding one part of it changes it's tone (or the hashtag attached to its points) before they will be taken serious is a fallacy.

No, dude. The reasons the two sides got "Conflated" is because Journalistic Ethics and discussions of Corruption were a weapon being used to harm a woman from day one by her ex. You don't get to sign on with a Hate Group who's express purpose of founding was to attack people and say "Y'know, aside from all the violence against women and the lies about Journalistic Integrity it was founded on, this movement's right about Journalistic Integrity being bad."

It's like standing up next to NAMBLA because of their position on Boys Education and Literacy being important. Or the KKK because their focus on Family Values should be lauded. You cannot divorce the origins and motives of the political movement from the topic you want to talk about while still using that group's political power. It doesn't work.

Again, this is not a vague minority in a strong movement to promote journalistic integrity. This is a movement built on a foundation of violence and misogyny that is trying to rebrand itself and divorce itself from the monstrous shit it was founded on and continues to perpetuate. You don't get to do that. This isn't a "No True Gamergate Activist" argument, either, if that's the Fallacy you were looking for. It's an argument about the ethics of standing on the shoulders of those who came before you to be heard and pretending like those people aren't violent misogynists because it's not relevant to what you want to say.

You still wind up using their violence and hatred to push your political agenda.

[Shjade]

There's a lot to be said about this but, ultimately, it comes down to very little: GG started as a cover to make an already ongoing harassment campaign have a veneer of legitimacy; it expanded rapidly when a series of journalists wrote topical articles about the popular stereotype of what it means to be a "gamer" and why, at present, that stereotype is no longer valid - that in truth gamers are a more varied and expansive audience than advertisers and certain portions of the "culture" would lead one to believe; these articles were grossly misinterpreted as an "attack" on gamers and used as recruiting fuel to pull people who had previously been uninvolved under the GG banner in an attempt to bring validity to the "ethics" claim while, in practice, continuing the initial harassment unabated.

However, that's just my view after dealing with this for two months as a gamer who is otherwise uninvolved. I'm sure I would be told that "that's not what it's about" by GGers, because that's the party line at this point. Here's the thing, though: when you tell that to someone writing a story on the subject, and then they go check out the sources you tell them to check to find the "real" GamerGate? This is what happens:

http://np.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2h36ue/another_poorlyresearched_hitpiece_from_the_boston/cldrqeu


tl;dr - Some hardcore trolls fooled a mob into following their lead and now the mob is too invested to disperse.



Edit: oh, regarding harassment - yes, it most definitely is occurring on all sides of the issue: GG vs non-GG, anti-GG vs GG, anti-GG vs non-GG, non-GG vs GG, basically any possible link to any loose category of people near GamerGate has received its share of harassment. The whole thing is a massive shitstorm for any remotely viable target. None of that changes how or why it started, how it got to this point, but it certainly does make "this point" a pretty sad state of affairs for basically everyone.

[Ephiral]

The Harassment No One is Talking About in #GamerGate

Any other requests?

...nope, but I'll restate the same one. Followed the links and got... one person saying mean things, a 404, something that... would be horrible, but honestly feels manufactured (and is coming from a group that is known to spread lies and try to carefully manage its spin, and it's mislabeled as a "death threat"), something that is so heavily edited it is impossible to see any connection whatsoever to gamergate or any response to it, and that's just the first paragraph. A quick scan of the rest of the article fails to show anything even remotely resembling an organized campaign, let alone one that lists "drive people to suicide" and "ruin lives" among its expressly stated goals. Further... everything there, taken together, is maybe about the level of what certain single individuals have been targeted with by GamerGate and its supporters.

So... yeah, try again.

[Shjade]

Ephiral: even if we go with the assumption GG supporters have been harassed less often and less dramatically than those opposed to it, who does it help to downplay their side's targets?

GG's caught some shit along the way. There's no reason to overlook that: they're human beings who need support as much as anyone else. It's completely possible to support them when they're attacked and still disagree with their message and methods.

Seriously, your response to Kuno's post there is the kind of crap GG does to harassment victims (claiming false flag/manufactured threats, downplaying seriousness of harassment, claiming their side has it just as bad/worse, etc.). There's no call for it.

[Formless]

Actually Ephiral , I do have one thing I've been wondering about.

The Utah conference that was cancelled. Doesn't it seem too convenient that things lined up in the way they did?

I mean let's discount Anita's continuous misleading behavior in her projects. And focus on the elements of that event.

The only state where licensed concealed guns law is allowed is where she would do her conference. While she always seems to be tweeting about how she receives death threats. ( Also discount the requirement of proof as that's pointless.) And how she was demanding from the university to take action and not the local authorities? ( I actually did my best to search any official statement where the authorities were contacted and my searches returned nothing. But you're free to add in that. )

Call me a conspiracy theorist , but that is looks too convenient to me. If she is an actual resident of Utah , she would've known about it. And if she's from a different state , you'd think someone who receives a lot of death threats that they'd at least ask about security where their conference would take place prior to agreement to hold such conference.

But ... Sounds to me like the Anti Gamergate are just as twisted as anyone else.

[Atarn]

A bunch of misogynists that managed to dress in nice suits and got to fool a bunch of people into thinking they're not complete assholes? That's pretty much my view of the GG movement. Every single second they've been around has been tainted by misogyny and sexism. I find it slagging hilarious that they crawled out of the woodwork after one spurned asshole ex boyfriend wrote a rant, which proved that gaming media was corrupt because it was a "slu-I meam woman-OhwaitImeansexistotallynotrelevanttoourpointf*ckinghoesruiningourgaming"
Not when the Dorito thing happened, not when a publisher got a guy fired for giving a 7 or something out of ten to a game that deserved a 3...No no, clearly unsubstantiated rumor about someone fucking someone means the end of PURE GOOD GAMING!

So yeah, GG proponents can holler all they want about the goal of their movement, because the cold, naked truth is that their movement is the most hateful thing I've encountered. Hell, the Cthulhudamned Far Right here in Sweden is more eloquent and less creepy.

Now, I know there's good people in the movement, know one who is genuinely tired of media corruption; but that's not new, and GamerGate is NOT a good place to fight that fight.

Tl;dr; Any movement that uses the phrase "Well harassment is bad but..." is not a good movement.

[Steampunkette]

Sure. Let's acknowledge that there's anti-Gamergate sentiment that is vile.

Let's not pretend that it's equal. Which is what the "From Both Sides" line implies. There's no acknowledgement of difference, there, and that's kind of dumb.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGArqoF0TpQ

And, again, the conspiracy theory and "Con Artist" stuff about Sarkeesian just needs to die, already. She's been getting death threats and rape threats for YEARS. This is not new. This is not her manufacturing bullshit out of nowhere to play the victim. It's a continuing act of aggression. And can we keep discussion of her in the thread about her, please?

Atarn? I adore you.

[Ephiral]

Ephiral: even if we go with the assumption GG supporters have been harassed less often and less dramatically than those opposed to it, who does it help to downplay their side's targets?

GG's caught some shit along the way. There's no reason to overlook that: they're human beings who need support as much as anyone else. It's completely possible to support them when they're attacked and still disagree with their message and methods.

Seriously, your response to Kuno's post there is the kind of crap GG does to harassment victims (claiming false flag/manufactured threats, downplaying seriousness of harassment, claiming their side has it just as bad/worse, etc.). There's no call for it.

It doesn't help to downplay it. Let me make this clear: The actually-substantiated things I saw at the provided link are vile, repulsive bullshit, and need to stop. Full stop.

However, what Kuno was trying to respond to was me calling the "safety tips" preamble a false equivalence - painting what both sides have received as equal. The important question, then, is "Is it equal?". This is not downplaying - all the harassment, everywhere, needs to stop, and I would stand against all of it - if there were supporters of both sides of the harassment here. (Seriously, is there anyone here who wants to defend, say, Sam Biddle or the outing of Wikipedia authors? Because if so, We Need To Talk.) What it is is recognizing what the real picture looks like.

Actually Ephiral , I do have one thing I've been wondering about.

The Utah conference that was cancelled. Doesn't it seem too convenient that things lined up in the way they did?

I mean let's discount Anita's continuous misleading behavior in her projects. And focus on the elements of that event.

Citation sorely needed; what misleading behaviour? This accusation is frequently flung and pretty much never substantiated from what I've seen.

The only state where licensed concealed guns law is allowed is where she would do her conference. While she always seems to be tweeting about how she receives death threats. ( Also discount the requirement of proof as that's pointless.) And how she was demanding from the university to take action and not the local authorities? ( I actually did my best to search any official statement where the authorities were contacted and my searches returned nothing. But you're free to add in that. )

A couple salient facts: Speakers do not choose where to give a talk, except from among the restricted list of "places and events that have asked me to speak". The university, not Sarkeesian, received the biggest threat, so asking them "What have you done about this?" is actually very relevant - in some jurisdictions, the police would tell her that she has no direct bearing on the case, and therefore they cannot discuss it with her. Finally, here's the university's statement on the matter. Please count the authorities mentioned in the response to the threat. This was the second hit on a Google search for "Sarkeesian cancelled university police", so I find your claim to have "done your best" to find this information... questionable.

Call me a conspiracy theorist , but that is looks too convenient to me. If she is an actual resident of Utah , she would've known about it. And if she's from a different state , you'd think someone who receives a lot of death threats that they'd at least ask about security where their conference would take place prior to agreement to hold such conference.

So you also didn't see her statement that literally the only place she set foot in Utah was the Salt Lake City International Airport (first news hit for the above search). And... well... when she received a specific and detailed threat, she did ask about security measures and suggest what would make her feel safe, including a suggestion to just make sure that people actually carrying guns to this event that had been threatened with guns were legally permitted to do so. They refused, and you said that this was the wrong thing for her to do. So yes, it looks like you're searching for reasons to dismiss her concerns, and dismissing, ignoring, or purposefully avoiding anything that might help explain them. You are, at the very least, JAQing off pretty obviously.

[Steampunkette]

*swoon*

[Formless]

@ Ephiral. You're missing my point entirely.

Citation sorely needed; what misleading behaviour? This accusation is frequently flung and pretty much never substantiated from what I've seen.

Which is why I meant to discount discussing that. Its a behavioral pattern. Not an act. We can argue for ages wither a portrayed behavior is right or wrong.

You are, at the very least, JAQing off pretty obviously.

Please refrain from using such terms when addressing me. I have every right to question any event I come across.

Anyway , My point ( And I am stating it for the purpose of clarifying what I said. ).

If I was a person with a known presence in any media. And I was receiving a huge amount of threats , be it death threats rape or etc. And I was invited to partake in a convention or a conference , the first thing I would ask about is security. I wouldn't wait for the host to receive a death threat at the last day and then make a big fuss about it.

Take what I said however you want. But its clear that a feminist is yet again , twisting events to further strengthen her cause.

I will bow out of this discussion.

[Steampunkette]

"JAQing off" is Just Asking Questions.

It's a common deflection tactic among people who oppose progressive attitudes to use outdated rhetoric or unsubstantiated claims to dismiss or insult the progressive group while only "Speaking Hypothetically" or "Asking for Clarification"

See also "Devil's Advocate" or "Schrodinger's Asshole"

[Kunoichi]

It doesn't help to downplay it. Let me make this clear: The actually-substantiated things I saw at the provided link are vile, repulsive bullshit, and need to stop. Full stop.

However, what Kuno was trying to respond to was me calling the "safety tips" preamble a false equivalence - painting what both sides have received as equal. The important question, then, is "Is it equal?". This is not downplaying - all the harassment, everywhere, needs to stop, and I would stand against all of it - if there were supporters of both sides of the harassment here. (Seriously, is there anyone here who wants to defend, say, Sam Biddle or the outing of Wikipedia authors? Because if so, We Need To Talk.) What it is is recognizing what the real picture looks like.

What about if there are no supporters of either side of the harassment here?  What if we're in full agreement that all harassment, everywhere, needs to stop?

https://archive.today/D5Nk5
https://archive.today/4pwKA
https://archive.today/k2zZu
https://twitter.com/sanc/status/521211260017606656

Also, to actually respond to that claim of a false equivalence this time, how is saying 'In response to the threats and harassment received by both sides' promoting a false equivalence, exactly?  Both sides are receiving threats and harassment.  The image was created in response to that.  What in any way about that is false, or promoting any kind of equivalence?

As of now, there is no concrete data one way or the other on which 'side' of the debate is receiving more harassment.  One set of people being harassed is gaining more media attention than the other set of people being harassed, but that's about it.

[Steampunkette]

Gosh. I wonder if the movement founded explicitly for the purpose of garnering death and rape threats from a highly volatile and misogynistic subset of the gaming community might be issuing more abuse towards women than people outside of that hate group are throwing at it?

SUCH A CONUNDRUM!

Maybe it's the media's fault for presenting more of the hate group's attack on women than people attacking the hate group... That's gotta be it. Yup. Occam's Razor!

Crisis Averted. S'not a Conspiracy Theory, it's just a massive orchestrated movement maligning a perfectly reasonable, rational, and good group of people as "The Bad Guys" because of some... reason... Probably feminists banging important people or something.

[Kunoichi]

Or it could be that GamerGate isn't about harrassment, threats, or misogyny and instead really is concerned with ethics in journalism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCExXie1XB4

[Steampunkette]

Yeah... I only needed to listen to that for about 40 seconds before it really sunk in that dude wasn't interested in a fair critique of what was going on.

Protip: Social Justice Warrior is a key buzzword in discrediting progressive activists. And the majority of his initial statements were spent doing his best to discredit Quinn, while barely acknowledging the lies her ex boyfriend were telling about her. Specifically using the "She slept with people for reviews!" meme which is both bog-standard sexism and something that has repeatedly been disproven.

The guy she was dating at the site? NEVER. REVIEWED. HER. GAME.

Try again.

[Ephiral]

Or it could be that GamerGate isn't about harrassment, threats, or misogyny and instead really is concerned with ethics in journalism.

So... why are the publicly released logs of discussions from people who were there from day one, in the early days of the movement, full of people who think they're behind closed doors saying "This is totally about destroying Zoe Quinn and feminists and SJWs, guys!"? Why were they engaging in, then trying to hide, then trying to smear the opposition with, black-hat activities?

Why don't they ever talk about the blatant, commonly known, and undisputed actual issues of ethics in games journalism?

[consortium11]

If I want to talk about journalistic integrity, I can do it without having to endure misogynistic insults that make my blood pressure skyrocket.

"If I want to talk about racism/feminism/gay rights etc etc I can do with someone who isn't rude, insulting and uncivil"

It's just the tone argument again.

And the point is certainly valid. No one is arguing against that.

I'd refer you to Ephiral above:

GamerGate isn't about journalistic integrity. At all.

There are a significant number of people... and there's been several on this thread... who have made clear that they don't consider the points about ethics raised during Gamergate (and raised by people who identify as supporting Gamergate) as valid because other people involved in Gamergate have been misogynistic abusers.

But why is it impossible to separate the good from the bad? Can't the hateful elements within the movement be ousted? If responsible gamergaters create an atmosphere where misogyny is not tolerated in discussions, these elements will feel unwelcome and walk out the door.

But didn't you say that the name Gamergate has been "irreversibly tainted"? Emphasis on irreversibly. It doesn't matter if "responsible gamergaters create an atmosphere where misogyny is not tolerated in discussions" and remove all of the misogynistic elements; wouldn't it will still be tainted? Let's say there is a split in Gamergate and the journalistic ethical concerns completely split from the misogynistic ones; how long before it's painted as a simple "rebranding" and thus the irreversibly tainted point comes up again? And consider what Steampunkette says about standing on the shoulders of others, could one discuss GameJournoPros and their quite possibly illegal blacklisting? After all, it came out during Gamergate and thus is "irreversibly tainted." Could one discuss the close links between journalists and indy developers, with journalists having given money to the developers without declaring it in subsequent articles about the game or developer? Or been their friends and roommates? Could on discuss the dismissive way mainstream media has handled gaming? Could one discuss any of the elements which have appeared and not be tainted?

It's not a Tone argument.

Yes it is. To give you two definitions this time:

The tone argument is a form of derailment, or a red herring, because the tone of a statement is independent of the content of the statement in question, and calling attention to it distracts from the issue at hand.

The tone argument is to dismiss an opponent's argument based on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger.

Although in this case people aren't even necessarily complaining about the way an argument itself is being presented... they're complaining about the way someone else possibly only tangentially related to the person making this argument said something.

In fact, to use more of the Geek Feminism definition (emphasis mine):

Drawing attention to the tone rather than content of a statement can allow other parties to avoid engaging with sound arguments presented in that statement, thus undermining the original party's attempt to communicate and effectively shutting them down.

In your replies on this subject you've made at most a passing mention of the journalistic ethics issues, instead concentrating almost entirely on the misogyny and abuse. And you've supported this by arguing that because the journalistic ethics issues were presented in a tone that also allowed for misogyny and abuse they can be ignored as a mere "smokescreen". That's pretty much fits that definition to a t.

It's about being tied directly to a movement who's EXPRESS PURPOSE FOR BEING CREATED was to harass and attack female game developers with the thin veil of "Journalistic Integrity" as literally a lie told to add fuel to the fire.

So it's an association fallacy as well? With a heap of poisoning the well thrown in for good measure? And all mixed in with some composition fallacy?

Are the revaluations about GameJournoPros and their quite possibly illegal blacklisting tied directly into Gamergate and thus seemingly directly into the misogyny and abuse? Yes. Does that mean the criticism of GameJournoPros and their quite possibly illegal blacklisting is misogynistic or can be written off? Is the way Gawker are happy to promote bullying tied directly into Gamergate and thus seemingly directly into the misogyny and abuse? Yes. Does that mean criticism of a journalist deciding that midway through the US's National Bullying Awareness month was a good time to say how nerds should be "constantly shamed and degraded" and how we should "bring back bullying" is misogynistic or can be written off?

Hamas infamously state(d) that their express purpose includes the obliteration of Israel and their charter is littered with genuine anti-semitism. But does that mean the criticisms they raise about how Israel treats Palestinians and those within the occupied territories are invalid and just a smokescreen? Or is it the case that the strength of an argument rests with the argument itself, not with those who say it or those associated with it?

No. It does matter. Because it's how you got to where you are. Using a Hate Movement's political clout and strength of social impact to get across your point by agreeing with that Hate Movement "On this topic Only" is unethical as using medical research that was extracted from unwilling participants (See the Tuskeegee Experiment).

That must be pretty awkward for anyone who's had (or intending to have) any experience with gynecology treatment or surgery considering the way the "father of gynecology" went about his research. Or anyone who's had an influenza shot following the work of Thomas Francis, Jr... or Polio shot considering Jonas Salk learned much at Francis' knee. Or anyone who's taken a malaria pill following Dr. Alf Alving's work. In truth there's very few medical treatments today that don't owe some of their existence to unethical medical research.

It's like standing up next to NAMBLA because of their position on Boys Education and Literacy being important.

That's quite an interesting example to use. During the late 70's and early 80's the mainstream gay rights movement were more than happy to stand beside NAMBLA; it was the first US organisation to join the ILGA, played a significant role in most Pride events and parades (including having a lot of powerful positions in the New York march in particular) while David Thorstad was considered one of the leaders within the community. Even in the mid-80's as other groups began to turn from NAMBLA they could still call upon influential and celebrated people like Harry Hay (sometimes called the father of gay liberation) supporting them.

But I'd assume none of us think gay rights groups or supporters are tainted or their points invalid because NAMBLA was so powerful in the movement for around a decade?

The end position is this; some legitimate journalistic ethics issues have arisen from Gamergate. They seemingly wouldn't have come out without it. If you think that something should be done about them (and considering the way several websites have changed their disclosure rules and many of the participants are desperately trying to distance themselves from GameJournoPros that's prima facie evidence that something should be done) then I can't see how one can dismiss Gamergate entirely, despite the very unpleasant elements.

[Ephiral]

There are a significant number of people... and there's been several on this thread... who have made clear that they don't consider the points about ethics raised during Gamergate (and raised by people who identify as supporting Gamergate) as valid because other people involved in Gamergate have been misogynistic abusers.

I... feel like there's a significant risk of being misinterpreted here, so please allow me to clarify: I am reasoning backward from actions. Given that this is not a rigidly-organized movement with established leaders and policy documents we can refer to, that's what we've got. The actions people take under the banner of GamerGate are overwhelmingly focused on misogyny and hatred of women and anyone they deem to be a "social justice warrior". One of the memes that is omnipresent under that banner in an attempt to claim that this is about ethics is a trivially-disproven lie. People who care about journalistic integrity don't build their media presence around a lie. People who care about journalistic integrity should be concerned with the ridiculous way that the games industry treats game media as part of their marketing arm. The actions taken in the name of GamerGate do not reflect this. Conclusion: GamerGate is not concerned with journalistic integrity.

[Steampunkette]

I feel like you're too busy trying to dole out fallacies to really understand what's being said, Consortium. You're reading with the intent to respond, not understand.

The movement was FOUNDED on hatred and violence. You cannot ethically argue from that movement while disavowing yourself from the foundations of the movement because you're directly profiting from that hate and violence.

If you cannot understand that very fundamental basis of ethical reasoning I really don't know what to tell you other than: You're wrong and refuse to understand why you are wrong.

And really that's not an argument I'm willing to bash my head against, any further.

[Melusine]

"If I want to talk about racism/feminism/gay rights etc etc I can do with someone who isn't rude, insulting and uncivil"

It's just the tone argument again.

I urge you to understand my position and my feelings. I've been in the receiving end of hurtful, misogynistic comments all my life. I've been made to feel unsafe and uncomfortable by them. This is not just incivility! Believe me, I can handle rudeness. What I cannot handle is people trying to denigrate my humanity. I have every right to not want to debate with people who think me lesser. I'm not a 24/7 debate machine with no emotions that can swallow all kinds of abuse and come out fine. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.

If this is the tone argument, fine. I give up.

There are a significant number of people... and there's been several on this thread... who have made clear that they don't consider the points about ethics raised during Gamergate (and raised by people who identify as supporting Gamergate) as valid because other people involved in Gamergate have been misogynistic abusers.

You're right. I shouldn't have spoken for others, only for myself. I apologize to you and them.

But didn't you say that the name Gamergate has been "irreversibly tainted"? Emphasis on irreversibly. It doesn't matter if "responsible gamergaters create an atmosphere where misogyny is not tolerated in discussions" and remove all of the misogynistic elements; wouldn't it will still be tainted? Let's say there is a split in Gamergate and the journalistic ethical concerns completely split from the misogynistic ones; how long before it's painted as a simple "rebranding" and thus the irreversibly tainted point comes up again? And consider what Steampunkette says about standing on the shoulders of others, could one discuss GameJournoPros and their quite possibly illegal blacklisting? After all, it came out during Gamergate and thus is "irreversibly tainted." Could one discuss the close links between journalists and indy developers, with journalists having given money to the developers without declaring it in subsequent articles about the game or developer? Or been their friends and roommates? Could on discuss the dismissive way mainstream media has handled gaming? Could one discuss any of the elements which have appeared and not be tainted?

I contradicted myself. I apologize. I'll have to think more about this.

I'm tired of arguing about the misogyny in the movement, and other people in the thread have explained their concerns much more succintly than I did. About the journalistic ethics argument, my opinion is twofold:

1) The close relationships between developers/companies and journalists; no argument from me there. I know about the Kane and Lynch controversy, about Doritogate, and I'm all for gaming journalists to shape up.

2)The so called "political" infiltration in gaming journalism and often, games themselves. I've seen several gamergaters decrying it. As I said in a previous post, I'm all for social/feminist/queer/antiracist critique of games. I'm a gamer, I have gamer friends from all social groups, and part of our escapist fun should be to play in worlds without the same bullshit we have to face day after day. I'm all for games growing up, becoming forms of art and being treated like art (which means they are critiqued as art).

And that's my position on their arguments.

[Ephiral]

2)The so called "political" infiltration in gaming journalism and often, games themselves. I've seen several gamergaters decrying it. As I said in a previous post, I'm all for social/feminist/queer/antiracist critique of games. I'm a gamer, I have gamer friends from all social groups, and part of our escapist fun should be to play in worlds without the same bullshit we have to face day after day. I'm all for games growing up, becoming forms of art and being treated like art (which means they are critiqued as art).

This brings up an interesting point to me: Games, like every other channel of human expression, have always been political. The only way you can pretend they're not is if things like sexism, racism, gender and sexuality policing don't affect you - if you have the privilege of just ignoring them in your day-to-day life to no real detriment.

[Steampunkette]

Pretty much everything is political in a fairly binary sense.

1) Supports the Status Quo

2) Opposes the Status Quo

Just because they support the status quo on a given topic (Racism, Sexism, Transmisogyny, Bisexual and Transmasculine Erasure, Etc) doesn't make them apolotical. It just makes them conservative or, in some examples, flatly regressive.

[Caehlim]

In my opinion there is no purpose or value to the phrase 'gamergate'.

These issues have been discussed for a long time, before someone came up with an elaborate revenge-ploy against an ex-girlfriend that lead to this whole discussion of things in terms of the scandalous -gate suffix.

You want to talk about queer theory in videogames? Take a look at the Gaymer movement.
You want to talk about female representation in all mediums, feminism really has you covered there including videogames.
You want to talk about journalistic integrity in gaming? You're a bit late since traditional media is practically dead when it comes to gaming, but yeah people were talking about this back in the 90s when you still bought gaming magazines.

Calling any of these things 'gamergate' is just:
A) Implying that there's some sort of crisis in gaming culture, when in fact all of these things have been issues since videogames were first created and have been steadily improving in the face of constant discussion of these issues.
B) Jumping on a fad bandwagon and hype machine that's entirely topical.
C) Avoiding any real chance of a serious discussion since there are so many viewpoints and topics mixed into the one category that it's never going to get anywhere.
D) Going to feel awkward in six months when this dies off and people get back to the actual discussions.
E) Risking being seen as an endorsement for the brutal treatment that has been inflicted recently on certain female commentators in the field.

[Steampunkette]

Yes. All of that. Thank you.

[Shjade]

In my opinion there is no purpose or value to the phrase 'gamergate'.

This more or less sums up my take on it as well.

I've spent most of this evening giving GG the benefit of the doubt, because that's just the kind of person I am: I started feeling like maybe I was, myself, becoming numbed in the "echo chamber" sense to the possibility of accepting counter information and, even if/when I'm right about something, I like to check that feeling when it comes up. So when I saw someone who I consider an otherwise intelligent and reasonable figurehead appear to be speaking up on GG's side (Popehat, of all people), I asked him what point of view he'd recommend for reading up on the origins of the event.

I ended up here: Daddy Warpig's blog. As far as I can tell he's a pro-GG person with no professional stake in the field, but not particularly fervent about it either. In trying to approach this from a fresh perspective, yes, GG's claims are made in an unusually hostile manner and several have been debunked, but not all of them. And the ones that haven't been don't get nearly as much press as the ones that were or the harassment at large.

Without going into great detail, I'm more or less back where I started: neither side, recognizing there are definite issues in gaming journalism (and journalism at large, but eh, that's a different, larger issue) but unsatisfied with the methods at work in this mess. As far as I'm concerned, both sides might not be "equal," but both sides are certainly fucking up.

Or, as one of the GGers I discussed this with put it, "We can both admit there are a lot of dogs barking up a lot of trees. But that doesn't mean that all trees are wrong."

There's a metric fuckton of dogs in this fight. The barking is deafening. Makes it impossible to find what isn't bullshit, of which there is also plenty.


Related note: looking at the brief dispute between Liz F and KingofPol just a couple of hours ago, I'm starting to wonder if a lot of this (overt real world harassment not included) isn't just a case of culture clash. Not in the "culture war" sense, but basically a language barrier. In the middle of this scuffle I rode a link over to the 8chan thread discussing it and a couple of posters said, basically, "calling people autistic doesn't mean anything; everyone's autistic on anychan board."

I tried to reply in the thread to ask him why chan board culture has any bearing on a conversation in Twitter conversations but, alas, for some reason 8chan wouldn't let me post - the page would just hang when I tried it. Not sure what the problem was there. Anyway, that meant I couldn't get direct explanation for that remark, but thinking on it, direct harassment aside, it would explain a lot about the ongoing abusive language coupled with "this isn't harassment."

To them, it's possible that it really isn't, that they're incapable of recognizing harassment because it is honestly how they treat each other on a regular basis with no intended harm done. Sure, that's an extremely unhealthy culture from an outsider's perspective, but to them, it's the norm. Smashing that up against people who expect some semblance of civility and you get immediate problems regardless of the topic.

If the hardcore dicks doing the RL harassment would cut that the fuck out, I'm starting to wonder if this couldn't in large part be solved by just getting people to calm the hell down about the language being used, get them to think of all the swearing and casual racism as, essentially, "translation errors."

Probably not. But hey, it's a nice thought, isn't it?

[Dice]

My issues with the politics of this is that many of the people whom have come running to the defence of GG after it started on Twitter happened to be part of the far right. Now while I am not one to just discount all that the right has to say, when all the loudest voices claiming that feminists/gaming media/insert whomever you want to attack here are killing the games industry happen to be the very same people that only a month before claimed that my love for CS 1.6 would turn me into a killer, I kind of have to wonder if they are really in it for my benefit as a gamer or because they have another motive.

I mean consortium, you understand that Adam Baldwin started the hashtag right and all the people that ran to condemn these women happen to be those that believe strongly in "Family values", a neat little box feminists happen not to fit in. Just because someone is saying something that sounds like what you believe, does not mean you believe the same thing. In this case, the opening shots are fired over something that was a) not true to start with and b) came from a side of politics that normally make out that gamers are the reason school shootings happen. They do not seam to me like people whom are "On the side of gamers or the integrity of gaming media".

[Shjade]

Yeeeah, honestly Sommers' video about how women want to take away all the boys' games was, I thought when I first saw it, clearly a parody video. Imagine my astonishment to find people were not only taking that seriously but praising her for it. The fuck?

Things like that are what give me a very hard time taking GG seriously even without considering all the harassment in the air.

[Steampunkette]

It only now occurs to me that Kunoichi was linking to the Amazing Atheist's channel. No wonder I couldn't take the "Investigamer" seriously. The Amazing Atheist is a terrible person who -surrounds- himself with other terrible people. He's the kind of guy who'll threaten to rape a woman, repeatedly, wish rape on her, tell her that rape is the only sex she's gonna get, and then try to play it off like he's the victim.

Consider your sources, especially when you make an appeal to authority.

*shudder*

[Kunoichi]

It only now occurs to me that Kunoichi was linking to the Amazing Atheist's channel. No wonder I couldn't take the "Investigamer" seriously. The Amazing Atheist is a terrible person who -surrounds- himself with other terrible people. He's the kind of guy who'll threaten to rape a woman, repeatedly, wish rape on her, tell her that rape is the only sex she's gonna get, and then try to play it off like he's the victim.

Consider your sources, especially when you make an appeal to authority.

*shudder*

True, I have shot my own arguments in the foot pretty badly, haven't I?  I think I'll bow out of the discussion, now.

[Ephiral]

Oh, holy crap. TAA is in on this too? I find it... rather telling just how many high-profile GamerGate supporters just happen to also be highly visible bigots and bigotry-apologists in other contexts. Christina Hoff Summers, The "Amazing" Atheist, Mike Cernovich, Todd Kincannon, Kingofpol (whose medical ethics are also highly questionable), Adam Baldwin, Paul fucking Elam...

...gee, it's almost like there's something about it that attracts people who hate women and equality, isn't it?

Seriously, folks. If Paul Elam loves your absolutely-about-games-journalism no-woman-hating-here-honest movement? You have, at the very least, a massive messaging problem.

[Shjade]

That's the biggest problem they have: this insistence on "no leaders, we welcome everyone" etc. leaves them completely open to any and all nutjobs happy to use the free megaphone for whatever agenda they want to push alongside any legitimate issues the group might champion. Until that shit gets sorted out this is just going to stay a mess.

[consortium11]

I... feel like there's a significant risk of being misinterpreted here, so please allow me to clarify: I am reasoning backward from actions. Given that this is not a rigidly-organized movement with established leaders and policy documents we can refer to, that's what we've got. The actions people take under the banner of GamerGate are overwhelmingly focused on misogyny and hatred of women and anyone they deem to be a "social justice warrior". One of the memes that is omnipresent under that banner in an attempt to claim that this is about ethics is a trivially-disproven lie. People who care about journalistic integrity don't build their media presence around a lie. People who care about journalistic integrity should be concerned with the ridiculous way that the games industry treats game media as part of their marketing arm. The actions taken in the name of GamerGate do not reflect this. Conclusion: GamerGate is not concerned with journalistic integrity.

And where does that leave say TotalBiscuit?

His media presence certainly wasn't built around a lie; it was built upon his youtube channel where he's one of the most popular video game commentators/reviewers.

His interest and care for journalistic integrity precedes Gamergate; he's done a lot of work on the use of DMCA's to block critique and, more recently, the X-Box/Machinima XB1M13 tag controversy to give two simple examples.

He's also one of the most prominent supporters of Gamergate.

It's all fine and dandy to say "well, people just shouldn't use or associate themselves with Gamergate" but here's the rub... post-Doritogate (which I note people also tried to derail by saying it was all about misogyny once Lauren Wainright got involved) where exactly has a widespread movement about journalistic integrity been? Where were the revelations? Where were the successes? In the wake of Dorito-gate (which focused on the relationship between big publishers, PR companies and reviewers/journalists) websites said they did nothing wrong... but quickly updated their policies about transparency. In the wake of Gamergate (where the integrity aspect focuses on the personal friendship between journalists themselves and with indy/smaller developers) websites again said there was nothing wrong... but again quickly updated their policies.

Patricia Hernandez was a close friend of Anna Anthropy prior to Gamergate appearing. She lived with Anna Anthropy prior to Gamergate appearing. She repeatedly gave positive coverage to Anna Anthropy's games without disclosing any of this in the articles prior to Gamergate appearing. No-one delved into it before Gamergate appeared. Then Gamergate appeared and suddenly a pretty obvious breach of ethics (in at least not declaring a connection even in the unlikely even it didn't influence the coverage) came to light.

Danielle Riendeau was a close friend to Chris Remo prior to Gamergate appearing. She appeared with other members of the "Idle Thumbs" group prior to Gamergate appearing. She reviewed a game featuring music by Chris Remo without disclosing that relationship prior to Gamergate breaking, praising the tone and giving it a 10/10. Outside of one comment below the line (quickly dismissed), no-one delved into it. Then Gamergate appeared and suddenly people noticed that, you know, perhaps you should declare that one of your close friends is involved in a game you give 10/10 to.

Patricia Hernandez (again) was close friends with Christine Love (and seemingly in a relationship for a while) prior to Gamergate appearing. She repeatedly gave positive coverage to Christine Love's games and encouraged people to buy them without disclosing this prior to Gamergate appearing. No-one delved into it before Gamergate appeared. Then Gamergate appeared and suddenly a pretty obvious breach of ethics (in at least not declaring a connection even in the unlikely even it didn't influence the coverage) came to light.

Game Journalism Professionals was set up prior to Gamergate appearing. Video game journalists used it to coordinate their coverage prior to Gamergate appearing. Video game journalists used it to discuss internal staffing matters at their websites (which could be a breach of employment law in and of itself) prior to Gamergate appearing. Video game journalists used it to blacklist another prior to Gamergate appearing (notably the journalist in question was being blacklisted for revealing some pretty underhand ethical issues, even if not in the most toneful of ways)... something that is quite likely illegal. Yet prior to Gamergate few knew of the story and it certainly hadn't broken. The Gamergate appeared and now the editor in chief of Destructoid has resigned, seemingly over it, and the ethics of it are something people are discussing.

Just as one cannot purely look at the journalistic ethics side of Gamergate without accepting the misogyny and abuse, one cannot look as the misogyny and abuse without considering the journalistic ethics aspect. The examples above all relate to integrity and ethics in video game journalism, however positive an approach you want to take on them. They all came out because of Gamergate; they cannot be separated from it. To ignore or dismiss Gamergate is to ignore and dismiss them.

I feel like you're too busy trying to dole out fallacies to really understand what's being said, Consortium. You're reading with the intent to respond, not understand.

I'm "doling out fallacies" because using fallacies as part of a debate renders the debate meaningless. I'm also "doling out fallacies" because there's a sticky at the top of the forum which makes clear people should avoid using fallacies (I also note it makes clear that one should read it before debating here) and specifically lists many of fallacies you've used so far.

Gamergate is both the issues about journalistic integrity and the misogyny. Arguing that the journalistic ethics issues can be dismissed or don't matter because of the misogyny and abuse is a pretty clear example of the fallacies I've listed previously.

I urge you to understand my position and my feelings. I've been in the receiving end of hurtful, misogynistic comments all my life. I've been made to feel unsafe and uncomfortable by them. This is not just incivility! Believe me, I can handle rudeness. What I cannot handle is people trying to denigrate my humanity. I have every right to not want to debate with people who think me lesser. I'm not a 24/7 debate machine with no emotions that can swallow all kinds of abuse and come out fine. And I'm not the only one who feels this way.

If this is the tone argument, fine. I give up.

I'm certainly not saying one has to engage directly or stay in a conversation with such people... I wouldn't.

But one does have to engage with the arguments rather than dismiss them out of hand. It could be that the arguments are wrong. It could be completely legitimate and not an ethical concern in the slightest for journalists and reviewers to give positive coverage to their friends and their games without even noting that friendship, let alone recusing themselves from the coverage. But one doesn't prove that by going "Uh... Gamergate... misogyny". Just because an issue came out during gamergate doesn't make it wrong or misogynistic; you have to debate an argument on its own strength.

1) The close relationships between developers/companies and journalists; no argument from me there. I know about the Kane and Lynch controversy, about Doritogate, and I'm all for gaming journalists to shape up.

2)The so called "political" infiltration in gaming journalism and often, games themselves. I've seen several gamergaters decrying it. As I said in a previous post, I'm all for social/feminist/queer/antiracist critique of games. I'm a gamer, I have gamer friends from all social groups, and part of our escapist fun should be to play in worlds without the same bullshit we have to face day after day. I'm all for games growing up, becoming forms of art and being treated like art (which means they are critiqued as art).

And that's my position on their arguments.

I basically agree. Journalistic ethics; those complaints should be taken seriously and addressed regardless of the source; view the arguments on their own merits. "Infiltration": I've posted in the previous Sarkeesian thread about how I disagree with some of her analysis but that doesn't mean I don't want the analysis or that it shouldn't be made; just that I disagree with aspects of it.

[Caehlim]

They all came out because of Gamergate; they cannot be separated from it.

This is the problem with something like Gamergate. You have serious, legitimate concerns hopelessly intermingled with the delusional fantasies of a scorned and embarrassed ex-boyfriend. If this argument is correct, that these things cannot be separated from it, then it is irresponsible to use the platform of gamergate to raise these serious issues.

Doing so risks two things.

1) The serious allegations that have been discovered become tainted by association with a flawed methodology and a hashtag of ill-repute thus allowing the guilty to escape justice.
2) The frivolous and libelous accusations that have been thrown about for personal reasons within the hashtag inherit legitimacy from the serious allegations thus causing the innocent to be punished.

At worst case, it's possible for both to occur.

The breaches of journalistic integrity you've mentioned are worth producing an expose upon and bringing to light. However it would be the height of irony for this exposure to be achieved through what would be in itself a breach of journalistic integrity.

[Steampunkette]

Consortium: Fallacy Fallacy. Argumentum ad Logicam.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

Argument A supports the proposition P
Argument A contains a logical fallacy.
Therefore, the entirety of P is false

I'm trying to talk about the ethical concerns of using a hate movement, specifically one founded on a series of lies and hate-speech with the willful intent of creating attacks on women, to try and elevate a position discussing the ethics of other people. You're busy debating whether or not I'm arguing with enough logical presentation rather than addressing the argument itself.

I'm beginning to suspect it's because debating the actual heart of the matter, the ethics of using a deplorable action to your personal, political, or professional benefit not as an oppositional force but with the intent of specifically excusing and ignoring the ethical problems -of- the deplorable action (thereby offering that deplorable action post-facto legitimacy), is itself undeniably ethically wrong and you're avoiding taking an undefensible position on the matter by attempting to put everyone else on the defensive with accusations and demands of "X Level of Logical Discourse" before you'll even attempt to address the issue itself.

The closest you've come to it is to say that questioning the ethical viability of the position is tone policing which is a -clear- misunderstanding of what tone policing is (Tone Policing, incidentally, is demanding that arguments be presented in a manner that is inoffensive and presented on the terms of the listener, regardless of the content of the discussion or the additional burdens it places on the speaker. See also: Moving the Goalposts)

So... I'm just gonna go ahead and put you on ignore. It's not a judgement on your character or your ethical or moral standpoints, it's just to clean up this thread's discussion. I promise to click the "Show Posts" button in other threads, but it's clear we can't discuss the issue at hand in a reasonable manner.

[Ephiral]

The problem, Consortium, is that you can cite individual examples to prove anything you want about any group you want - but the group as a whole has some clear, overarching traits. One of those traits is that even now, if you say "Zoe Quinn" into a mirror three times, a pack of dudebros show up to tell you she slept around for good reviews, and they do it in the name of Gamergate. And then a second pack shows up to tell you that it's totally not about Quinn at all.

It's still doing pretty much nothing for actual ethics issues, except where those ethics issues can be used in service of attacking women and their allies. This tells me that "journalistic ethics" is not their terminal goal.

And frankly... even if they do have a point? It's very, very hard to appreciate someone's nuanced positions on the finer points of socioeconomic theory while they're still punching you in the face.

You ask where the actual movements for journalistic ethics are? I say "We need heroes? Build them." If you think this is an actual concern worth spending time and effort addressing, then do something about it without all the misogyny and hatred and abuse. It's costing the movement resources - both in creating these attacks and in deflecting criticism about them - and it's completely tanked any trust or credibility they ever could have earned. Even before you begin taking the first look at whether equality is, y'know, a good thing - even if literally your only concern is dealing with ethics issues in journalism - Gamergate is a toxic, festering pit that can do nothing but harm you. The only way to actually do something productive at this stage is to walk away from it and try building something useful.

[Skynet]

GamerGate will get my respect only when they start policing their own beyond the token "we're sorry about the bad apples, just ignore them!" when said bad apples have doxxed and harassed people out of their homes.  And overwhelmingly women who are transgender and/or have feminist views at that!

The "not all GGers are like that!" argument doesn't hold much water when their most popular gathering spots (Kotaku in Action, 8chan) are more than happy to adopt an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" viewpoint to accept Breitbart journalists into their ranks and other hateful individuals.  If you're really about journalistic integrity, seeing breitbart.com ally with you should provoke an immediate "battle stations ready, discharge and disown!" response.

I'm not very fond of the "cultural Marxism" slur they throw at pro-feminist and pro-transgender groups, especially given that the term is used by a lot of Neo-Nazis online as an attack against any form of egalitarianism.

Or how GamerGate members threatened Gaymer X for rejecting them because they were too friendly with Milo Yiannopoulos, a guy with a history of transphobic fearmongering.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

[Ephiral]

And further evidence just keeps coming!

What do Gamergate and the incredibly embarrassing band of atheist misogynists known as the Slymepit have in common? They both lie about Rebecca Watson in an attempt to destroy her career.

Please note: Watson is neither associated with gaming in any way, nor a journalist. And this is a lie: "Skep tickle" outed herself* well over a year ago. More interestingly, the reason her identity is relevant now is because of an ethically dubious act. (tl;dr: She used her position as an MD to diagnose someone she strongly disliked, and had never met, with gonorrhea based on a vague bit of information about a knee problem, did so publicly, and used that to try to smear a major atheist conference she has issues with.)

If this is all about ethics, and particularly ethics in media, why are they lying in an attempt to cause harm to someone outside the industry they care about, in the name of defending someone with extremely poor ethical standards? Can anyone defending them explain this? This action is clearly and actively against ethical behaviour on all fronts.

*EDIT: consortium says this is a direct comment link, but it's not working for me in Chrome. If you have the same issue, search for "Eliza" and the first hit is her.

[consortium11]

*EDIT: Sorry, forgot to mention that there don't appear to be direct comment links on that page. Search for "Eliza" and the first hit is her.

Direct link here; seems you just linked from the wrong comment.

[Ephiral]

Both go to the top of the page for me, but I've updated the post. Thanks.

[consortium11]

You have serious, legitimate concerns hopelessly intermingled with the delusional fantasies of a scorned and embarrassed ex-boyfriend.

I've generally resisted commentating on that aspect of the story (outside of decrying the abuse against her) because I don't want her to be involved; I think the whole thing would be better if Zoe Quinn was never mentioned in the context of Gamergate again and left to get on with her life and making games.

(Although I'm actually going to somewhat contradict myself further down in this reply...)

But I think this article should probably be necessary reading regardless. Just to give some context on the author, Philip Wythe is a social justice activist himself and is probably most notable for being one of the leaders of the movement to place trigger warnings on classic literature. And for those who don't want to read the entire article the basis of it is this; if you read Quinn's ex-boyfriends call-out it has all the classic signs of an abusive relationship... with the boyfriend being the abused. The use of terms like "the delusional fantasies of a scorned and embarrassed ex-boyfriend" is essentially shaming someone for calling out what appears to be an abuser (at least in that relationship). If the genders were reversed and it was a woman calling out an ex-boyfriend about the same things (remembering #listenandbelieve) would the coverage have been anywhere near as hostile?

If this argument is correct, that these things cannot be separated from it, then it is irresponsible to use the platform of gamergate to raise these serious issues.

Doing so risks two things.

1) The serious allegations that have been discovered become tainted by association with a flawed methodology and a hashtag of ill-repute thus allowing the guilty to escape justice.
2) The frivolous and libelous accusations that have been thrown about for personal reasons within the hashtag inherit legitimacy from the serious allegations thus causing the innocent to be punished.

At worst case, it's possible for both to occur.

The breaches of journalistic integrity you've mentioned are worth producing an expose upon and bringing to light. However it would be the height of irony for this exposure to be achieved through what would be in itself a breach of journalistic integrity.

I largely agree... but here's the thing.

The breaches of journalistic integrity I've mentioned have been brought to light. Through Gamergate. We can't suddenly stick them back in the box, pretend they haven't been discovered yet and then release them into the wild without any link to Gamergate. Steampunkette previously used the example of unethical medical research and it's actually a good one. The influenza vaccine (and to a lesser extent the polio vaccine) were both developed with the help of incredibly unethical and almost certain illegal practices. Yet we still used those vaccines despite their source and I think anyone saying that all the research should be thrown out, the vaccines destroyed and starting again would be laughed out of a room. Likewise with gynecology. Likewise with malaria pills. One can rightfully say that Thomas Francis, Jr was a deeply immoral man who did some horrific things in his search for the influenza vaccine while also using the vaccine he developed. The fact that some Gamergaters are nothing more than misogynists, abusers and trolls doesn't change the fact that through Gamergate breaches in journalistic ethics have been revealed.

So what do we do? Ignore the breaches in journalistic ethics because of the poisoned well? Give people a free pass? Pretend it never happened?

Or do we take both the good and the bad from Gamergate... decrying the abuse, looking at the investigation?

I'm trying to talk about the ethical concerns of using a hate movement, specifically one founded on a series of lies and hate-speech with the willful intent of creating attacks on women, to try and elevate a position discussing the ethics of other people.

I note you've put me on ignore (no worries) so you'll perhaps understand why I don't engage with your entire argument. But I do want to touch on one thing, for the benefit of everyone else as well.

The lie.

(This is where the contradiction mentioned above comes in).

It's been well established that the "Zoe Quinn slept with reviewer for good reviewer" or "Zoe Quinn's boyfriend reviewed her game and gave good review" narratives have been debunked; they may have been worth asking a question about early on but they were quickly disproved; the only people still harping on about the sex aspect are the abusers and trolls who unfortunately still appear.

But has everyone seen the credits on Depression Quest?

(You can play the game for free from the DQ website; it's an interactive fiction work and fairly quick to play if you just want to get to the credits to verify this point)

Because if you've seen the credits you'll see the name Nathan Grayson there listed amongst a group of people who the game would have been "dead in the water" without.

When this was brought up Zoe said Grayson was a tester. Grayson said he wasn't aware he was in the credits, wasn't a "tester" but he'd been sent an early build of the game, played it and sent some tips/recommendations/bugs to Quinn. In industry parlance that would generally be considered an alpha tester but the point here isn't the try to trap Grayson in a linguistic hole.

The point is that whatever we want to call it, Nathan Grayson assisted in the creation of the game enough for Zoe Quinn to think him worthy of credit. And then while back in his rockpapershotgun days, Nathan Grayson considered the game a "standout" and drew the readers attention to it within making any mention of his involvement, calling it a "powerful twine darling" (twine being the interactive fiction system the game was written on) and including a pun about the game as the title of the piece and using a screenshot from it as the picture for the article.

Now, you (using the universal you) may not think there's anything wrong with that (and I should note people are only really drawing attention to it now so more information should come out). But it's exactly the sort of issue that Gamergate has been interested in; journalists and developers essentially working hand in hand to build and promote games without declaring their connections or interests in a game. All it would have needed was a simple one line disclaimer ("For the record; I provided some alpha testing for a very early build of this game but haven't been involved since"). Isn't that a topic worthy of discussion?

In this case it has nothing to do with the eventual sexual relationship between Grayson and Quinn. It's entirely about his involvement with the games development. In truth I wish it wasn't Grayson or Quinn involved... I wish it was another case of Patricia Hernandez or some other journalist and developer... because the fact it's these two will inevitably bring back mentions of their eventual relationship. But the point remains. It appears Grayson had an interest in Depression Quest that he didn't declare... just not the one people originally dogpiled in about (and which was proven wrong).

It's still doing pretty much nothing for actual ethics issues, except where those ethics issues can be used in service of attacking women and their allies. This tells me that "journalistic ethics" is not their terminal goal.

The "and their allies" strikes me as being overly vague here.

Who has been the major target of Gamergate over the past week or so? Gawker, specifically editor in chief Max Read and journalist Sam Biddle. And they became targets not because Biddle, Read and Gawker put up a defence of Quinn, Anita etc or because Biddle, Read and Gawker set themselves up as anti-Gamergate. They did so because Biddle went on twitter (in the middle of anti-bullying month of all things) to talk about "bullying nerds" and why it was a good thing, then offered a clearly disingenuous "it was only a joke" defence which only became more clearly disingenuous when emails about the subject from within Gawker surfaced and with some of the more recent articles about it Gawker put up. Gamergate supporters have spent most of the week complaining to Gawkers advertisers about this and had a seemingly decent level of success doing so and possibly revealing more unethical practices (some of the companies listed on Gawker's partners page... now removed... say they weren't partners with Gawker and that Gawker were using their logos without permission which is a pretty big deal in the corporate world). I haven't seen a similar level of activism (for lack of a better word) coming from Gamergate against pretty much anyone else or any other company... hell, even Kotaku, while being owned by Gawker, isn't getting the same level of interest; they're targeting Gawker directly.

Is that Gamergate attacking an ally of women? I struggle to see it as being so.

And frankly... even if they do have a point? It's very, very hard to appreciate someone's nuanced positions on the finer points of socioeconomic theory while they're still punching you in the face.

Isn't this somewhat similar to the arguments people raise when they complain about "social justice warriors invading gaming"; that any good points they make are ruined by the fact that people think they imply that gamers and gaming is misogynist/racist/homophobic/bigoted etc etc. It's not a good argument when raised then and it doesn't strike me as a good argument now. The legitimate journalistic points about Gamergate may be combined in with the abuse but that doesn't mean one can't discover them or discuss them without having someone screaming "bitch!" in all caps or sending death threats... we are right here after all.

You ask where the actual movements for journalistic ethics are? I say "We need heroes? Build them." If you think this is an actual concern worth spending time and effort addressing, then do something about it without all the misogyny and hatred and abuse. It's costing the movement resources - both in creating these attacks and in deflecting criticism about them - and it's completely tanked any trust or credibility they ever could have earned. Even before you begin taking the first look at whether equality is, y'know, a good thing - even if literally your only concern is dealing with ethics issues in journalism - Gamergate is a toxic, festering pit that can do nothing but harm you. The only way to actually do something productive at this stage is to walk away from it and try building something useful.

And let's say people do walk away and do create something new and useful... how long before the "it's just Gamergate rehashed!" complaints begin if one of the issues focuses on a woman involved in the industry? We've already seen how people view the Gamergate tag as corrupted... a name change doesn't change that. What happens when this new and useful thing treads over the same grounds relating to integrity, challenging the same people on the same points (and in this case I'm refer to the integrity points not the abuse)? How long before people dismiss it as a "cynical rebranding". Moreover, how long till the abusers return and continue to abuse and troll... one can't control who attaches a hashtag to their twitter posts and one can't control who responds to one raising a journalistic ethics point by calling the person challenged a "hateful cunt" or hoping they get raped?

GamerGate will get my respect only when they start policing their own beyond the token "we're sorry about the bad apples, just ignore them!" when said bad apples have doxxed and harassed people out of their homes.  And overwhelmingly women who are transgender and/or have feminist views at that!

How do you police who uses a hashtag? How do you police who posts to an imageboard?

Do we demand the same standards of anti-gamergaters who have their own history of doxxing, harassment and death threats? After all, it was an anti-gamer gater who got one of the most prominent #notyourshield guys (a black developer himself... on that note it might be worth reading this entry by a black social justice advocate on gamergate; he's not exactly positive about those opposed to it and their actions) fired from his job. It was an anti-gamergater who doxxed someone and threatened to reveal their trans status to their family. It appears to be anti-gamergaters (or at least trolls) promoting the idea that the person involved in the current Parliament Hill shooting in Canada was done by someone wearing a Gamergate t-shirt, leaving an X-Box status referencing gamergate and a note talking about "SJW's". Personally I don't; I know that anyone can set up a reddit account go on either KiA or Gamerghazi and post whatever they want, put whatever hashtag they feel like after a tweet etc etc.

In the same way I don't think it's right to judge feminism by the TERF's, Muslims by ISIS, Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church or any other group merely by an element they have little to no control over, I don't judge either anti or pro gamergate supporters by the worst elements to claim alignment with them.

Let's also remember that Gamergaters have done a fair amount of active policing rather than just telling people to ignore them; the discovery and reporting of a Brazilian "journalist" (and I use the term loosely) who made a number of death threats to Anita combined with subsequently noticing and reporting his new twitter spam accounts being an obvious example.

On the "should we accept this person/group or not" point, I note there's been a genuine discussion within Gamergate about an offer to help from Return of Kings (a site which likes to think of itself as being about "alpha males" but all too often is simply misogyny and other bigoted traits) and several are pretty hesitant about the amount of attention Mike Cernovich is getting (who's been doxxed while I write this) for much the same reason. There's been even more discussion about some wanting to try to get Fox News involved and others being hugely opposed to it; again, how do you police who sticks #gamergate at the end of their tweets? While this is basically attacking people rather than the argument which I hate I'd also note that the anti-gamergate side has its own issues; Ian Miles Cheon and his nazism or Chris Kluwe (who may have done a lot of good speaking on gay rights but is still perfectly happy to make jokes about children being abused... and then used the "it was just a joke" defence... and seemingly knew about at best child abuse and at worst a child rape without reporting it) to name two. Or Gawker as a whole with its "let's no pay interns" thing. But as I say, that's not something I think is really important here... what matters is the argument and an argument stands or falls on its own feet, not the feet of those who support it.

Likewise on Gaymer X, it's worth noting where the attacks came from. Gaymer X essentially said "we don't want anything to do with any of this, although we think there are concerns on both sides, we accept that some gay gamers support Gamergate and we think it's wrong to exclude them, everyone is welcome". Then Christina Love (who remember is directly implicated in the journalistic ethics side of things because of her friend promoting her games) turned it into an "us or them" issue. Gaymer X themselves say that they got hatemail from both sides (as always I'm not going to whitewash the pro-Gamergate aspect... there is certainly abuse there).

The only reference I can find to Milo and Gaymer X with relation to this come after Gaymer X rejected/were pushed into rejecting Gamergate; there's nothing in Gaymer X's tweets or statements to implicate that Milo was involved in their decision (in fact they make it utterly clear it was pressure from anti-Gamergaters which made them change their position).

[Caehlim]

The use of terms like "the delusional fantasies of a scorned and embarrassed ex-boyfriend" is essentially shaming someone for calling out what appears to be an abuser (at least in that relationship).

You know those moments when you say something and are confident that you know what you're talking about, then on reflection realize that you actually know nothing about it at all and have simply internalized a lot of rumour and gossip that you've heard. Yeah... just realizing that I actually know nothing about those people's relationships beyond how it was described to me by someone else who had read some of the articles about this. I really shouldn't have commented on it without at least doing some more reading or research.

The breaches of journalistic integrity I've mentioned have been brought to light. Through Gamergate. We can't suddenly stick them back in the box, pretend they haven't been discovered yet and then release them into the wild without any link to Gamergate. Steampunkette previously used the example of unethical medical research and it's actually a good one.

I think it's a good analogy as well, and I would recommend using the same approach as science usually does. You replicate the results in an ethical fashion (i.e. confirm the story with independent sources), publish them in a peer-reviewed journal (or in this case a more respectable medium), acknowledge their original origin with whatever condemnation of the ethics of their origin is appropriate.

[Ephiral]

The "and their allies" strikes me as being overly vague here.

Who has been the major target of Gamergate over the past week or so? Gawker, specifically editor in chief Max Read and journalist Sam Biddle.

Okay. And the time leading up to that? This is the problem - there's way less legitimate action than harassment. It is, by any definition, a harassment movement that happens to include some legitimate concerns, not a legitimate movement that happens to have some harassment.

And they became targets not because Biddle, Read and Gawker put up a defence of Quinn, Anita etc or because Biddle, Read and Gawker set themselves up as anti-Gamergate. They did so because Biddle went on twitter (in the middle of anti-bullying month of all things) to talk about "bullying nerds" and why it was a good thing, then offered a clearly disingenuous "it was only a joke" defence which only became more clearly disingenuous when emails about the subject from within Gawker surfaced and with some of the more recent articles about it Gawker put up.

And you can clearly establish that this has nothing at all to do with them taking a strong and public anti-gamergate stance? You... might want to look at the context of those tweets before you make such a strong assertion. (This is not to say that that's the only motivation, but... it certainly isn't a non-factor. Again, I'm for actual honesty here.)

Is that Gamergate attacking an ally of women? I struggle to see it as being so.

Concurrent to that, there's also been an attack on the career of Rebecca Watson - who, again, is not associated with gaming, and not a journalist. By lying about her. Because she spoke out against an ethics breach. So... Yeah, they're still targeting women who dare to say things they don't like, often without even the fig leaf of "It's about ethics!"

Isn't this somewhat similar to the arguments people raise when they complain about "social justice warriors invading gaming"; that any good points they make are ruined by the fact that people think they imply that gamers and gaming is misogynist/racist/homophobic/bigoted etc etc. It's not a good argument when raised then and it doesn't strike me as a good argument now. The legitimate journalistic points about Gamergate may be combined in with the abuse but that doesn't mean one can't discover them or discuss them without having someone screaming "bitch!" in all caps or sending death threats... we are right here after all.

Two things: One, social justice warriors didn't invade anything. We were already here. Believe it or not, it's possible to want less sexist/racist/transphobic bullshit in games because you like games and want them to be better. This is literally the point of art critique. You know, the thing that Anita Sarkeesian was doing that earned her a mountain of death and rape threats and misogynistic insults. Two, the overwhelming majority of people who want social justice aren't saying that. They're saying that there are problematic elements - and that Gamergate is counterproductively making those elements look way bigger than they are.

And let's say people do walk away and do create something new and useful... how long before the "it's just Gamergate rehashed!" complaints begin if one of the issues focuses on a woman involved in the industry?

Pretty damn long if you, y'know, actually refuse to engage in vicious harassment and threats, and disavow and speak out against those who do such things. The reason this doesn't work with Gamergate is because most of their output from day 1 was anti-woman. The express purpose of a number of its founders and major players was anti-woman. Its output continues to include strong anti-woman elements that are in no way being repudiated.

We've already seen how people view the Gamergate tag as corrupted... a name change doesn't change that. What happens when this new and useful thing treads over the same grounds relating to integrity, challenging the same people on the same points (and in this case I'm refer to the integrity points not the abuse)? How long before people dismiss it as a "cynical rebranding". Moreover, how long till the abusers return and continue to abuse and troll... one can't control who attaches a hashtag to their twitter posts and one can't control who responds to one raising a journalistic ethics point by calling the person challenged a "hateful cunt" or hoping they get raped?

But you can direct the actions of the crowd in targeted campaigns, right? Maybe use that to make it clear that these people don't represent you or speak for you? You can't police a hashtag, but you can police who you stand against.

Do we demand the same standards of anti-gamergaters who have their own history of doxxing, harassment and death threats? After all, it was an anti-gamer gater who got one of the most prominent #notyourshield guys (a black developer himself... on that note it might be worth reading this entry by a black social justice advocate on gamergate; he's not exactly positive about those opposed to it and their actions) fired from his job. It was an anti-gamergater who doxxed someone and threatened to reveal their trans status to their family. It appears to be anti-gamergaters (or at least trolls) promoting the idea that the person involved in the current Parliament Hill shooting in Canada was done by someone wearing a Gamergate t-shirt, leaving an X-Box status referencing gamergate and a note talking about "SJW's". Personally I don't; I know that anyone can set up a reddit account go on either KiA or Gamerghazi and post whatever they want, put whatever hashtag they feel like after a tweet etc etc.

Gamergate is an at-least-somewhat organized campaign with central gathering points and staging grounds - which are still being used to run anti-woman attacks. The response to it is not. So no, you can't expect to see the same type of concerted repudiation - though, yet again, as an individual who stands against Gamergate but has no connection to others doing the same, I will again reject all of those practices as, frankly, disgusting and horrifying.

In the same way I don't think it's right to judge feminism by the TERF's, Muslims by ISIS, Christians by the Westboro Baptist Church or any other group merely by an element they have little to no control over, I don't judge either anti or pro gamergate supporters by the worst elements to claim alignment with them.

And I'm not saying to judge it by the worst. I'm saying to judge it by the bulk, and by the major influences.. And it appears that the bulk of Gamergate output has been harassment, intimidation, lies, coverups, and distractions, and a lot of its early influences made their anti-woman position clear.

Let's also remember that Gamergaters have done a fair amount of active policing rather than just telling people to ignore them; the discovery and reporting of a Brazilian "journalist" (and I use the term loosely) who made a number of death threats to Anita combined with subsequently noticing and reporting his new twitter spam accounts being an obvious example.

A "fair amount" would be to at least shut it down in places where Gamergaters gather and have tools to do so (like, say KiA), speak against it when it comes out on issues they're speaking on already, etc. Not to report some guy to authorities who have no jurisdiction over him.

On the "should we accept this person/group or not" point, I note there's been a genuine discussion within Gamergate about an offer to help from Return of Kings (a site which likes to think of itself as being about "alpha males" but all too often is simply misogyny and other bigoted traits) and several are pretty hesitant about the amount of attention Mike Cernovich is getting (who's been doxxed while I write this) for much the same reason. There's been even more discussion about some wanting to try to get Fox News involved and others being hugely opposed to it; again, how do you police who sticks #gamergate at the end of their tweets? While this is basically attacking people rather than the argument which I hate I'd also note that the anti-gamergate side has its own issues; Ian Miles Cheon and his nazism or Chris Kluwe (who may have done a lot of good speaking on gay rights but is still perfectly happy to make jokes about children being abused... and then used the "it was just a joke" defence... and seemingly knew about at best child abuse and at worst a child rape without reporting it) to name two. Or Gawker as a whole with its "let's no pay interns" thing. But as I say, that's not something I think is really important here... what matters is the argument and an argument stands or falls on its own feet, not the feet of those who support it.

But here's the thing: There being no antiGamergate movement, just speaking against Gamergate does not mean standing with those people. There being a coordinated Gamergate movement, speaking under the Gamergate banner necessarily means standing by A Voice For Men - at least, as long as Paul Elam and his supporters are an accepted and unchallenged part of that movement.

You are drawing false equivalence, pretending that there is literally no coordination or planning at any level for Gamergate and therefore it's the same as the response to it. This is not true.

ETA: You've hammered pretty hard on the "How do you police a leaderless movement?" point. How about we invert the question: There have been leaderless movements before. They haven't had this problem. Why is Gamergate waist deep in a cesspool of misogyny and lies?

[Shjade]

I think it's a good analogy as well, and I would recommend using the same approach as science usually does. You replicate the results in an ethical fashion (i.e. confirm the story with independent sources), publish them in a peer-reviewed journal (or in this case a more respectable medium), acknowledge their original origin with whatever condemnation of the ethics of their origin is appropriate.

Problem: where the hell are you going to find "independent sources" worth a damn who haven't already covered the "GG is harassment" angle at this point? It's been going for coming up on three months now.

There are a lot of things that could have been done to resolve/improve this shitstorm. Trouble is, a lot of them probably needed to happen in September, or earlier; it's too late for a lot of things at this point.

[Slywyn]

http://gawker.com/felicia-day-says-shes-afraid-of-gamergate-immediately-1649790900

Actress and geek icon Felicia Day had stayed relatively silent about #Gamergate, the anti-feminist troll mob that's been targeting women in gaming for the past two months. But on Wednesday, she expressed her worst fears about the movement: That if she spoke up against it, her personal information would be spread on the internet.

"Personally I am terrified to be doxxed for even typing the words "gamergate." I have had stalkers and restraining orders issued in the past, I have had people show up on my doorstep when my personal information was hard to get," she wrote.

She had good reason to worry. Shortly after her post "The Only Thing I Have to Say About Gamer Gate" went up on Tumblr, "a commenter with the username 'gaimerg8' posted what they claimed was her address and personal email in the comment section," the Guardian reported.

The comment has since been deleted, and the comment section has been shut down entirely.

Gamergate supporters continue to insist they aren't specifically targeting women, even as they harass them and drive them from their homes.

The cognitive dissonance is galling to some of the campaign's most vocal critics. Chris Kluwe, the ex-NFL kicker and avid gamer who recently condemned Gamergaters as a pack of "slopebrowed weaseldicks," tweeted, "And for the record, none of you fucking #Gamergate tools tried to dox me, even after I tore you a new one. I'm not even a tough target. Instead, you go after a woman who wrote why your movement concerns her. Fuck #Gamergate and anyone aligned with it."

Those most affected by #Gamergate have been women. Developers Zoë Quinn and Brianna Wu and game critic Anita Sarkeesian have all written about leaving their homes after having their addresses published online and receiving death threats.

Day hasn't tweeted since her Tumblr post went up.

But, you know. Gamergate isn't at all about targetting women. Not at all.

http://www.salon.com/2014/10/21/chris_kluwe_i_hope_you_all_every_gamergater_picks_up_a_debilitating_case_of_genital_warts/

Chris Kluwe, former punter for the Minnesota Vikings and outspoken cultural critic, wrote a scathing takedown of #Gamergate and the gamers involved. (I’d personally love to carefully curate each creative insult, hilarious alliteration and blistering description.)

First, what is #Gamergate? Kluwe has one of the better, more succinct descriptions of this “scandal” in the gaming community. Among other things, #Gamgergate has revealed a simmering cesspool of misogyny and anger, which has resulted in death threats made against female developers and cultural critics like Anita Sarkeesian. Kluwe describes:

“#Gamergate, for those unaware, is what happened a bit over a month ago, where an angry neckbeard posted demonstrably false allegations about his ex-girlfriend, claiming she slept with video game site reviewers for better scores for her games (again, demonstrably false), and then a whole bunch of other angry neckbeards on the Internet went full Denis Dyack and spitfrothed themselves into national attention by making an array of threats on numerous female game developers, including ones about their death, tried to hide behind a shield of ‘it’s about journalistic ethics because they said gamers are dead,’ and generally proved why the Internet needs to be burned to the ground and the ashes salted. If you’re curious about the details, here’s a good background link.”

With the inflammatory speech, this is the exact takedown the entire #Gamergate community deserves. However, looking beyond the spectacular insults, Kluwe makes some excellent points about the entire issue.

Kluwe isn’t very fond of the #Gamergaters, whom he describes as “a blithering collection of wannabe Wikipedia philosophers, drunk on your own buzzwords, incapable of forming an original thought.” Kluwe takes issue with them because he is a gamer.

“I’ve been made fun of by the jocks, even when I was on the football team,” Kluwe writes. “Gaming is part of who I am, I can promise you that.”

And Kluwe dislikes all the misogyny and name calling and “tantrum throwing” because he is glad that “gamers are dead”:

“Thus, when I see an article titled “Gamers are dead,” referring to the death of the popular trope of a pasty young man in a dimly lit room, it fills me with joy, because it means WE FUCKING WON. So many people are playing games now that they are popular culture. They are not going away. All sorts of cool things, that I like, are now things that a whole bunch of other people like! There’s enough space now for people to make games that are strange and disturbing and maybe highlight a different perspective of the world, because gaming is no longer a niche activity, it’s something that everybody does. There is room for art in video games. That’s awesome!

“You slopebrowed weaseldicks with zero reading comprehension and even less critical thinking skills who think an article claiming ‘Gamers are dead’ is something bad? Fuck me sideways with a sandblaster.”

Point taken. Kluwe also tears down the knee-jerk, terrifying misogynistic component that has come to define #Gamergate, which he describes as such:

“a) Making misogynistic threats against a wide variety of female game developers and critics because somehow they’re going to keep games you enjoy from ever being made again”

or

b) Being stupid enough to get sucked in by people busy making misogynistic threats against a wide variety of female game developers and critics, and supporting their idiotic crusade for the dumbing down of everyone everywhere ever.”

Beyond the fact that treating other humans this way is terrible, Kluwe does not want gamers associated with death threats, which forced founder of Feminist Frequency Anita Sarkeesian to cancel an event at Utah State University, or with incessant harassment of female developers.

“When people think of ‘gamers,’ I want them to think of Child’s Play, and athletes who play competitive League of Legends, and all the normalization we’ve accomplished over the years,” Kluwe states.

“I want them to think of feminism, and games as an art form — something more than mass entertainment. I want them to think of all the amazing things that video games have done, and can do, because that means we get to keep playing more games.”

The biggest threat to #Gamergaters, according to Kluwe? Themselves.

“You, #Gamergaters, with your bilious Internet rage, you think you’re speaking for some core demographic, some historic legacy, but you’re not. You’re speaking for a lie trapped inside your mind; a lie that one somehow has to be “hardcore” in order to appreciate games; a lie formed by social ineptitude and too much time spent picturing yourself as the only creature that matters in the universe. A lie about male power and privilege, and how dare those women try to ruin your fun? (No matter whose expense you’re having it at). The lie you tell yourselves is one completely incapable of recognizing just how far society has come — that equality is important, and that the tech industry has been misogynistic for a very long time, and that we need to change that, and we’re in the process of doing so, despite the mouthvomits you like to pretend are logical trains of thought.”

In terms of ethics in gaming journalism Kluwe makes this point:

“In fact, #Gamergaters, if your concern really was ethics, the very first thing you would be saying about this whole mess is, ‘Holy shit, get these fucking misogynistic creeps away from us. Let’s find a different hashtag to assemble under RIGHT FUCKING NOW.’ You’d be doing everything in your power to make sure the legitimate cause you’re concerned about wasn’t hijacked or used as a shield by those with no other agenda than to make women and minorities afraid, simply because they can. You wouldn’t defend the oppression of someone simply based on their gender (because let’s be real honest here, I haven’t seen a single #Gamergater go after Activision, or Ubisoft, or Rockstar), and you definitely wouldn’t concoct ever-more wild conspiracy theories to support your increasingly flawed view of reality.”

“I’ve spent too long as a gamer, seen too much progress made, to let you tarnish that name,” Kluwe concludes. “I hope you all, every #Gamergater, picks up a debilitating case of genital warts. The rest of you — find a different hashtag.”

For comparison, this is what a guy wrote about Gamergate. And what happened to him? Absolutely nothing at all.

Felica Day posts about how she doesn't want to talk about it, gets attacked. A guy VICIOUSLY attacks Gamergate? Nothing.

So, you know, tell us some more about how GamerGate isn't targetting women. Please.

[Ephiral]

What's more, Felicia Day, supporter of gaming says she doesn't want to post about this because being doxxed will put her in real physical danger, and... yeah.

[kylie]

           Actually I can't decide if this goes better here or in the thread about firearms and Utah State.  But I think this does have something to do with the conversation about whether the group tends to keep producing threats as a sort of institutional purpose or tendency...  Or at least, whether and how people are able to recognize or talk about that in various circles.

           There is a rather interesting column now by Branko Marcetic in Salon.  I would say it actually has a few points. 

           Some of them, while related, are more using treatment of Islam lately as counterpoint -- thus, spoilered at the end for now.

1.  The sort of threats posed, multiple times already, by various people who have gathered around Gamergate, should be considered terrorism as much as any jihad ideology-related attack or pattern of threat.  At least, he would specify, for threats against civilians - though I'm a little dubious myself about just how broadly useful that distinction would be.

2.  Re #1, they often are not reported as such in our media.  They tend to be cast as merely about "death" or "murder," but not described as terrorism.  But oh hey, these are often young white guys and largely American-born citizens to boot?  If they're just domestic conservatives, it can't be reported as terrorism if they call up and threaten attacks with guns and pipe bombs on a specific location?  Or if they threaten to attack someone in their home over political speech? 
----
          Or...  Much in the same vein I might add, is the scope of the word "terrorism" now obviously too terrible to be applied to the Good Ol' Boys (represented here by certain very vocal young gamer cliques with often similar or offshoot ideologies)...  After all, it gives the police all sorts of dubiously constitutional powers if one buys that someone is really a terrorist.  But somehow this is at the same time not too awful a word to apply to Others like Muslims.  Or even -- among the GOB's and their more misogynist or paranoid kids -- it might still be okay for them to apply it to those feminists, speakers against rape culture at large, perhaps also affirmative action supporters, etc. or whoever they wish to silence?  Quite regardless of whether the fight is over say, who is threatening to use a bomb - and who is currently and already being treated as lesser or intimidated in public space. 

There's more to the column. 
But the rest take this all more into where discussion of armed rightists, and discussion of views of Islam and Muslims overlap.

3.  It's become in fashion for some to claim Islam itself and generally is somehow a hotbed of terrorist ideas.  On another level, in fact the government has been profiling, infiltrating and monitoring based on race and religion with a particular suspicion of Muslim communities at least (or if you prefer, especially) since 2001.  Yet there is less open scrutiny of largely White, and often enough male, conservative groups with ideologies that tend toward violence or quite vocal and active preparation for it (sometimes including violence against civilians). 

4.  Perhaps it is tricky to pin down exactly how many people in a given demographic are likely to be involved in terrorism or conspiracy with any real operational direction (I'm not much into chasing thought crimes myself)...  But there is certainly a double standard in both these folk movements against Islam qua anything Muslim generally and the institutional profiling and policing of (mostly) Muslims since 2001.  We have already seen how many conservatives get riled up if the government even mentions in documentation that it needs to be more active in chasing down right-wing armed and groups who often do make open claims of some interest in violence.  But oh, how many of the same speakers want us to believe there is some vast, sweeping faceless evil that permeates much of Muslim society left and right and cannot be understood or traced to social causes and international history -- because that might distract us from demonizing whole peoples and incarcerating without charge or intervening endlessly in foreign territory?

[Ephiral]

Yes, you've got it - "terrorist" only applies to Them, not to Us. Even if We are currently engaging in a campaign of violence and threats against civilians to incite fear and force political outcomes. Case in point: I recently saw an article that called the recent attack on Parliament Hill the first terror attack in Canada, and later mention the FLQ crisis with no apparent understanding of the contradiction.

[Oniya]

Case in point: I recently saw an article that called the recent attack on Parliament Hill the first terror attack in Canada, and later mention the FLQ crisis with no apparent understanding of the contradiction.

Translation for those south of the Great Lakes

A kidnapping of two government officials by the Front de libération du Québec in 1970, with the purported aim of obtaining the independence of Quebec.  Only time that the War Measures Act has been used in Canada during peacetime.

[Shjade]

For comparison, this is what a guy wrote about Gamergate. And what happened to him? Absolutely nothing at all.

Felica Day posts about how she doesn't want to talk about it, gets attacked. A guy VICIOUSLY attacks Gamergate? Nothing.

So, you know, tell us some more about how GamerGate isn't targetting women. Please.

Devil's advocate: doesn't this pattern actually suggest the threats are just coming from misogynists in general rather than anything to do with Gamergate, since they're attacking women consistently but GG's opposition only when it happens to coincide with a female target?

(I feel like I should note, I don't support the GG tag at all. It's just surrounded by too much bile to feel useful to me. However, I think attributing any and all attacks seemingly related to the topic to GG specifically shows a kind of tunnel vision that's detrimental to considering the situation in a reasonable fashion.)

[Slywyn]

This is how I feel when someone says that: http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_sake_of_argument.png

[Ephiral]

Devil's advocate: doesn't this pattern actually suggest the threats are just coming from misogynists in general rather than anything to do with Gamergate, since they're attacking women consistently but GG's opposition only when it happens to coincide with a female target?

(I feel like I should note, I don't support the GG tag at all. It's just surrounded by too much bile to feel useful to me. However, I think attributing any and all attacks seemingly related to the topic to GG specifically shows a kind of tunnel vision that's detrimental to considering the situation in a reasonable fashion.)

When they do so under the Gamergate banner, and Gamergate as a whole does nothing to repudiate them, then these women are Gamergate targets. No True Scotsman won't get you out of this.

[Oniya]

At the very least, it gives the impression that the 'true' Gamergaters don't give a crap.

[Callie Del Noire]

My take on this...

-There are relevant points on both sides.
-There are clear threats being put out.

Why I don't back the 'guy side'
-While they have some relevant points, some have done vile things. Cyberstalking folks for disagreeing with you? Oh you lose my backing there.
-Guys..the industry is big enough for everyone. You don't like a game.. don't buy it. 'Vote with your dollars'.


Bluntly put.. you don't police your sides actions, you can't deny them.

And till someone on the 'guy side' does that.. I'm not buying any of what they are selling. Sorry. The game industry is big enough for everyone. Money talks and truth be told while I like some shoot em ups.. I also like seeing things more 'balanced'.

Additionally:
I have a lot friends who just happen to be female who are gamers, and who I'd kill to protect. I got friends who are too fragile to deal with the sort of stress these griefers put on a person. I have a niece who is a bit of a gamer, and I'd kneecap some foul troll who did half the crap these guys have done to folks that publicly state what they are entitled to. Their opinion.

[Shjade]

When they do so under the Gamergate banner, and Gamergate as a whole does nothing to repudiate them, then these women are Gamergate targets. No True Scotsman won't get you out of this.

They did it under the Gamergate banner? All I've seen on the subject is Felicia was doxxed, not by whom or even where it happened.

Also, No True Scotsman doesn't matter to me - I'm not a Gamergate supporter. I'm simply pointing out that, in all the fervor to damn GG for every crime under the sun that happens around this issue, it seems like people are willfully overlooking other possibilities that explain events just as well.

To put it another way: GGers aren't the only ones who appear to be ignoring explanations that don't fit their beliefs.

[Ephiral]

It happened in the comments thread of the very article in which she explained why this was actually a real danger to her, under the username "gaimerg8". Please spend 30 seconds on Google before you sling accusations.

[kylie]

Additionally:
I have a lot friends who just happen to be female who are gamers, and who I'd kill to protect. I got friends who are too fragile to deal with the sort of stress these griefers put on a person. I have a niece who is a bit of a gamer, and I'd kneecap some foul troll who did half the crap these guys have done to folks that publicly state what they are entitled to. Their opinion.

         I haven't spent time poking around the site to check...  But this is the sort of impression I'm getting from reading talk and reports about it:  Maybe if even a larger fraction of the people frequently posting there would take the time to say things like this more often, then it would be easier to imagine that the community on the whole could, at least maybe, actually pursue some more balanced agenda of merit. 

         But instead, the reports appear to be that very few people speak up or demand the community mount any position or response beyond the vague, legalistic and general disclaimers the site already has.  When someone goes off threatening someone very specifically and even using things like physical addresses or mention of major crimes and weapons, there's very little opposed reaction on the site.  (Or is the reaction that's there, even often praising that sort of thing and seeing it as a pleasant brotherly banter?)  I'm getting the impression that's both on the community site itself, and in the broader and foggier "hashtag" community out there dragging out the name. 

        And while I imagine what goes on in various places under the hashtag might be rather more nebulous and sometimes more craven, that tag is also I think, implying it should be treated as "a big thing" with some sort of 'community' oriented political purpose under the same name.  Even if it may not totally overlap with all of the Gamergate site community?  So there's a problem on two levels:  1)  Any original balance the site might have had, is now terribly hard to see through all people have done in its name both on and off-site, and  2)  the "home" community as it were does not sound so strongly interested (as a group) in taking back a more balanced profile for its name either.

[Shjade]

It happened in the comments thread of the very article in which she explained why this was actually a real danger to her, under the username "gaimerg8". Please spend 30 seconds on Google before you sling accusations.

If you would kindly point out where, in any of my recent posts, I made any accusations about anything toward anyone, I'd appreciate it.

I spent more than 30 seconds on Google when it happened looking for more than people saying it happened and didn't find anything, so thanks for the update despite the unfriendly delivery.

[Skynet]

They did it under the Gamergate banner? All I've seen on the subject is Felicia was doxxed, not by whom or even where it happened.

Well, it happened within minutes of her expressing concerns about her welfare for speaking about GamerGate, so I kind of think that that's related.  Nevermind that the ex-football player Chris Kluwe said far worse things about GamerGate and did not get doxxed or threatened.

So I'd take an educated guess that the doxxers are misogynists using the climate of fear to their advantage to silence female critics, whether or not they believe in GamerGate's warped understanding of journalistic ethics.  Which kind of makes them no different than the original GGers who organized the personal vendetta against Zoe Quinn in the 4chan IRC logs.

Edit: Newsweek paid a media research company to do number-crunching on GamerGate tweets to see what the majority of advocates talk about.  The data shows that they tweet far more often about critics in the gaming world and game developers than the journalists they supposedly want scrutinized.  The women critics receive 14 times as much negative Tweets as their male counterparts, but I'm sure this is just an incredibly strange coincidence that has nothing to do with misogyny. ::)

GamerGate's most popular talking points

[Shjade]

On the one hand, those all sound like solid suppositions to make.

On the other, it seems like a chicken-egg thing: are those women being talked about the most because they're the targets, or are they targeted because they're talked about the most? Pretty much ALL coverage of this stuff has been about threats and harassed women, so it stands to reason that's where the conversation would sit regardless of the intent at this point. Also keep in mind people against GamerGate also use the tag in their tweets, and since pretty much all those people tend to be talking about are instances of harassment and reminding people "this is what GamerGate is about" etc., that'd tilt things considerably in the direction of that topic as well (unless your graph there takes that into account already somehow? someone parse every tagged tweet for content, or was it just a word search?).

Regarding Felicia vs Chris in particular, maybe I don't know as much about trolls as I think I do, but I'm pretty sure a timid, "soft" target seems like a perfect one to fire at, whereas Kluwe's latest piece basically is him raging already, so all you'd really have to say to it is, "u mad?" and your job is done. 'Cause really, how much more could you possibly piss him off? Not trying to say gender's a non-factor, just that it's probably not the only one, at least not in that specific instance.

All I'm trying to say is having an open mind isn't a terrible idea. Is it all bullshit excuses to hate on women? Probably, at least for some portion of their group. Is that any reason to become single-minded in thinking about it? I don't think so. But that's just me.

[Ephiral]

If you would kindly point out where, in any of my recent posts, I made any accusations about anything toward anyone, I'd appreciate it.

I'm simply pointing out that, in all the fervor to damn GG for every crime under the sun that happens around this issue, it seems like people are willfully overlooking other possibilities that explain events just as well.

To put it another way: GGers aren't the only ones who appear to be ignoring explanations that don't fit their beliefs.

Given that this was a response to me stating the facts, in a post questioning those facts, the accusation is clear despite your passive-aggressive waffling.

I spent more than 30 seconds on Google when it happened looking for more than people saying it happened and didn't find anything, so thanks for the update despite the unfriendly delivery.

This information was above the fold in a search for "felicia day doxxed". Considering that I simply stated facts and pointed out that the info in question can be had in under a minute using the most obvious search terms possible, while you decided to sling passive-aggressive accusations based in ignorance... you calling me "unfriendly" is more than slightly hypocritical.

On the one hand, those all sound like solid suppositions to make.

On the other, it seems like a chicken-egg thing: are those women being talked about the most because they're the targets, or are they targeted because they're talked about the most? Pretty much ALL coverage of this stuff has been about threats and harassed women, so it stands to reason that's where the conversation would sit regardless of the intent at this point. Also keep in mind people against GamerGate also use the tag in their tweets, and since pretty much all those people tend to be talking about are instances of harassment and reminding people "this is what GamerGate is about" etc., that'd tilt things considerably in the direction of that topic as well (unless your graph there takes that into account already somehow? someone parse every tagged tweet for content, or was it just a word search?).

You're right! That's quite a conundrum. If only there were some way to resolve it - like, say, evidence that some of them were targeted from pretty much moment one. Or maybe a preexisting harassment campaign, started the moment a relatively low-profile woman announced that she would be talking about video games and feminism, which Gamergate gleefully jumped on board with? Or maybe a comparison between when someone became a topic and when the rape and death threats started. If only!

Regarding Felicia vs Chris in particular, maybe I don't know as much about trolls as I think I do, but I'm pretty sure a timid, "soft" target seems like a perfect one to fire at, whereas Kluwe's latest piece basically is him raging already, so all you'd really have to say to it is, "u mad?" and your job is done. 'Cause really, how much more could you possibly piss him off? Not trying to say gender's a non-factor, just that it's probably not the only one, at least not in that specific instance.

There's an easy way to test this hypothesis: Find a woman who takes a hard-line stance and gets ignored. Find a man who takes a mild stance and gets threats of rape and death. If you can do this, there may be some validity; now let's look for the pattern. If you can't, that's pretty strong disconfirmation.

I can't; can you?

All I'm trying to say is having an open mind isn't a terrible idea. Is it all bullshit excuses to hate on women? Probably, at least for some portion of their group. Is that any reason to become single-minded in thinking about it? I don't think so. But that's just me.

There's a point where you've opened your mind so much your brains fall out. What you're arguing here is the modern-day equivalent of "At least Mussolini made the trains run on time."
[/quote]

[Shjade]

It's not even close to that, but it's pretty clear you're more interested in taking it out on me than talking about it, so I think I'll just leave you to your fuming. Thanks anyway.

[Kythia]

Englishman, Irishman and a Scotsman walk in to a bar.

Barman says "Is this some sort of joke"

"Bu-dum" and indeed "ching".

[consortium11]

I had a long, thoughtful, detailed, excellent (if I do say so myself...) post all written up and ready to go and then through a combination of my own incompetence and a drunken Saturday night managed to lose it in a way that even Lazarus can't save... so I'll guess you'll have to take my word for it. Here's the bullet points version:

1) "Just change the tag"

I wonder if people who ask for this have actually followed this story... because it's exactly what happened. This wasn't called #Gamergate to begin with; people organized around the #quinnspiracy tag. Why did they move to Gamergate? Because #quinnspiricy was loaded with the sort of misogyny and abuse that we all decry and they wanted a clean start with Gamergate to focus on journalistic ethics, collusion and the attacks of the gamer identity.

Unsurprisingly for anyone involved, people just dismissed Gamergate as a rebranding exercise and the trolls and abusers changed to using it as soon as the term gained traction. Thus here we are. Changing the tag would change nothing beyond losing momentum; the abuse and trolls would just follow it as they did before.

2) "Gamergate was never about ethics."

If this was never about ethics, then The Escapist, Polygon and Kotaku would not have updated their ethical policies in the wake of it. If it was never about ethics then those who oppose Gamergate have the perfect chance to prove it by satisfying those ethical concerns; if they did and Gamergate continued as did the abuse then they'd have their answer. But the ethical concerns aren't being answered.

3) "We all care about journalistic ethics, but you don't need Gamergate to do so".

Since Gamergate started Gamergate supporters have revealed the ethical issues relating to Patricia Hernandez giving extensive coverage and recommendations to buy for her friends, former housemates and seemingly former partners games without mentioning the connection. They've revealed Danielle Riendeau being close friends with the composer of a game she reviewed (and gave 10/10) without disclosing it. They revealed the ethical issues relating to Shadows of Mordor. They revealed the existence of GameJournalPro's. They revealed the collusion that went on in there. They revealed the quite possibly illegal blacklisting that occurred in there. They revealed the repeated patreon and kickstarter support journalists gave to games they then gave coverage and reviews to without mentioning it. They revealed that Grayson did enough work on Depression Quest to be thanked in the credits by Quinn without mentioning it in his glowing coverage of the game and recommendation for others to buy it. They revealed even more coverage he gave to his friends without disclosing his connections.

Since Gamergate started the ethical issues those not supporting Gamergate have revealed?

...

...

Yeah...

4) "Gamergate is a movement, Gamergate opposition isn't... it's Gamergate vs everyone."

This is a multi-part answer.

A) "Us and them" positions rarely help anyone.

B) The facts don't back this up. Gaymer X said it was neutral and, unsurprisingly considering it's goal, that everyone was welcome. It was pressured by those opposed to Gamergate to instead declare itself against Gamergate (including by someone directly implicated in Gamergate ethics issues). When Gamersgate, having received months of abuse, noted that it had nothing to do with Gamergate it was immediately met by demands that it come out against Gamergate. If everyone who didn't support Gamergate was automatically against it there would be no need to do this.

C) There are places like "gamerghazi" and "AgainstGamerGate". There are forums and areas specifically dedicated to opposing Gamergate. There are people regarded as leaders for those opposed to Gamergate. There were hashtags like #stopGamerGate2014 and #againstgamergate. If Gamergate... which consists of essentially a hashtag, a reddit sub-forum and an 8chan board constitutes a movement, so does the opposition.

5) "Gamergate does nothing to stop the abuse."

The major gamergate reddit has strict rules against abuse or doxxing. Both it and the 8chan board ban and remove any doxxing that gets posted. Gamergate supporters have been at the front of reporting offensive and abusive twitter accounts. The one serial abuser of Anita's to be publicly identified and reported was identified and reported by Gamergate supporters... this was a man constantly sending her dick pics, abusing her and sending death threats. Surprise, surprise he had nothing to do with Gamergate. At pretty much every turn Gamergate supporters are both apologizing for and doing what they can to stop the abuse. Those opposed to Gamergate? Not so much.

We've had Zoe Quinn herself come out and thank Gamergate supporters for reporting and preventing abuse. Likewise with this most recent doxxing outbreak; again, even those opposed to Gamergate acknowledge that it has been Gamergate supporters leading the fightback against the abusers and doxxers. There's a reason the #GamerGateHarrassmentPatrol tag is both popular and making news.

6) "Gamergate is behind the abuse"

The person who doxxed and threatened Brianna Wu, largely kicking off the abuse aspect of this discussion? His tweets didn't mention Gamergate once. Yet now it is an article of faith that it was Gamergate behind it. We've recently seen a mass doxxing attempt with most of the targets were anti-gamergate journalists; Gamergate right? No... it was the GNAA (warning; their full name features racially offensive terms) who fully admit to it. Much of the abuse and doxxing that has happened to both sides can be traced back to either the GNAA or Something Awful's Goonsquad, both of whom have history when it comes to this and trolling both sides of a debate. The previously mentioned Brazilian journalist who was one of Anita's most prominent abusers? Nothing to do with Gamergate. And Brianna Wu posted showing a group of people on 8chan seemingly organising a doxxing attack and abusive raid on her? Each of the posts had the same user-ID; they were by the same person replying to themselves and thus a pretty obvious troll.

If there's one good thing that's come out of this most recent spurt of doxxing's, it's that it should largely put to bed the idea that Gamergate is behind all of the abuse (unless you're an anti-Gamergater on Gamerghazi in which case you'll proudly post about how you're willing to lie and say it was gamergaters behind it even though you "don't doubt for a second" that it has nothing to do with them).). Likewise the inclusion of a couple of pro-gamergate people in the list of targets should remind people that prominent Gamergate supporters have also been doxxed and abused; knives and syringes sent to them in the post, one was forced from his home, another was threatened with their trans status being revealed to their family, another having someone post his home address and threaten to kill his wife so he'd have to mourn etc etc. That's only a couple of examples out of a much greater whole.

That's not to say that some people who can legitimately be called Gamergaters haven't been involved in abuse; as I've always said Gamergate is both the ethical issues and the abuse. But it's neither endemic to the whole movement or completely one-sided.

7) The Newsweek article.

Despite being presented as anti-gamergate, this should end once and for all the idea that Gamergate is all about harassing prominent women. Brandwatch analyzed around 500,000 #gamergate tweets (25% of over 2,000,000 but we'll keep the numbers low to help out the anti-Gamergate side). Of those Anita Sarkeesian got 35,188, Zoe Quinn 10,700, Brianna Wu 38,952 and Leigh Alexander 13,296. So, as a starting point, if we take the bare minimum of 500,000 tweets then only 19.6% were directed at the prominent women. But we have to look at more than that. What was the context of those tweets? In the graph handily provided it was made clear than less than 10% of the tweets any of those people received were negative. Even if we take massively round up the numbers to 10% for each that means that of the Gamergate tweets only 1.9% were negative towards those women, the rest being positive or neutral. Less than 2%! And let's also remember that the study doesn't appear to define what "negative" means; I'd assume that something along the lines of "I really hate what @Anita does" is classed as a negative tweet but would anyone call it harassment or abuse?

So the end result of the study by Brandwatch? Less than 2% of #Gamergate tweets are aimed at prominent women and negative (and remember, that's rounding up the abuse to 10% for each). In reality less than that are going to be harassment or abuse.

That right there is statistical proof that #Gamergate isn't about harassing or abusing prominent female journalists/personalities/developers.

People like to question Gamergate's motives. Let me do some questioning of my own...

I wonder what happened to the idea of intersectionality when anti-Gamergate people are minimising or ignoring minority voices that come out in support of it (again I recommend this article on how black voices have been whitewashed out of the conversation, predominantly by a largely white headed anti-gamergate movement). I wonder what happened to encouraging minorities in the game industry when a black developer was doxxed and fired for being prominent in #NotYourShield. I wonder what happened to protecting minorities online when a gamergate supporter can be doxxed and have threats to publicise their trans status made against them. I wonder what happened to the idea that it was never right to punch down on those with less privilege then you when the white, CIS-male, millionaire with a massive media platform Chris Kluwe can say black people are "just like the KKK". I wonder why it is that Chris Kluwe can call someone like Boogie2988... a man who in many ways is the stereotype of a "gamer" that so many people like to bully and abuse, a man who's most popular youtube video is a slow-mo of him falling into a pool (and the comments section is as massively fat shaming as you'd imagine) and a man who had to put up with being doxxed and his wife threatened... a "slopebrowed weaseldick" or a "slackjawed pickletit" or a variety of other imaginative insults and be praised for it by people who loudly proclaim their interest in social justice. I wonder what happened to the opposition to doxxing when Zoe Quinn... Zoe Quinn of all people... can happily retweet a document including an opponent's address and photos of their house to her many followers. I wonder what happened to preventing harassment online when someone can promote and encourage others to file frivolous police complaints against someone and get pats on the back. I wonder what happened to social justice when supposed social justice advocates rally around Gawker... Gawker that largely popularised the idea of doxxing celebrities, Gawker that still has humiliating leaked/hacked celebrity photos up despite the Fappening, Gawker that refused a court order to take down an illegally obtained celebrity sex tape, Gawker that has engaged in doxxing and online harassment campaigns before, Gawker that is frankly a pretty awful place.

Far too often the people on both sides of this debate have become exactly that "sides". It's good vs evil and everything that supports your "side" or gives the other "side" a black eye is good, however ethically dubious. Perhaps that's why those who are opposed to Gamergate haven't given credit to the ethical issues discovered (or discovered any themselves)... because they think doing so gives legitimacy to the "enemy". Likewise perhaps that's why some on the side of Gamergate are so insistent on saying all the threats the like of Anita and Brianna Wu are either faked or entirely false flags or spend far too long discussing "OMG, look Anita just didn't win an award/OMG look what she just posted". It's why people on the side of Gamergate pretend it's entirely about ethics and those opposed to it say it's entirely about harassment. Because to accept the truth... that's it's both... is giving ground to the "enemy" and you know... we can't have that...

Even if it does involve betray what you're supposed to stand for.

Edit: Just to add, TotalBiscuit's thoughts largely follow my own; text version here, audio version here.

[Shjade]

I stopped paying attention to GG for a while (frankly burning out after this long trying to keep up with the shitstorm) so I'm a few days behind, at the least. That said, this might be my new favorite piece on the subject, specifically regarding the "get personal politics out of game criticism" demand which, out of all the non-harassment, non-sexist demands of the tag, is probably the dumbest.

I’ve seen the @femfreq videos as well, and I’ve commented on them previously. When I did so, I got a deluge of exactly this type of response: “But she’s cherry-picking her evidence!” “Her views are biased!” “Everything about those videos is garbage, and she needs to be stopped!”

Okay. Let’s pretend for a moment that, for those of you who feel this way, you’re absolutely right. My question is this:

Why the fuck do you even care?

[Caehlim]

Since Gamergate started the ethical issues those not supporting Gamergate have revealed?

You mean... since last month?

They revealed that Grayson did enough work on Depression Quest to be thanked in the credits by Quinn without mentioning it in his glowing coverage of the game and recommendation for others to buy it.

An odd revelation to make. Since if you actually read Grayson's article in Kotaku magazine (http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284) it's entirely about a group of game designers' experience with a reality TV show.

Is their idea of 'glowing coverage':

"(and corroborating testimonials from Depression Quest creator Zoe Quinn, SoundSelf maestro Robin Arnott, and traveling indie of all the hats Adriel Wallick)"
or
"YouTube personality JonTron and Depression Quest creator Zoe Quinn butted heads during the Let's Play challenge, and they decided to resolve their differences with a discussion off-set."
(Grayson, 2014)

which are literally the only two times the article in question mentions her game.

[Caehlim]

^ Note: This isn't to imply that this is the entirety of your argument. Merely the parts that I thought were problematic and had the appropriate research to address. ^

I just want to acknowledge that there was more information and nuance to your post that I have not yet had time to review or address fully so that I'm not taking you out of context there.

[consortium11]

You mean... since last month?

About two/three months ago actually.

And if Gamegate supporters... basically a collection of people with access to the internet... can discover all of that in that time, why couldn't others with far more access and resources? Why couldn't they discover that Patricia Hernandez was giving publicity for and recommendations to buy games for her friends, ex-housemates and possibly ex-partners without making any note of it? Why couldn't they reveal the existence of GameJournoPro's? Why weren't they finding out about the Shadows of Mordor issues? We're not talking hardcore investigative journalism here... but it was still seemingly still too much like hard work for the "we all care about ethics, you just don't need Gamergate to do it" people.

The websites in question now pretty much all accept that journalists funding games through Kickstarter/Patreon and then giving them coverage gives at the very least the perception of bias. The fact they've gone through articles to retroactively add a "Note: XXXX is a friend of mine" where there was no mention before shows that they accept not doing so before was wrong. GameJournoPro's existed well before Gamergate and, self-evidently, many of the members of the gaming press were at least aware of it and a significant number aware of the coordinated coverage and blacklisting aspects of it. Yet it took Gamergate supporters to discover these ethical issues and publicise them... the "we all care about ethics, you just don't need Gamergate to do it" had all the time before Gamergate and the entirety of Gamergate's existence to do so... they didn't.

An odd revelation to make. Since if you actually read Grayson's article in Kotaku magazine (http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284) it's entirely about a group of game designers' experience with a reality TV show.

Is their idea of 'glowing coverage':

"(and corroborating testimonials from Depression Quest creator Zoe Quinn, SoundSelf maestro Robin Arnott, and traveling indie of all the hats Adriel Wallick)"
or
"YouTube personality JonTron and Depression Quest creator Zoe Quinn butted heads during the Let's Play challenge, and they decided to resolve their differences with a discussion off-set."
(Grayson, 2014)

which are literally the only two times the article in question mentions her game.

You're seemingly a couple of weeks behind the discussion.

Here's the article in question.

It's written by Nathan Grayson.

Its title is a pun on the name Depression Quest.

It uses a screenshot of Depression Quest as its illustrative screenshot.

While discussing a list of 50 or so Steam Greenlight games, it states "Anyway, standouts: powerful Twine darling Depression Quest".

Nowhere does it mention that Nathan Grayson was involved in the development of Depression Quest enough to be thanked in the credits and for Zoe Quinn to say the game would be dead in the water without him.

This has been known about for going on weeks now (again, discovered by Gamergater supporters... the "we all care about ethics, you just don't need Gamergate to do it" people managed to somehow miss it) and the article is still up, unamended. You can go and play Depression Quest (for free online) and see Nathan Grayson mentioned in the credits. Zoe Quinn says he was a tester, Grayson disputes that but then said he did do early testing and sent recommendations and bug reports back... regardless he did enough to be mentioned in the credits and made no mention of it when giving the game coverage.

[Ephiral]

Okay, yeah. My last post was off the rails and not terribly fair. I... won't stand behind that, and I'm sorry. It's clear to me now that I let my anger at the abuse get the better of me, and blind me to what was actually being said. My apologies to everyone here who had to deal with that, and I'll conduct myself better from here on out.



Consortium, I've had some time to think about my issues with Gamergate's claims to be about ethics, and here's a large part of it: their actions are actually against ethics.

What's the single biggest ethical issue in journalism today, and in games journalism in particular? Advertisers (and, in games journalism, the game companies being covered) dictating coverage, threatening to pull dollars (and advance copies and access to inside information) unless they get the coverage they want, up to and including straight-up PR releases disguised as articles.

What is Gamergate's primary go-to tactic to stop journalism they don't like? Attack the ad revenue - try to force the change by tying it to advertising dollars.

When a doctor abused her position to publicly diagnose someone who was not her patient with STDs based on extremely spurious evidence - something that, I hope you'll agree, is a serious ethical violation - and Rebecca Watson called her out on it, what was Gamergate's response? Why, to lie about Watson, attack her, and even start a petition trying to cause damage to her professional life.

So it's nice that some stuff has come to light in the wake of all this, but... the only ethics issues and lies Gamergate has a problem with are the ones it doesn't like. Clearly, "ethics" is not a terminal value; honestly, I'm not even sure it holds up as a value period in light of their actions.

On the tag: Claiming that anyone is saying "Just change the tag!" is pretty disingenuous. What I, for one, was suggesting was "Build a new movement and make it clear, personally and publicly, that people like, say, Paul Elam are not welcome. Disavow them. Refuse their support. Speak out vsibly against them if they spew toxic bullshit in your name. In short, don't let them define or hijack it. That's a lot more work than just changing the tag - but it's vital work if you don't want the abuse to define your movement.

[Shjade]

Okay, my last post? Disregard that.

Popehat's 10 rants about #GamerGate is by far the most informative, even-handed and devastating writeup of the entire situation I've read so far. Ken's pulling no punches and taking no sides; he wrecks everybody's shit, and with good reason.

It's not just the post itself, either. Those links he uses along the way go to some devastating and relevant posts from years ago: covering for/defending abusers in the BDSM community, harassment at writing conventions and how complaints about overtly sexist remarks and articles by the SFWA were called "censorship" and "banning," and on and on.

I'm really only up to point 3 of the Popehat 10 rants because I keep getting rabbit-holed down these other fascinating and disappointing conversations about sexism and harassment and free speech and all kinds of elements that play into the current situation and it's pretty much all great stuff. I'll probably be at this most of the day at this rate.

Some highlights:

GamerGate is label-heavy, and labels are lazy, obfuscating bullshit.

Labels are supposed to be shorthand for collections of ideas. I might say "I am libertarian-ish" because it's not practical to go around announcing the whole array of views I hold about demolishing public roads and privatizing the air force and so forth. This, up to a point, is useful.
...
#GamerGate dialogue relies heavily on labels — feminist, gamer, MRA, SJW, and so forth. That's why it's mostly noise. I've used labels before, and when I have, what I've written has been mostly noise. Labels are an excellent way to vent outrage, but a lousy way to argue about ideas or facts.

...

When people complain that they are being associated with misogyny and threats for waving the #GamerGate banner, I feel (on a different scale) about the way I do when people complain that they are being misjudged for flying the Confederate battle flag. Sure, maybe it means Southern pride and heritage to some of them. But I'm not sympathetic when many see it another way based on its history. If you fly the Confederate battle flag, people may reasonably think you intend to send a message that contradicts your spoken claims of harmony and equality.

This is stuff a lot of people have been saying about GG pretty much from the get-go, ever since the point where "it's about ethics" started being A Thing. I just find it a much more direct and instructive explanation than most offer on the subject and, perhaps more noteworthy, it's coming from a source that isn't anti-GG, unlike most who broach the subject. When I say "isn't anti-GG," I don't just mean "he's not directly, openly opposed to GamerGate," I mean this is a guy who, when I asked him who he thought had the best summation of how GamerGate started, directed me to an amateur gaming enthusiast's blog post which, though well-written, was decidedly in support of GG: Daddy Warpig's blog, to be specific. Popehat's recommendation was single-handedly responsible for my stepping back and taking a less condemnation-focused view of GG's ostensible goals, even if I still find them by and large reprehensible for a variety of reasons. That someone with that perspective is the one calling them out for this shit seems, to me at least, a significant difference from the norm when this is the topic of conversation.

Does he go on to take a machete to things like Chris Kluwe's latest shit-spewing at GG or the anti-GG propensity toward ad hominem being on par with GG's? You bet your ass he does, and none of it's undeserved. This kind of behavior is what pushes me away from ever wanting to describe myself as "anti-GG." Not fear of reprisal, not wanting to avoid forming some opposed movement - it's just not wanting to be associated with people who think the right way to call out assholes is to be assholes themselves. Does not compute.

[consortium11]

I really rate Popehat in general and his blog (or at least the bits Ken White writes, I'm less interested in most of the other stuff); he's both an informative and entertaining writer while also having a great grasp of the law; for anyone with an interest in free speech laws (both in theory and practice) in the US it's pretty much vital reading. It's also a good example of how one shouldn't judge merely by what allies one has or always go with your own "side" regardless of the truth; Ken himself is a Christian libertarian(ish) person but he's friendly with PZ Meyers and, for something directly connected with Gamergate, has previously both called out Mike Cernovich (the "alpha male" lawyer dude who's become something of a lightning rod in this), linked to Mike's stuff in a positive way and with regards to Gamergate mocked many of those insulting/abusing/harassing Mike.

I think there's a couple of slight inaccuracies there; notably he somewhat misinterprets what #NotYourShield was about; while some have undoubtedly used it in a "some of my friends are black therefore we're not racist" sense, it was largely set up to point out that "gamers" weren't a single unified, homogenous whole and that (predominantly male, largely exclusively white or Asian) journalists shouldn't deflect criticism about censorship and ethics by attacking gamers as being racist and misogynistic; don't speak for me to defend yourself; I am not your shield. That said for someone who admittedly has been on the periphery of this and not really involved it's a very balanced article.

[Shjade]

While that may have been the ostensibly intended meaning of NotYourShield, two things:

1 - observing how its creation was suggested in a -chan thread suggests that it is, pretty much, intended to be used as an "I can't be misogynist, look at all these women on my side" deflection

2 - that's almost always how I see the tag actually used, regardless of why it may have been created


The whole "GamerGate is all young white men" thing is definitely an issue - people need to stop saying that stupid crap when it is both provably false and, far more importantly, irrelevant (misogyny is misogyny, it shouldn't matter the source) - but #NotYourShield is almost equally bullshit.

[Ephiral]

Yeah, looking at its origin, #NotYourShield was never about stopping deflection - it was deflection from its creation, a way for Gamergate to say "Nuh-uh! You're the real bigot!"

In other news, the numbers are in, and they're pretty damning for any claim that Gamergate isn't heavily skewed to harassment.

So, to recap, we have:

-The earliest, founding discussions of the movement, focused around hating on, attacking, and doing horrible things to a female games dev.
-Primary tactics that actually further violate journalistic ethics.
-Protection of others who commit ethics breaches, against non-games non-journalist women.
-Output from Gamergate heavily skewed toward targeting women, so much so that just two non-journalist female targets outweigh the combined total of traffic targeted at journalists or news orgs.
-Continuing silence on the biggest and most well-known journalistic-ethics issue there is.

At what point can we put "It's about ethics!" and "It does some good too, it's not a bad thing!" to bed?

(A tip of the invisible hat to Steampunkette for the link.)

[Caehlim]

You're seemingly a couple of weeks behind the discussion.

Here's the article in question.

Apparently so, I did wonder what all the fuss what about. Thankyou for pointing out the right article, I feel a little silly now but at least I can understand why people were objecting.

Nowhere does it mention that Nathan Grayson was involved in the development of Depression Quest enough to be thanked in the credits and for Zoe Quinn to say the game would be dead in the water without him.

Yes. That's quite a conflict of interest. I'd be okay with it if the article at least declared his involvement but without it its pretty unethical. (Though frankly nothing special in the journalism world... unfortunately. This sort of tabloid journalism isn't just in the gaming industry but it's good to kick up a fuss about it or else it'll never change).

[consortium11]

In other news, the numbers are in, and they're pretty damning for any claim that Gamergate isn't heavily skewed to harassment.

I'll get a full reply to your earlier post up later but this needs mentioning now.

The numbers actually show the exact opposite; of the tweets that mention the people in the study (100,576 of over 500,000... we'll use 500,000 for simplicity... or 20.1% of the total) the vast, vast, vast majority (90%+) are either neutral or positive. Even if we round up the "negative" tweets to be 10% of all tweets (noting that actual figures are between 5% and 10% for each individual) that means a grand total of just over 2% of the tweets aimed at those people relating to Gamergate are "negative". Note, "negative" not "harassment"; without the strict methodology we can't tell how the tweets are classified but I'd imagine a tweet simply saying someone doesn't like say Anita's analysis would be classed as negative but would we class that as harassment?

So, even if we do view every negative tweet as harassment then we're still left with just over 2% of all Gamergate tweets being harassment of the prominent individuals... hardly "heavily skewed to harassment". In reality, depending on how something being "negative" is classified, chances are it's less than that.

What the study does show is that people comment towards Anita, Leigh Alexander, Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn then they do Stephen Totilo or Nathan Grayson and that could possibly be used to argue that the focus is seemingly more on developers and commentators than on reporters/journalists. But the counter to that would be that the previously mentioned names are much more active on twitter in relation to gamergate and generally have a larger profile anyway (at 191,000 followers Sarkeesian has over 30 times more than Grayson for example); it seems logical that when someone is more actively engaging in the Gamergate conversation and has a high profile they'll get more replies about it. Without having more details of the study such as the context of the tweets (were they in reply to Gamergate tweets by the participants? Out of the blue? Etc etc) it's hard to draw too many conclusions.

That said, I wouldn't deny that far too much focus has gone on to Anita and Brianna. While Zoe is involved in some of the ethical issues (although the blame there falls on Grayson) and Leigh did the most hateful of the "gamers are dead" articles that took everything up a gear, Anita's not directly involved in ethical side of Gamer Gate beyond some exasperation that her analysis is largely left uncontested or subject to further analysis by high profile gaming journalists and commentators and Brianna Wu' sent a mocking tweet and was then subjected to abuse which thrust her into the spotlight. I'm not going to whitewash the entire movement... even beyond the abuse (and as the stats show, that's only a small part) many are using it as an excuse to delve into the "culture war" element... I have no doubt that's why someone like Milo from Breitbart first got involved; they see this as their battleground against the modern brand of Feminism someone like Anita has come to represent and signify, their chance to take a swing at "social justice warriors". It's not an aspect I like... as previously mentioned while I disagree with much of Anita's analysis I think it's interesting and certainly should be allowed even if I do agree that it's somewhat disappointing that there have been so few dissenting voices or opposing opinions offered by the mainstream publications... but it is there and part of Gamergate.

[Ephiral]

So... if it isn't about ethics, and it isn't about harassment despite the ridiculous shit being thrown at non-journalist women in the name of Gamergate... what is it about, then? Because... again, the overwhelming balance of evidence doesn't support the "ethics!" explanation.

[Shjade]

Leigh did the most hateful of the "gamers are dead" articles that took everything up a gear

I'm curious how you measure "most hateful" given that Leigh's article never even says "gamers are dead" once.

https://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/gamers-are-dead-article-analysis/ Go ahead and compare/contrast with the others. Personally, I found Arthur Chu's the "most hateful" of the bunch, but he hardly gets any flak for it. It's always about Leigh.

[Shjade]

So apparently Anita Sarkeesian's going to be on The Colbert Report tonight.

Enjoy.

[Orange Marmalade]

So apparently Anita Sarkeesian's going to be on The Colbert Report tonight.

Enjoy.

It was a hilarious. She couldn't even name three video games.

Which I guess isn't entirely unexpected since she's lied about her 'gamer' history since the beginning.

[Caehlim]

It was a hilarious. She couldn't even name three video games.

Haven't seen the interview, but that seems odd. Couldn't she have just listed three that she covered in her videos?

[Shjade]

She could have, but since in the past she's been criticized for cherry picking her examples or focusing only on negative games when there are so many that do it "right" or etc. etc. I'm not surprised she avoided going down the route of "let's just list specific games."

It's not that she couldn't, she just didn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L_Wmeg7OTU


Alternatively, could be she froze up talking to freaking Stephen Colbert on network TV. I'd probably have a hard time naming names if put on the spot in that situation. #NameThreeGames is cute and all, but it's much easier to name three games at home on Twitter than it is on live TV being comic-badgered.

[Orange Marmalade]

Or it could be that she's a crook, a fraud, and a liar. Go watch the video of her circulating from before she started begging for money on Kickstarter. She's no gamer. She just saw an opportunity and went for it and has been a professional victim ever since.

[Kythia]

begging for money on Kickstarter

What, errrrm, what do you think Kickstarter is for?

[Ebb]

It was a hilarious. She couldn't even name three video games.

Which I guess isn't entirely unexpected since she's lied about her 'gamer' history since the beginning.

It seemed to me more that she wanted to avoid focusing the discussion on particular instances of games rather than addressing the general landscape. Not that Colbert was a hostile interviewer, although of course that's the persona that he takes on, but I could see that this is a conversation she's had before in less ideal circumstances, and she's no doubt developed defensive habits.

Or it could be that she's a crook, a fraud, and a liar. Go watch the video of her circulating from before she started begging for money on Kickstarter. She's no gamer. She just saw an opportunity and went for it and has been a professional victim ever since.

I have to say that this seems particularly vitriolic and uncalled for. I haven't followed GamerGate incredibly closely, but this sort of comment seems exactly like the kind of thing that consortium11, for example, is saying should not be taken as representative of the movement. Would you agree with his assessment?

[Bloodied Porcelain]

It seemed to me more that she wanted to avoid focusing the discussion on particular instances of games rather than addressing the general landscape. Not that Colbert was a hostile interviewer, although of course that's the persona that he takes on, but I could see that this is a conversation she's had before in less ideal circumstances, and she's no doubt developed defensive habits.

I have to say that this seems particularly vitriolic and uncalled for. I haven't followed GamerGate incredibly closely, but this sort of comment seems exactly like the kind of thing that consortium11, for example, is saying should not be taken as representative of the movement. Would you agree with his assessment?

+1 to all of this. I haven't been taking part in the conversation here, but have been reading along.

[MHaji]

Gamergaters tend to rely on laundry lists of weak pieces of evidence, rather than finding any one piece of evidence that actually stands up. This creates the impression of a "body of evidence" or a massive conspiracy. But if you add together a lot of very bad evidence, you don't suddenly get a reasonable conclusion just because you have so much lousy evidence.

Example:

Consider the claim that mailing list posts represents unethical collusion. Now, before Gamergate, we'd have seen this list the same way we see any other professional mailing list: a place where people in a field talk to each other. But look, a smoking gun! Someone posted their concerns about harassment, which makes them an SJW! And then some people agreed! MORE SJWS! And then a bunch of people used the old "Death of X" trope to talk about a group identifier of declining relevance.

Some people, seeing these messages, draw the obvious conclusion: A bunch of journalists saw a trend, talked to each other about it, and then did their jobs. But it takes a Gamergater to turn "professional discussion" into some sort of collusive conspiracy. I've seen more collusion at science conferences. Hell, I've seen more collusion on message boards.

("But... but all of those Death of Gamers articles! COLLUSION!"

First off, "Death of X" is an old journalistic cliche, something people use whenever a group identity seems to be decreasingly relevant. Second, lots of people writing similar commentary is how news moments tend to work. Finally, the word "gamer" really is declining in relevance as a useful way of grouping people, unless you recast it in exclusionary ways and talk about who isn't a "real gamer." That's what people mean by the "death of gamers" - that gamers are no longer some specific demographic to be catered to exclusively.)

Another prominent (set of) example(s):

Just about every "friends list" showing how someone in game journalism "knew someone" in game-making is dubious. You know all those giant wall-of-text posts with arrows and circles showing friends of friends and so on? Bullshit.

To say "knowing people in the industry you cover" is an ethics breach would pretty much eliminate every major film critic of the last century. In journalism, knowing people is an asset, and yes, that includes knowing them closely, having long-standing friendships, sending letters back and forth, and so on. As for demands to disclose non-commercial relationships ("This person knew the composer of a game they reviewed highly!"), I think Gamergaters should talk to some actual journalists about what actually constitutes a conflict of interest. The answers may surprise them!

To satisfy Gamergaters, every review would have to prefaced with such an exhaustive list of "people who are friends of my friends" so as to render actual conflict of interest statements irrelevant.

This digging for tangential links has already had a toxic effect. The changes to Kotaku's ethics policies were not an improvement, but rather caving to bullying. Saying that journalists can no longer contribute to Patreons for games and developers they like, in an attempt to prevent some kind of bizarro "reverse bribery," does not promote ethics. What it does do is prevent people who are passionate about games from monetarily supporting games they like, without doing anything to affect the parties that really have worrisome pull on journalists - larger games companies, advertisers, and so on.

[Orange Marmalade]

I have to say that this seems particularly vitriolic and uncalled for. I haven't followed GamerGate incredibly closely, but this sort of comment seems exactly like the kind of thing that consortium11, for example, is saying should not be taken as representative of the movement. Would you agree with his assessment?

No, I wouldn't agree with it at all.

She came in talking about how terrible games are to women, and saying how she's been a gamer all her life and how she's seen this first hand since forever. Yet before Kickstarter she was giving speeches in her classes about how she doesn't play games because they're icky and involve shooting people.

She's a liar. She's a crook. She's a cheat. She also has nothing to do with GamerGate or ethics in journalism, but she hopped on the bandwagon the moment something started taking focus away from her Professional Victimhood.

[Ephiral]

Thank you, Orange Marmalade, for explaining in such succinct and stark fashion why feminism still needs to be a thing. It is much appreciated.

[Shjade]

She came in talking about how terrible games are to women, and saying how she's been a gamer all her life and how she's seen this first hand since forever. Yet before Kickstarter she was giving speeches in her classes about how she doesn't play games because they're icky and involve shooting people.

She's a liar. She's a crook. She's a cheat. She also has nothing to do with GamerGate or ethics in journalism, but she hopped on the bandwagon the moment something started taking focus away from her Professional Victimhood.

If we assume this is true, that when she mentioned in a class that she doesn't play games because they're icky and violent she meant she never has and never would play games (rather than, say, she doesn't play games right now because the majority of them are games she doesn't like, an assessment that suggests she's been playing games up to this point to notice the trend going in a direction that doesn't appeal to her away from, say, nonviolent platformers or puzzle games), it indicates she's a liar.

Where is your evidence of her being a crook or a cheat? Even if she's lying about being a gamer, you don't have to be a gamer to assess and critique games, which is all she's said she would do and, indeed, is what she has done. What's illegal about that, exactly?

Also, what did she do to you, personally, to get you so upset about this?

Related: how do you feel about Milo, who openly insulted gamers within a couple months of GamerGate starting and then, suddenly, had a change of heart and "sympathizes" with gamers and their cause? Is he also a liar, a crook and a cheat jumping on an opportunity, or is that obviously legit and I shouldn't question him because he "apologized" and clearly is sincere about wanting to help gamers now?

[Slywyn]

The comments on anything feminism justify feminism. How apt a quote.

[Chris Brady]

You know what's really sad about this Gamergate thing?  That it took over 20 years to realize that game developers have been getting death threats and that's wrong.  And yes, it's been over 20 years.  And Ms. Quinn and all them have not been the first.  I remember reading about Nintendo's execs getting hate MAIL.  As in SNAIL MAIL.  That's how far back it goes.  And a couple of months ago, I remember reading how another game developer (male, mind you, as if that's less important) talking about internet bullying targeting them and him in particular.

With the huffle and buffle that Gamergate's so-called misogyny that smoke screens everything, and how women are yet again victims and we men (especially us male gamers) must pay for every crime ever committed real or imagined on women for the rest of our lives, and if we protest, claiming that we're not the ones making these threats, we're accused of colluding with these very same perpetrators.  When in reality it's a very small subsection of any community that cry for attention like that.

Here's the thing.  Journalistic Integrity IS at the core here.  Because a lot of us gamers, myself included, go to game reviews to help us with our purchases.  The sad part of it is, is that a lot of reviewers are on a payroll of some sort.  Gamespot's firing of Jeff Gerstmann back in 2007 is proof that bribery in the industry is common (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gerstmann), and now with Youtube and the instant gratification that comes up makes the relatively poor (as in financially) Youtuber community easy pickings.

There was, recently, a game you may have heard about, Shadows of Mordor?  Well, John Bain AKA TotalBiscuit recently outed what their PR department wanted reviewers to do to get a review copy.  Here's a link to a Forbes article that covers it:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/10/08/middle-earth-shadow-of-mordor-paid-branding-deals-should-have-gamergate-up-in-arms/

And the issue is that now, we (those of us poor slobs who actually use reviews) can no longer trust any positive review, simply because we don't know which ones are being bribed, and which aren't.  Because Youtube and various gamer sites are 'not professional' they do not have to disclose anything about whatever practices they get/use to get copies of games to review.  This is utter bullpucky, and I for one am mad that Sarkeesian and Friends have co-opted YET AGAIN another discussion and refocused it on the wrong topic.

And worse, a lot of people are buying it.  We gamers are so easily shamed.  We're still that sad, shy bunch of teenagers in older bodies (some older than others) that went to video games because the real world didn't understand us, and still doesn't want to.  And because video games are considered games by most of the public, and hence toys for children not grown adults, we still use it as a badge of defiance or hide it behind closed doors.  We try all sorts of silly things, like trying to make gaming into 'art', because unlike the board games that the video kind are closer related to, Art is taken 'seriously'.  But at the end of the day, make us feel bad about what we do for fun, relaxation and recreation, and we cave.  We always cave.

Sad part of it is, everyone games.  Gaming, whether it's with cards, board games, sports or electronic mediums, we play as we always have, and we should never feel ashamed for it.  I game, and I'm glad I do.  And you know what?  I'm glad you do to!

[Shjade]

And the issue is that now, we (those of us poor slobs who actually use reviews) can no longer trust any positive review, simply because we don't know which ones are being bribed, and which aren't.

According to some I've spoken to, you can't trust negative reviews either. See also Polygon's Bayonetta 2 and Tropico 5 reviews.

I'm just wondering why GG is organizing email campaigns against game journalism site advertisers and not, say, WB for that Shadows of Mordor issue. Or major publishers and their PR firms in general, given those are the source of this problem (along with, of course, consumers, who are the reason an 8/10 is a FAILURE score rather than a pretty good score).

To put it another way: game reviewers didn't end up in this position all on their own.

[Chris Brady]

Eh...  Polygon's an odd duck.  Lately they've been allowing their politics to influence their game reviews (It started with the Dragon's Crown bash, and even tainted their GTA5 review.  Like why doesn't the latter have a female protagonist.  GTA5 with a female protagonist that would be seen as a positive move?  Do you have any idea what you DO in a Grand Theft game?  GRAND THEFT, and you want a 'positive' portrayal of a woman who will likely be as big a crook as those the game sets on you?  Really?  Really?) and it makes it hard for me to take them seriously, but you know what?

I'm tired of this.  Gamergate, Feminism, politics.  I remember a time when games were about having fun.  And you know what's funny?  It wasn't that long ago, I think...  2010, was the turning point, where gaming suddenly got this 'sooper srs' vibe all of a sudden, where big things were meant to be from Gaming.  And frankly, I want it to stop.  Games are meant to be played, not dissected according to some moral compass some of us suddenly sprouted.  If you don't like a game, then don't buy it.  That will, ironically, mean more than screeching about it on forums or at mates.

I just want us all, everyone who plays a game, any game, from Candy Crush Saga to Call of Duty to WoW to any other game you can think of or mention, to just sit down and HAVE FUN playing our games of choice, to not be bothered by those who would bully us again, to not care that the game you love is not my game.  We are all gamers, and we are all here to have fun.

[Shjade]

Couldn't you make the same argument for movies? Music? Plays? Dance routines?

"You're just supposed to enjoy it! Stop taking it so seriously!"

Pretty to think so, but doesn't wash.

[Slywyn]

"Games are art, respect them!"

"Don't criticize games, they're just for fun!"

You cannot have both. They are incompatible.

You want games to be respected? Okay, cool, awesome.

But don't complain about people caring about 'politics' and 'feminism' and 'critique'.

These things come with respect.

Games have to mature as a medium before people will accept them as a respected hobby, pasttime, even job for the lucky few. This critique comes with that.

[Oniya]

There is some art that is meant to be critiqued, and some art that is meant just for fun.  Otherwise, there would never be art that is meant to be critiqued, because no one would want to make it.

[Caehlim]

And frankly, I want it to stop.  Games are meant to be played, not dissected according to some moral compass some of us suddenly sprouted.  If you don't like a game, then don't buy it.  That will, ironically, mean more than screeching about it on forums or at mates.

I'm glad that you can just play games and enjoy them, without having to face characters like yourself being mocked, misrepresented or ignored. We don't all have that luxury however.

I can imagine that being surrounded by negativity when you go on gaming forums would be annoying. This is something that a lot of us have faced a lot longer than since 2010 however, with online gaming sites continually calling unpopular games or players "gay".

Thankfully, the "screeching" that we've been forced to adopt in order to get some attention to these issues has been somewhat successful. Thanks to the change in atmosphere, I've been able to have games like Dragon Age, Skyrim or the Sims offer things like optional gay relationships in games. It makes playing these games much more enjoyable.

Voting with your wallet is all well and good, but you can only buy the games that are released. When even these optional features draw backlash and controversy from other demographics, it's hard to find developers willing to take a risk.

It's easier to take the whole "can we all just relax" stance when it's other people who are being affected, although shows of support from the general public are some of the most effective ways of developers taking those risks it's good when people who aren't affected also lend their voices to the "screeching".

If you want us all to play games instead of complaining, how about joining us? We could use some more support in getting games made for everyone, then we can all just play.

[Chris Brady]

"Games are art, respect them!"

"Don't criticize games, they're just for fun!"

You cannot have both. They are incompatible.

You want games to be respected? Okay, cool, awesome.

But don't complain about people caring about 'politics' and 'feminism' and 'critique'.

These things come with respect.

Games have to mature as a medium before people will accept them as a respected hobby, pasttime, even job for the lucky few. This critique comes with that.

Look, I'm not against critiquing a game, in fact I will tear the *Beep* out the hell of several.  What I don't care for is when someone's political agenda starts to infect it.  Video Games are NOT art.  Unless of course, you're willing to put games like Checkers, Chess, Settlers of Catan et al. into the Art argument.  Getting back to the main point, the issue is that some people have unreasonable expectations when it come to some reviews, especially those with (currently) a certain political slant.  And they keep going on and on about it.  But there's a problem, they don't want a discourse or a conversation, they want to hammer you with their agenda, and anything you say against it, you get labeled (lately) a misogynist, among other nice titles.  And because it's such a hot button topic, it effectively shuts the conversation down.  This is not right.  This is not reviewing or sharing an opinion, that's soapboxing of the worst kind.  And it's a tactic long used by those who don't want to talk to you.

Critiquing should be on a game's own merits, gameplay, story, character, looks should all mesh into a fun and cohesive whole.  And sometimes, yeah, a certain character doesn't fit due to their role in the game, fine, call it out.  But at the same time, there are plenty of roles to play in a story, and not everyone is going to be positive or life affirming, and frankly they shouldn't be.

Again, if you don't like how something is portrayed, or tells the story, or whatever, don't buy it.  Screaming at the top of your lungs and then bashing everyone else who dares disagree with you, that's not how to do it.  That's the opposite of critiquing, in my experience.

[Kathadon]

Wow this storm in a teacup has even reached here huh?

*sigh*
I would not touch the arguments about who wrote about or fucked who when for what as it is none of my business.


As to critic in games I will give everyone of an old example I was given in college. A professor in a literature studies coarse spent an hour delving into the meaning an author had for describing curtains as blue. How it was a deeper example of the esoteric conflict the author had yadda yadda yadda. Basically it was a line of pseudo intellectual bull. One student actually emailed the author and asked why he described the curtains as blue. The author replied simply because they were when I envisioned the scene. No deeper meaning. No political message. Nadda.

Critics of games lately often delve into this esoteric nonsense. A recent Op-ed on the Shadows of Mordor game was patently ridiculous. http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/1/6880061/shadow-mordor-kissing-design

There are limits on how much time and resources can be devoted to animations. Making an extra one just for this 30 second tutorial only to be used here is silly and takes away from more important things like gameplay. Yet the author of this piece felt it necessary to devote an entire op-ed to how this delved into a woman in refrigerator trope.

" It’s even worse when a designer actually conflates the two contexts as Shadow of Mordor does, saying that a sneaky kiss and a stealth kill are the same, that one is training for the other. In doing so, it throws away any possibility of real emotional relation to your in-game-character’s wife.We don’t kiss our loved ones in the same way we kill our enemies, games should know that."

Then he goes on about how cinema does things and how games should do it that way. And I want to throw my hands up in frustration. Cinema and literature are two very different mediums from video games. Using the same judgment metric on them is doing a disservice to video games. In cinema and literature you see only what the author wants you to see. Every actor does as the writer has written every time. Every scene in a movie the camera pans just as the director said it should every time. If you want to critic the cutscenes based on cinema, fine. But gameplay is different. The player is why.

In my opinion video games are closer to music than cinema. As in music the composer writes down his score on paper just as a developer writes down their code into a program. Is the sheet music art? Yes it is, but do we think of it that way? No. Just as we do not think of the game's code as art. But it is. And just like music when one sits down and begins to play that score or that game you become both the performer and the audience. Just like in music a player can adjust his performance to his own skill, his own desires, even his own mood. If I want to play a song loudly and angrily it will show in my performance. Just as if I want to play Skyrim and murder everyone I see. If I want to relax and take it easy it will show in how I play a song. It would even show in how I play Super Mario Bros. or Call of Duty. If I suck at piano I will miss chords. The same as if I suck in LoL I will lose lives.

It becomes even more true when you think of an orchestra and a MMO. What happens if a violinist is having a bad day in an orchestra? Could they carry the performance with her missing a chord? Yes you could hear it, but it could be done. The same as when you have to carry a newbie through a raid.

Criticing games is too subjective for the typical style I have seen over the past few years. It needs to include bits of cinema, literature, and music. But somewhere along the way the professionals have forgotten that. They insist on criticizing the story or art style often through a lense of identity politics as well. Ignoring the performance and ludonarrative. The gameplay. I feel we need to get back to judging a game on all three.

[Caehlim]

A professor in a literature studies coarse spent an hour delving into the meaning an author had for describing curtains as blue. How it was a deeper example of the esoteric conflict the author had yadda yadda yadda. Basically it was a line of pseudo intellectual bull. One student actually emailed the author and asked why he described the curtains as blue. The author replied simply because they were when I envisioned the scene. No deeper meaning. No political message. Nadda.

Oh god yes, as an English minor I've suffered through that exact scene. (Although the story you're quoting is older than you suggest, it wasn't an email back when that story first started.)

Critics of games lately often delve into this esoteric nonsense.

I call this the "getting paid by the word" effect. The best part is, you write an article like this and then when someone else writes an argument against it you get to write a rebuttal. It's how literature courses continue to run from year to year. It's like the old joke that a small town has no work for one lawyer, but plenty of work for two. Applies just as well to academics and freelance writers.

They insist on criticizing the story or art style often through a lense of identity politics as well.

The story is hardly everything in a game, and focusing on it to the exclusion of gameplay or not addressing it as an interactive story is clearly not doing the unique elements of gaming credit. However if a game has included a story, then it's a valid target for informed criticism. Much like one could address a problem that existed solely with the gameplay. Dealing with the synthesis of story and game is obviously superior, but a fault in either is worth mentioning. Nor do I see why a lens of identity politics is an inappropriate critical view.

Ignoring the performance and ludonarrative.

I love the word ludonarrative. I need to find an excuse to use this term more often.

[Kathadon]

Oh god yes, as an English minor I've suffered through that exact scene. (Although the story you're quoting is older than you suggest, it wasn't an email back when that story first started.)

True, but I did not want to show my age by saying letter. Playing to a younger audience and all. ;D

I call this the "getting paid by the word" effect. The best part is, you write an article like this and then when someone else writes an argument against it you get to write a rebuttal. It's how literature courses continue to run from year to year. It's like the old joke that a small town has no work for one lawyer, but plenty of work for two. Applies just as well to academics and freelance writers.

See now for some of the recent controversy I think it is more click bait. These young writers, many of which do not have degrees in journalism, are mainly freelance. Putting up stuff like this in a review of a game instead of an op-ed for instance:http://www.polygon.com/2014/10/13/6957677/bayonetta-2-review-wii-u

" Less positive is the same exaggerated sexualization that hung heavy around the last game's neck. I'll forgive the high heels and the exaggerated proportions, if only because there's so many other things to criticize. Bayonetta's new outfit delivers bold new developments in revealing clothing with the introduction of diamond cutouts on the ass of her jumpsuit, creating what I can only refer to as "under-butt" cleavage. When standing in place her shoulders are bent back to point her chest at ... whatever."

Is it okay? Sure in an op-ed. In a review the ludonarrative of the game means far more than the art style of the character, right? I would say yes, or else we should have a real discussion about Minecraft. She is a female power fantasy killing angels and demons. Could you imagine what a Christian reviewer might take away from that?

"You are a witch serving hell, so much of the violence in this game takes place against god's angels! Yes, you heard this reviewer correctly: In Bayonetta, you murder and torture angels. The torture comes in when you perform special moves, and (NOTICE: Please do not allow any children to read the following description, as it is extremely graphic!) at points she will become nude and cause a guillotine or other medieval torture implement such as a boulder or spinning wheel to appear and brutally murder the angel while laughing, causing blood, urine, and excrement to spray everywhere (even dripping down the screen at points). Even more shocking...she also spanks the angels with a paddle before murdering them.

This is one of the most horrible displays this reviewer has ever seen."

I (hope)  that is from a satirical site. Yet it could be a valid criticism in a review also. Would you click on it? Not your thing, right? But if I say a game is sexist? Or even more strongly misogynistic? Well it draws in clicks from folks like there is no tomorrow, especially right now. My point being in the current environment how much of this outrage is real, and how much is manufactured to generate more clicks (and more money) for those involved?

The story is hardly everything in a game, and focusing on it to the exclusion of gameplay or not addressing it as an interactive story is clearly not doing the unique elements of gaming credit. However if a game has included a story, then it's a valid target for informed criticism. Much like one could address a problem that existed solely with the gameplay. Dealing with the synthesis of story and game is obviously superior, but a fault in either is worth mentioning. Nor do I see why a lens of identity politics is an inappropriate critical view.

I love the word ludonarrative. I need to find an excuse to use this term more often.

On this we agree, and I would wonder how do you feel about generic sandbox games protagonist storytelling? Take Dragon Age or Skyrim for example. You pick your character's gender, sexuality, class, race to which that world defines those available anyway. Now which of those choices actually affects the ludonarrative? Should all games have this option to cover all the potential player's bias? Do you feel a generic character's story to be as compelling as one written for a set protagonist?

[Caehlim]

Is it okay? Sure in an op-ed.

I'm honestly not sure how a review can really be more objective than an op-ed piece. By it's very nature it's a subjective medium, about the only way we get useful information from it is either through meta-analysis and averaging a large number of sources or through selectively choosing reviewers whose taste we have come to trust or by sticking to a publication that endorses our own political and aesthetic values. Some gaming magazines attempt a more structured format, with specific scores for gameplay, art, whatever other elements they feel are worthy of discussion. These categories are still rather arbitrary, but at least in that case we can definitively say whether a review fits the format.

In a review the ludonarrative of the game means far more than the art style of the character, right? I would say yes, or else we should have a real discussion about Minecraft.

The artstyle is one of the mediums through which the game expresses its narrative. Comic book writers who have sufficient discretion over their publication are careful to select an artist whose style compliments the story that they've written (Neil Gaiman in particularly did this quite frequently). If the art is irrelevant to the game, then there's no reason that Bayonetta needs to be depicted in such a manner and it could as easily be changed to something less offensive. I would actually argue myself though that the style of Bayonetta is deliberately provocative and has artistic merit as part of its exploration of the nature of power fantasies. (Not 100% sure of this because I haven't actually played Bayonetta, but this is the impression I've picked up from the snippets of the game I've seen). I think it does the art designers of a game a disservice though to act as though their work doesn't carry an important part of the game.

Judging Minecraft for its art I think is mistaking production value with communicated message. Also one could argue that Minecraft (in addition to conserving computer resources and the work schedule of what was originally a solo designer) uses a stylistic choice to express the game's theme of building complexity from simple things.

She is a female power fantasy killing angels and demons. Could you imagine what a Christian reviewer might take away from that?

Their opinion would probably be quite valid to a reasonably sized area of the public, although perhaps one not traditionally associated with video games as a key demographic. If I read a review written from a hardcore Christian perspective then I would probably avoid further reviews from the same source/reviewer because it's not useful to me, however I'm sure it would be useful information to other Christians considering the game's suitability to their value system.

My point being in the current environment how much of this outrage is real, and how much is manufactured to generate more clicks (and more money) for those involved?

People wouldn't be clicking on it if there wasn't at least some interest, if not necessarily on the part of the media producer then perhaps on the audience. I've no doubt that for many writers, financial concerns are dominant but this is true for any form of media. However this couldn't continue if the audience didn't have some interest in the discussion, especially when it's motivated financially. Of course it's a self-perpetuating cycle with the media also working to create an interest and it spins out in complex ways.

However I think it would likely be some form of fallacy to judge whether a claim is correct or not based on the motives of its creator. The idea can be judged on its own merits.

On this we agree, and I would wonder how do you feel about generic sandbox games protagonist storytelling? Take Dragon Age or Skyrim for example. You pick your character's gender, sexuality, class, race to which that world defines those available anyway. Now which of those choices actually affects the ludonarrative? Should all games have this option to cover all the potential player's bias? Do you feel a generic character's story to be as compelling as one written for a set protagonist?

I could go on at length on this one, it's a very interesting question with a lot to cover. However I'll try to keep it simple for the sake of the thread.

I particularly enjoy games in the open sandbox style because they offer a very self-motivated and directed play-style with an ability to create your own story. However unless they put a disproportionate amount of effort into the programming and design it will never be able to compete with the story for a set protagonist in a different game. As such I play a bit of a mix. I certainly don't think all games should have this option, that would really diminish the storytelling potential of games. However if you are going to go with this option, then you should go all out and cater to as diverse a range of possibilities as possible (within limits of programming, writing dialogue, art design, etc).

What I would really like to see is a proportional representation of set protagonist games with characters who... to put it simply aren't straight white males (let alone the other cliches). I do understand the difficulties of this, if the general population won't buy it then you can't afford the developing costs and games are made and sold on their own, not as part of a set. However it's frustrating that gay people are 10% of the population (let's say for sake of argument, I don't have the exact numbers) and are only represented as the set protagonist in... one game? (Persona 4). It would be nicer to see 90% of games tailored to straight content and 10% toward gay to achieve equal representation.

Without serious changes to our economic system that's unlikely to happen any time soon, although I would like to see some work going into achieving this. Either through designing games that can appeal to mass audiences while still achieving representation or through changing the social zeitgeist so that straight people feel comfortable exploring a world through a gay avatar without fearing about their sexuality. This will require talking about the issue to figure out how to do this. Possibly in a game like GTA V, you could include a single gay character amongst multiple set protagonists so that it's less confronting since it lacks that concentration.

To be honest I'm not sure how this would be achieved, but I think it's something that we should try to achieve. However I doubt that the gaming industry will spearhead this development, it's more likely to happen slowly through television and other more developed and less interactive medias and then gradually enter into the gaming world.

[Melusine]

Eh...  Polygon's an odd duck.  Lately they've been allowing their politics to influence their game reviews (It started with the Dragon's Crown bash, and even tainted their GTA5 review.  Like why doesn't the latter have a female protagonist.  GTA5 with a female protagonist that would be seen as a positive move?  Do you have any idea what you DO in a Grand Theft game?  GRAND THEFT, and you want a 'positive' portrayal of a woman who will likely be as big a crook as those the game sets on you?  Really?  Really?) and it makes it hard for me to take them seriously, but you know what?

I don't see why having a female character who is a criminal would be such a bad move. Women are people, after all, and they can be law-abiding, crooks, good, or evil. They did it in Saints Row, and nobody complained.

I'm tired of this.  Gamergate, Feminism, politics.  I remember a time when games were about having fun.  And you know what's funny?  It wasn't that long ago, I think...  2010, was the turning point, where gaming suddenly got this 'sooper srs' vibe all of a sudden, where big things were meant to be from Gaming.  And frankly, I want it to stop.  Games are meant to be played, not dissected according to some moral compass some of us suddenly sprouted.  If you don't like a game, then don't buy it.  That will, ironically, mean more than screeching about it on forums or at mates.

I just want us all, everyone who plays a game, any game, from Candy Crush Saga to Call of Duty to WoW to any other game you can think of or mention, to just sit down and HAVE FUN playing our games of choice, to not be bothered by those who would bully us again, to not care that the game you love is not my game.  We are all gamers, and we are all here to have fun.

Oh wow. You're tired of this? Really? Let me tell you what I'm tired of. I'm tired of games where I have nobody to identify with. I'm tired of games where instead of the hero, I'm the love interest who either dies to give the actual hero a motivation, or gets handed to him as a consolation prize in the end. I'm tired of games where the only reflection of my self is a scantily-clad, posing woman who's just there as masturbation fodder. And God, I'm so damn glad for this turning point that you mention, when games stopped catering to A SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC and started expanding. Things are still far from perfect, though.

It's amazingly easy to "have fun" when you're on top of the fucking food chain and everything caters to YOU. Listen, when people ask for more queer or female or non-white protagonists, they're not doing it out of some arbitrary "political" sense. These politics that you mention, since you have the luxury to be so abstract about them, are our LIVES and EXPERIENCES. If you don't like how games are changing, I direct you to your own advice. If you don't like a game, don't buy it. And if you don't like how games are growing up and becoming art, what can I say? Tough fucking shit.

"We're all gamers"? Stop waving this around like some grand argument that's going to convince me. I'm a gamer too, and what I want is the opposite of what you want. You're not speaking for me. I suffer more from the bullying coming from my "fellow players", than I do from these clueless articles declaring "gamers are dead". If I'm paying for the games I play, I want to be fucking represented in them. I want to be the fucking hero and have my power fantasy, because I deserve it. End of story.

[Kythia]

Edit: Fuck.  Ill judged rant deleted.  I'm civil, Staff, I am.

[Kathadon]

I'm honestly not sure how a review can really be more objective than an op-ed piece. By it's very nature it's a subjective medium, about the only way we get useful information from it is either through meta-analysis and averaging a large number of sources or through selectively choosing reviewers whose taste we have come to trust or by sticking to a publication that endorses our own political and aesthetic values. Some gaming magazines attempt a more structured format, with specific scores for gameplay, art, whatever other elements they feel are worthy of discussion. These categories are still rather arbitrary, but at least in that case we can definitively say whether a review fits the format.

Bravo. You hit the nail on the head very well here. Reviews are subjective, but for an entirely different reason than an op-ed. A review is not to tell me if the reviewer sees something as a problem, but whether I as the consumer will. They in essence have to be objective not to the medium, but to their audience. That is my major takeaway between the two different formats.

Personally I believe we should do away with the rating system for games entirely as the metrics are too subjective to quantify into numbers or stars or whatever. Including the ESRB but that will never happen.

The artstyle is one of the mediums through which the game expresses its narrative. Comic book writers who have sufficient discretion over their publication are careful to select an artist whose style compliments the story that they've written (Neil Gaiman in particularly did this quite frequently). If the art is irrelevant to the game, then there's no reason that Bayonetta needs to be depicted in such a manner and it could as easily be changed to something less offensive. I would actually argue myself though that the style of Bayonetta is deliberately provocative and has artistic merit as part of its exploration of the nature of power fantasies. (Not 100% sure of this because I haven't actually played Bayonetta, but this is the impression I've picked up from the snippets of the game I've seen). I think it does the art designers of a game a disservice though to act as though their work doesn't carry an important part of the game.

Judging Minecraft for its art I think is mistaking production value with communicated message. Also one could argue that Minecraft (in addition to conserving computer resources and the work schedule of what was originally a solo designer) uses a stylistic choice to express the game's theme of building complexity from simple things.

Well in your critic of Bayonetta we are completely in agreement. I too see the character as a deliberately provocative in an attempt to show a woman's sexuality as empowering. Which I feel is lacking from many of the current arguments around the subject currently in games. Power fantasies go both ways after all, and a heavily sexualised male figure is little different than a heavily sexualized female one. This point is often brought up in MMO's especially when it comes to options for clothing on female avatars. Everyone likes their PC to "look cool." Just as I feel Mount Your Friends, a campy game that I have never seen anyone shave points from a review off for its art style, is meant to invert the male empowerment fantasy by lampooning the typical tropes with humor.  http://www.giantbomb.com/mount-your-friends/3030-43242/

Which bring my argument full circle. What makes one "problematic" and the other not an issue is the current environment. Many critics have decided that female sexuality is only for the male audience's titillation. When in the same breath they will go out of their way to remind us that half of the video game player base is now women. Am I the only one that finds that juxtaposition troubling? I would have assumed that they would have been praising a strong female lead protagonist to high heaven. Instead some have  for lack of a better term "slut shamed" the character.

Their opinion would probably be quite valid to a reasonably sized area of the public, although perhaps one not traditionally associated with video games as a key demographic. If I read a review written from a hardcore Christian perspective then I would probably avoid further reviews from the same source/reviewer because it's not useful to me, however I'm sure it would be useful information to other Christians considering the game's suitability to their value system.

People wouldn't be clicking on it if there wasn't at least some interest, if not necessarily on the part of the media producer then perhaps on the audience. I've no doubt that for many writers, financial concerns are dominant but this is true for any form of media. However this couldn't continue if the audience didn't have some interest in the discussion, especially when it's motivated financially. Of course it's a self-perpetuating cycle with the media also working to create an interest and it spins out in complex ways.

However I think it would likely be some form of fallacy to judge whether a claim is correct or not based on the motives of its creator. The idea can be judged on its own merits.

You are correct that this could not continue if it was not of some interest to the audience of these sites. Which I believe is Gamergate's point in boycotting them. Say what you will about their "tactics", but I see all of this as a market correction. A particularly loud,  ugly, and dangerous market correction from a lot of  people with limited social skills. Their theory is sound. If there are more of them then the sites will fold or change to cater to their desires. If not then they will have to move on and find new sites.

I could go on at length on this one, it's a very interesting question with a lot to cover. However I'll try to keep it simple for the sake of the thread.

Perhaps a discussion on game theory should be saved for PM's or  in it's own thread. As it is off topic and this current debate is full of highly emotionally charged issues.

[Melusine]

Well in your critic of Bayonetta we are completely in agreement. I too see the character as a deliberately provocative in an attempt to show a woman's sexuality as empowering. Which I feel is lacking from many of the current arguments around the subject currently in games. Power fantasies go both ways after all, and a heavily sexualised male figure is little different than a heavily sexualized female one. This point is often brought up in MMO's especially when it comes to options for clothing on female avatars. Everyone likes their PC to "look cool." Just as I feel Mount Your Friends, a campy game that I have never seen anyone shave points from a review off for its art style, is meant to invert the male empowerment fantasy by lampooning the typical tropes with humor.  http://www.giantbomb.com/mount-your-friends/3030-43242/

Which bring my argument full circle. What makes one "problematic" and the other not an issue is the current environment. Many critics have decided that female sexuality is only for the male audience's titillation. When in the same breath they will go out of their way to remind us that half of the video game player base is now women. Am I the only one that finds that juxtaposition troubling? I would have assumed that they would have been praising a strong female lead protagonist to high heaven. Instead some have  for lack of a better term "slut shamed" the character.

Something I feel should be pointed out: there's a difference between pointing out how a female character is sexualized, and slut shaming them. The thing is, the character is not an actual woman. She doesn't have agency, or independent thought. She has a creator and she's targeted to a demographic, and very often (though not always) these two are both male. When people criticize Bayonetta's (or any other character's) clothes, they're not calling her a slut, they're critiquing how she's being made to pander to male gamers. In Bayonetta's case, her designer is a woman, but the game's creator is a man, so he must have some input on the character design.

There is room for female characters whose design (and provocative clothing) can be taken as a cue for them being sexually empowered, but it's a difficult thing to do in my opinion, especially when the sexy clothes go hand to hand with upskirts and zoom-ins on the woman's sexy bits. Sexualisation is more than sexy clothing.

Also, sexy clothing doesn't equal sexual empowerment. Is the female character in question assured and confident with her sexuality? Is she in control in her interactions with romantic/sexual partners? Is she aware of her body and her desires? These are more important signs of empowerment, in my opinion.

[Valthazar]

I don't see why having a female character who is a criminal would be such a bad move. Women are people, after all, and they can be law-abiding, crooks, good, or evil. They did it in Saints Row, and nobody complained.

Oh wow. You're tired of this? Really? Let me tell you what I'm tired of. I'm tired of games where I have nobody to identify with. I'm tired of games where instead of the hero, I'm the love interest who either dies to give the actual hero a motivation, or gets handed to him as a consolation prize in the end. I'm tired of games where the only reflection of my self is a scantily-clad, posing woman who's just there as masturbation fodder. And God, I'm so damn glad for this turning point that you mention, when games stopped catering to A SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC and started expanding. Things are still far from perfect, though.

It's amazingly easy to "have fun" when you're on top of the fucking food chain and everything caters to YOU. Listen, when people ask for more queer or female or non-white protagonists, they're not doing it out of some arbitrary "political" sense. These politics that you mention, since you have the luxury to be so abstract about them, are our LIVES and EXPERIENCES. If you don't like how games are changing, I direct you to your own advice. If you don't like a game, don't buy it. And if you don't like how games are growing up and becoming art, what can I say? Tough fucking shit.

"We're all gamers"? Stop waving this around like some grand argument that's going to convince me. I'm a gamer too, and what I want is the opposite of what you want. You're not speaking for me. I suffer more from the bullying coming from my "fellow players", than I do from these clueless articles declaring "gamers are dead". If I'm paying for the games I play, I want to be fucking represented in them. I want to be the fucking hero and have my power fantasy, because I deserve it. End of story.

I think what Chris Brady is saying is that a lot of us male gamers just love playing games, and love others who enjoy games (male or female).  For example, here on E, I have met a good handful of female friends I play co-op with on Steam and various MMOs, and I used to have a female friend on here that I played CoD with on PS3.  At least in my case, I was friends with these women, and I'd wager that many other male gamers have good female friends they also play with.  The idea that any decent person (male or female) would bully someone over games is literally beyond comprehension to many of us.  Rather than it being a gender issue, I think this bullying is more emblematic of a lack of maturity, and a lack of respect for others. 

The conversations I have had while playing were about the game itself.  We joked about stuff, had a good time - setting aside these volatile issues for the time being.  There is a lot of fun to be had with video games, and constantly bringing up these topics in situations where it can't even make a difference (like creating divisions between male and female gamers), achieves little in the way of male and female gamers being able to laugh together and have a good time.  Things need to change in video games, no doubt, but there's no sense in fighting.

I think game developer's perspective provides a perspective I agree with on this issue. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee8RgbS9ESE

[Kushiel]

I don't think you understood Melusine's arguments, Valthazar. What you're saying isn't really relevant to what you've quoted.

[Melusine]

I think what Chris Brady is saying is that a lot of us male gamers just love playing games, and love others who enjoy games (male or female).  For example, here on E, I have met a good handful of female friends I play co-op with on Steam and various MMOs, and I used to have a female friend on here that I played CoD with on PS3.  At least in my case, I was friends with these women, and I'd wager that many other male gamers have good female friends they also play with.  The idea that any decent person (male or female) would bully someone over games is literally beyond comprehension to many of us.  Rather than it being a gender issue, I think this bullying is more emblematic of a lack of maturity, and a lack of respect for others. 

The conversations I have had while playing were about the game itself.  We joked about stuff, had a good time - setting aside these volatile issues for the time being.  There is a lot of fun to be had with video games, and constantly bringing up these topics in situations where it can't even make a difference (like creating divisions between male and female gamers), achieves little in the way of male and female gamers being able to laugh together and have a good time.  Things need to change in video games, no doubt, but there's no sense in fighting.

I think game developer's perspective provides a perspective I agree with on this issue. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ee8RgbS9ESE

What Chris Brady is saying is that he doesn't care about politics, and he'd rather play a game without having to think about shit like equal representation, or discrimination, or stuff like that. That's his prerogative, and he most likely has the luxury to do that, because he'd seen people like him being the heroes in games all his life.

I don't have that luxury. I don't get to "not care" because when I see sexism in games, it fucking hurts my soul. And believe me, I don't talk about these issues all the time. I play games with male and female friends, and I'm having a good time, and I'm not constantly bringing up such issues. But this is a thread where we talk about this issue. Am I not supposed to talk about it, not even now? When the fuck am I supposed to talk about it then?

There's no sense in fighting? Fighting is sadly inevitable in my opinion. You read what Chris Brady said - he's tired of feminism and politics in games. I want more feminism and more politics in games. Our goals are completely opposite, and each view has tons of supporters. There's going to be some ideological conflict about that, don't you think? There already is.

[Kathadon]

Something I feel should be pointed out: there's a difference between pointing out how a female character is sexualized, and slut shaming them. The thing is, the character is not an actual woman. She doesn't have agency, or independent thought. She has a creator and she's targeted to a demographic, and very often (though not always) these two are both male. When people criticize Bayonetta's (or any other character's) clothes, they're not calling her a slut, they're critiquing how she's being made to pander to male gamers. In Bayonetta's case, her designer is a woman, but the game's creator is a man, so he must have some input on the character design.

As opposed to how she might be pandering to female gamer's power fantasies? Why the current focus on how a protagonist panders to one half of the audience compared to another, other than as I theorise to generate controversy? On average I do not see, granted as a man, the difference between Bayonetta and Dante from DMC.

There is room for female characters whose design (and provocative clothing) can be taken as a cue for them being sexually empowered, but it's a difficult thing to do in my opinion, especially when the sexy clothes go hand to hand with upskirts and zoom-ins on the woman's sexy bits. Sexualisation is more than sexy clothing.

If I may say men have a habit of showing off their sexy bits a lot less in general attire both in real life and video games. We can all admire a handsome man in a suit, but it does cover everything. Same as we can admire a handsome man going shirtless. There has been a concerted effort to provide for the "female gaze" like the above image in video games recently. I in particularly remember a scene in one of the Metal Gear games playing as a naked ninja trying to cover his dangly bits as he snuck through an enemy base. He even did flips and cartwheels. :o

And I agree sexualization is far more than sexy clothing. A bimbo is a bimbo no matter if she is in power armor or an evening dress. Yet I cannot think for the life of me of a stereotypical bimbo in a game outside of background NPC's. Could you provide an example?

Also, sexy clothing doesn't equal sexual empowerment. Is the female character in question assured and confident with her sexuality? Is she in control in her interactions with romantic/sexual partners? Is she aware of her body and her desires? These are more important signs of empowerment, in my opinion.

All very true and thank you for that input. I answer your last few questions with your own words. "The thing is, the character is not an actual woman. She doesn't have agency, or independent thought. "

Judge for yourself how she is portrayed in the game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63IWPJYqV1g

[Melusine]

As opposed to how she might be pandering to female gamer's power fantasies? Why the current focus on how a protagonist panders to one half of the audience compared to another, other than as I theorise to generate controversy? On average I do not see, granted as a man, the difference between Bayonetta and Dante from DMC.

This is probably not the same for every woman, but I personally don't find it empowering to have a "sexy" PC. However, some women probably do. Still, my problem isn't with the sexiness, it's with the extreme sexualisation. People focus on that because being presented as a sexual object happens more often to female characters than male ones.

About Dante...I found him to be such a huge asshole he repulsed me, so...no.

If I may say men have a habit of showing off their sexy bits a lot less in general attire both in real life and video games. We can all admire a handsome man in a suit, but it does cover everything. Same as we can admire a handsome man going shirtless. There has been a concerted effort to provide for the "female gaze" like the above image in video games recently. I in particularly remember a scene in one of the Metal Gear games playing as a naked ninja trying to cover his dangly bits as he snuck through an enemy base. He even did flips and cartwheels. :o

Since Metal Gear's demographic is mostly male, I suspect Raiden's naked cartwheels were meant to be funny, not sexy. Doesn't mean I didn't appreciate them, though.  ;D Remember though, that Raiden got quite a bit of backlash for these antics, as well as for his "pretty boy" appearance.

And I agree sexualization is far more than sexy clothing. A bimbo is a bimbo no matter if she is in power armor or an evening dress. Yet I cannot think for the life of me of a stereotypical bimbo in a game outside of background NPC's. Could you provide an example?

You misunderstood. I never implied that sexualization = bimbo. Sexualization can happen to a female characters regardless of her intelligence or personality. Red Sonja for example is not a bimbo, but she's definitely sexualized.
About a PC bimbo...first one that comes to mind is Juliet from Lollipop Chainsaw.

All very true and thank you for that input. I answer your last few questions with your own words. "The thing is, the character is not an actual woman. She doesn't have agency, or independent thought. "

Judge for yourself how she is portrayed in the game?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63IWPJYqV1g

Yes, she's portrayed as an independent, tough and intelligent woman. But what does this have to do with what I said? Fictional characters don't have agency or independent thought because they're fictional. They're puppets moving on strings by their creators. I'm not undermining the empowering potential Bayonetta has as a character, but we must remember that when we're talking about how a character's clothing is their "choice".

[Shjade]

Look, I'm not against critiquing a game, in fact I will tear the *Beep* out the hell of several.  What I don't care for is when someone's political agenda starts to infect it.  Video Games are NOT art.  Unless of course, you're willing to put games like Checkers, Chess, Settlers of Catan et al. into the Art argument.  Getting back to the main point, the issue is that some people have unreasonable expectations when it come to some reviews, especially those with (currently) a certain political slant.  And they keep going on and on about it.  But there's a problem, they don't want a discourse or a conversation, they want to hammer you with their agenda, and anything you say against it, you get labeled (lately) a misogynist, among other nice titles.  And because it's such a hot button topic, it effectively shuts the conversation down.  This is not right.  This is not reviewing or sharing an opinion, that's soapboxing of the worst kind.  And it's a tactic long used by those who don't want to talk to you.

Again, if you don't like how something is portrayed, or tells the story, or whatever, don't buy it.  Screaming at the top of your lungs and then bashing everyone else who dares disagree with you, that's not how to do it.  That's the opposite of critiquing, in my experience.

"Video games are NOT art." Followed by three examples that...weren't designed as video games. Yeah that, uh. That's totally relevant. >.>

Chess barely has characters, no plot, no characterization. You could make a politically-based critique of it around the power differential between the King and Queen if you wanted, maybe consider why Black has to go after White, but it has FAR less material to analyze than most video games. This is not an even comparison. It's a pretty big stretch.

Second, when you started saying "some people have unreasonable expectations when it come to some reviews," I honestly thought you were talking about GG supporters. Since they're the ones shouting things like "GET POLITICS OUT OF GAMES," which is, indeed, completely unreasonable. It's also not a position that encourages discussion. There's no room for debate around "completely remove this." That's not "tone it down" or "I'd like less of this," it's a flat GTFO, which is about as open to discussion as calling someone a misogynist for disagreeing with you.

Disapproving of a game's grossly oversexualized portrayal of its main character is your right as a person and a reviewer; it's not "screaming at the top of your lungs" and it certainly isn't an insult to people who like that in their games. Portraying such a reviewer as a screaming, unreasonable person certainly doesn't do much to make you seem open to discussion on the topic, though.

As opposed to how she might be pandering to female gamer's power fantasies? Why the current focus on how a protagonist panders to one half of the audience compared to another, other than as I theorise to generate controversy? On average I do not see, granted as a man, the difference between Bayonetta and Dante from DMC.

I didn't play DMC: did Dante strip nearly naked every time he made a major attack in that game? Did the camera zoom in on his crotch, ass and pecs multiple times in every cutscene? If the answer is no, I'd say there are some pretty significant differences just from that much, and that's not even getting into looking at their personalities/posturing in combat.

"We're all gamers"? Stop waving this around like some grand argument that's going to convince me. I'm a gamer too, and what I want is the opposite of what you want. You're not speaking for me. I suffer more from the bullying coming from my "fellow players", than I do from these clueless articles declaring "gamers are dead". If I'm paying for the games I play, I want to be fucking represented in them. I want to be the fucking hero and have my power fantasy, because I deserve it. End of story.

This is easily the most obnoxious thing about GamerGate from my perspective. Even if I were so blind as to believe GG is entirely unrelated to the harassment and threats flying around the topic (I think their direct connections are less concrete than some stories make out, but come the fuck on, it's naive to say "those aren't about GG" because someone doesn't happen to use the tag the moment they're harassing someone about the same things they supported while using the tag earlier/after the fact), I'd still want GG to stop acting like they're the authority on who gamers are and what gamers want. If they were, this argument wouldn't exist. Utter bullshit.

[Kathadon]

I didn't play DMC: did Dante strip nearly naked every time he made a major attack in that game? Did the camera zoom in on his crotch, ass and pecs multiple times in every cutscene? If the answer is no, I'd say there are some pretty significant differences just from that much, and that's not even getting into looking at their personalities/posturing in combat.

Did he strip naked in every fight? No not at all. That is a unique ludonarrative element to Bayonetta that does tie in to sexism if you want to make the argument that it is entirely for a male(or lesbian or bisexual) audience's titillation. Did the camera zoom in on his ass and pecs multiple time in every cut scene? Yes. It made a point of showing off Dante's assets just as most games show off the physique of the PC. Even Halo did this and Master Chief was clad head to toe in power armor and never removed his helmet.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Powerful characters are meant to be idolized versions of the norm and that is often portrayed in a sexual manner in media. The spectator of any media desires to look at the screen and derive visual pleasure from what he or she sees. Part of that pleasure is also derived from the narcissistic identification she or he feels with the person on the screen. But there is more; the spectator also has the illusion of controlling that image. This has been a common psychological theory in cinema for decades. Now suddenly it is being wielded like a club in video game critics.  Is there a reason that Dante should be wearing tight pants and a tight tank top? No. That is just what his creators dressed him in.

Is there anything "wrong" with any of this? Nope. Just what some have chosen to take offense to.

Here is a powerful female character that has deliberately provocative sexuality shown to the world and what is the consensus with a few critics? Nope she is a bad character because teenage boys might rub one off thinking of her.

[Kushiel]

Did he strip naked in every fight? No not at all. That is a unique ludonarrative element to Bayonetta that does tie in to sexism if you want to make the argument that it is entirely for a male(or lesbian or bisexual) audience's titillation. Did the camera zoom in on his ass and pecs multiple time in every cut scene? Yes. It made a point of showing off Dante's assets just as most games show off the physique of the PC. Even Halo did this and Master Chief was clad head to toe in power armor and never removed his helmet.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Powerful characters are meant to be idolized versions of the norm and that is often portrayed in a sexual manner in media. The spectator of any media desires to look at the screen and derive visual pleasure from what he or she sees. Part of that pleasure is also derived from the narcissistic identification she or he feels with the person on the screen. But there is more; the spectator also has the illusion of controlling that image. This has been a common psychological theory in cinema for decades. Now suddenly it is being wielded like a club in video game critics.  Is there a reason that Dante should be wearing tight pants and a tight tank top? No. That is just what his creators dressed him in.

Is there anything "wrong" with any of this? Nope. Just what some have chosen to take offense to.

Here is a powerful female character that has deliberately provocative sexuality shown to the world and what is the consensus with a few critics? Nope she is a bad character because teenage boys might rub one off thinking of her.

I have several points to raise to this.

First:

Powerful characters are meant to be idolized versions of the norm and that is often portrayed in a sexual manner in media.

Badass powerful characters are sexy!

Who wouldn't want to kiss this face?

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Guess what those beads are for!

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Let's be honest here. The only powerful video game characters that are often (read always) portrayed in a sexual manner are female characters

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Second:

Is there anything "wrong" with any of this? Nope. Just what some have chosen to take offense to.

Chosen to take offense to? That logic is horseshit. (Don't choose to take offense to that last comment)
You seem to be missing the point of the critique. Nobody thinks that they can change a game that has already been released. It's perfectly reasonable however to make it known that you want more or less of something in future games. People need characters to identify with, and not everybody is a white heterosexual cis male. It's not unreasonable for people to want the only characters they can identify with to actually be how they want them, and not how another social group wants them. I've had more than enough characters to identify with, it's really time to give somebody else a chance because let's be fair; we don't need MORE badass womanising muscleheads slaying the world with a pelvic thrust to avenge his dead girlfriend/sister/mother. Seriously, we've had enough. Let's try playing an intersex genius inventor who solves problems with non-violent inventions. Get some new fucking perspective.

Third:

Nope she is a bad character because teenage boys might rub one off thinking of her.

Who is a bad character? I've actually never seen anybody argue that a sexualised female character is a "bad" character. It's argued that female characters should be sexualised less. That they should have more personality and character development to make them more than sex objects to ogle while you sit through plot dialogue.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Bad character? No. Neglected character? Very yes.

[Skynet]

No, I wouldn't agree with it at all.

She came in talking about how terrible games are to women, and saying how she's been a gamer all her life and how she's seen this first hand since forever. Yet before Kickstarter she was giving speeches in her classes about how she doesn't play games because they're icky and involve shooting people.

Because people change their opinions over time?  Or be critical of popular elements within games while also playing those games without falling into the black-white "diehard fanboy/hater" category?

She's a liar. She's a crook. She's a cheat. She also has nothing to do with GamerGate or ethics in journalism, but she hopped on the bandwagon the moment something started taking focus away from her Professional Victimhood.

She only "hopped on it" when GamerGate supporters and long-time haters with an axe to grind against "Feminazis and Cultural Marxists" sent her death threats (several of which the FBI regarded as credible).

[Chris Brady]

I don't see why having a female character who is a criminal would be such a bad move. Women are people, after all, and they can be law-abiding, crooks, good, or evil. They did it in Saints Row, and nobody complained.

That's not what was said though.  They wanted a 'positive female lead' in GTA, because all the other ones were stupid/selfish/criminal.  Which is the whole point of a GTA game, you're not going against nice people, everyone's annoying in some way otherwise, some people might balk at the idea at actually commiting crimes against them because they can't justify doing it to these characters if they WERE nice (yes, this is a generalization, but for the most part, we take great joy in perpetrating crimes against those we think 'deserve' it.)

Oh wow. You're tired of this? Really? Let me tell you what I'm tired of. I'm tired of games where I have nobody to identify with. I'm tired of games where instead of the hero, I'm the love interest who either dies to give the actual hero a motivation, or gets handed to him as a consolation prize in the end. I'm tired of games where the only reflection of my self is a scantily-clad, posing woman who's just there as masturbation fodder. And God, I'm so damn glad for this turning point that you mention, when games stopped catering to A SINGLE DEMOGRAPHIC and started expanding. Things are still far from perfect, though.

Identify with?  I've been into video games since at least 1981, before the Crash of '84, and let me tell you, I've yet to identify with ANY character in ANY video game, male or female.  Not Mario, not Link or Zelda, not Kratos, Nathan Drake, Lara Croft, not Raziel nor Kain nor any multitude grunting, grimacing, one dimensional space marine neandrethal archetype we get foisted on.  The only reason gaming is catering to us, is because WE were the LOSERS.  The one's no one wanted in High School, not the popular kids.  Back in the 80's and 90's, you never had a choice to be in the Geek group, that's where all the other kids ostracized you to.  So Geeks, like all human beings do, banded together.  And gaming companies see that, and exploited that.

But that has nothing to do with being able to identify with a character.  I love the Arkham series of video games, for example, but I don't identify with Bruce Wayne or Batman in any way.  In fact, anyone who can should have their heads examined because something is wrong with them.  So being able to 'identify' is a dream that only certain minorities apparently might have access to.  Like this little article from Kotaku:

http://kotaku.com/what-sleeping-dogs-gets-so-right-about-being-an-asian-a-1644011008

That's nice that he got to experience a connection of that sort (which by the way, the team is made up mostly of Caucasians, and yet, according to him, they nailed the feeling of being a Chinese American going to Hong Kong.  Strange that) but us 'white males' don't get that, because we're GENERIC.  When you make a game that's SPECIFIC, I've noticed that you get a lot better story out of it.  Which kinda sucks, because frankly, it's a magical moment that most of us reviled White Males will likely never get to experience.

Off topic:  A lot of people bemoan the lack of 'Female' protagonists in games, and frankly, I think that lack is a good thing.  Because when we do have a female protagonist, it's invariable made better, because it's held to a higher scrutiny.  Male protagonists are a dime a dozen, and for ever good, well written male, we get hundreds if not thousands of crappy Doom 1 Marine clones.  Where as with the ladies, I can think of a few 'bad' ones, but most of the others are good ones.  Not so for us guys.

I don't have that luxury. I don't get to "not care" because when I see sexism in games, it fucking hurts my soul.

Then maybe gaming is not for you.  Gaming has ALWAYS been for fun, and if it truly hurts you, then maybe you should find something else that won't.  And frankly, having to look for sexism or diversity in the medium is a waste of time that could be better spent enjoying something you love.

You know, that's another issue.  We have this subsection of the internet devoted to this battle cry of 'DIVERSITY!', but never have I ever seen any single one of them actually sit down and tell anyone what they want, specifically.  And any time someone tries, they get the impression that it will NEVER be enough.  It's a lot like the Internet Feminist Movement, it's all shouting and screaming about how women have been victims and there must be reparations made, but no one seems to know what needs to be done.  And frankly, I want to know.

What needs to be done so that people are happy.  What would you like to see.  And I want a definite answer here.  Something someone can build and build on.  Otherwise, to me, you're no better than those who scream to get attention.

[Ebb]

... The only reason gaming is catering to us, is because WE were the LOSERS.  The one's no one wanted in High School, not the popular kids. 

... but us 'white males' don't get that, because we're GENERIC. 

As a gamer who happens to be both white and male, I'm begging you to stop speaking as if you're representative of anyone except yourself.

[Melusine]

That's not what was said though.  They wanted a 'positive female lead' in GTA, because all the other ones were stupid/selfish/criminal.  Which is the whole point of a GTA game, you're not going against nice people, everyone's annoying in some way otherwise, some people might balk at the idea at actually commiting crimes against them because they can't justify doing it to these characters if they WERE nice (yes, this is a generalization, but for the most part, we take great joy in perpetrating crimes against those we think 'deserve' it.)

If they said that, it's utter bullshit. The game is about criminals. If they introduce a female PC, she should be a criminal too.

Identify with?  I've been into video games since at least 1981, before the Crash of '84, and let me tell you, I've yet to identify with ANY character in ANY video game, male or female.  Not Mario, not Link or Zelda, not Kratos, Nathan Drake, Lara Croft, not Raziel nor Kain nor any multitude grunting, grimacing, one dimensional space marine neandrethal archetype we get foisted on.  The only reason gaming is catering to us, is because WE were the LOSERS.  The one's no one wanted in High School, not the popular kids.  Back in the 80's and 90's, you never had a choice to be in the Geek group, that's where all the other kids ostracized you to.  So Geeks, like all human beings do, banded together.  And gaming companies see that, and exploited that.

I find this very unusual. Every gamer I've talked to before identifies with the PCs in the games they play.

But that has nothing to do with being able to identify with a character.  I love the Arkham series of video games, for example, but I don't identify with Bruce Wayne or Batman in any way.  In fact, anyone who can should have their heads examined because something is wrong with them.  So being able to 'identify' is a dream that only certain minorities apparently might have access to.  Like this little article from Kotaku:

http://kotaku.com/what-sleeping-dogs-gets-so-right-about-being-an-asian-a-1644011008

That's nice that he got to experience a connection of that sort (which by the way, the team is made up mostly of Caucasians, and yet, according to him, they nailed the feeling of being a Chinese American going to Hong Kong.  Strange that) but us 'white males' don't get that, because we're GENERIC.  When you make a game that's SPECIFIC, I've noticed that you get a lot better story out of it.  Which kinda sucks, because frankly, it's a magical moment that most of us reviled White Males will likely never get to experience.

It's not impossible to write about other genders, or races, or sexualities, if you do your research well and keep an open mind. I don't find it strange that the team of Caucasians were able to replicate the chinese american experience. I think it's very commendable. What do you mean white males don't get that? There are tons of games centered around white men. If you think your own culture is generic, it's because you've been living in it all your life. So, different cultures will seem more interesting to you.

If you mean that it's white men who are generic, there's a much more apt to describe it: they're the default. Which means, they're not defined by anything. While any other race/sexuality/gender carry assumptions. Women are emotional. Black people are violent. Gays are promiscuous. White men are just human, with no other assumptions.

Off topic:  A lot of people bemoan the lack of 'Female' protagonists in games, and frankly, I think that lack is a good thing.  Because when we do have a female protagonist, it's invariable made better, because it's held to a higher scrutiny.  Male protagonists are a dime a dozen, and for ever good, well written male, we get hundreds if not thousands of crappy Doom 1 Marine clones.  Where as with the ladies, I can think of a few 'bad' ones, but most of the others are good ones.  Not so for us guys.

And don't you think that we should try to push for more developed male characters, as well? You were the one saying video games aren't art, but character development is essential in fiction (which is art).

Then maybe gaming is not for you.  Gaming has ALWAYS been for fun, and if it truly hurts you, then maybe you should find something else that won't.  And frankly, having to look for sexism or diversity in the medium is a waste of time that could be better spent enjoying something you love.

So according to you, if something is sexist I should stop interacting with it. Very well, give me my jetpack so I can fly into the sun, because there's not a chance of escaping sexism in this planet. Also, I don't have to look for sexism. It's right there, staring at me in the face. Implying that I'm some sort of lunatic who enjoys complaining of non-existent struggles is insulting. And I do love the medium, that's why I want it to improve.

You know, that's another issue.  We have this subsection of the internet devoted to this battle cry of 'DIVERSITY!', but never have I ever seen any single one of them actually sit down and tell anyone what they want, specifically.  And any time someone tries, they get the impression that it will NEVER be enough.  It's a lot like the Internet Feminist Movement, it's all shouting and screaming about how women have been victims and there must be reparations made, but no one seems to know what needs to be done.  And frankly, I want to know.

What needs to be done so that people are happy.  What would you like to see.  And I want a definite answer here.  Something someone can build and build on.  Otherwise, to me, you're no better than those who scream to get attention.

1) I want more female protagonists. I want women who are scumbags and savage monsters. I want muscular, ripped women akin to Kratos. I want old women. I want more women like Aveline de Grandpre, like Amanda Ripley, like April Ryan, like Chell, like Clementine, like Jade.

2) I want more gay and bisexual protagonists. I want more same-sex love interests where there are love interests to be found.

3) I want more protagonists of color. I want more female protagonists of color.

4) I want more transgendered protagonists.

5) I want fewer female love-interests that are killed to advance the plot and give the male hero motivation. I want more love-interests that are fully fleshed and developed. I want more female love-interests that do their own thing and are just as awesome as the hero.

6) I want more diverse personalities in male heroes. I want more shy and sweet scientists. More happy-go-lucky cuties that brighten everyone's day. More emotional, sensitive guys.

7) I want more female villains, who are even scarcer than female protagonists. More women like GLaDOS, like SHODAN, like Alma Wade, like Amanda Evert, like Dahlia Hawthorne. I want sympathetic villains that you can't help but feel for, I want absolute monsters that scare you, that you can't wait to end.

8) I don't want any more overt misogyny played for laughs, Duke Nukem Forever style.

All these would make me pretty happy, and they're really not difficult to accomplish.

[Caehlim]

What needs to be done so that people are happy.  What would you like to see.  And I want a definite answer here.  Something someone can build and build on.

Well that's a ridiculous question, did we start taking hostages and you need our demands?

What resolution computer monitor will be enough for the rest of time? How many gigs of RAM does a computer need? What about video RAM? These things are currently being improved, continuously, with very little need for anyone to make a fuss. Imagine if getting these improvements required you to make constant complaints, don't you think you would start doing so?

Honestly, I'm actually quite happy with the current degree of progress being made on minority issues, it's slow but it's vaguely getting there. If it could be achieved without needing the complaints that offend you so badly, then yeah I'd be happy to just sit back and enjoy.

Back in the 80's and 90's, you never had a choice to be in the Geek group, that's where all the other kids ostracized you to.

Would you like to see the portrayal of geeks and nerds remain fixed at the 1980/90s level? An endless parade of Steve Urkels defining how other people should perceive you?

Take a look at Bernard Benouli in maniac mansion or day of the tentacle (not a brilliant example, because those games were deconstructions of the cliques in media at the time but honestly video games have never been too terribly unkind to nerds for obvious reasons so it's hard to find examples) and compare that to how a computer savvy, technically literate character is treated in Watchdogs.

which by the way, the team is made up mostly of Caucasians, and yet, according to him, they nailed the feeling of being a Chinese American going to Hong Kong.  Strange that

Howso strange? I haven't played that game, but it sounds like they're good writers who used a little imagination to present a realistic depiction of someone else's experience. Unless you're into autobiographies that's what creative writing is all about.

Honestly if people couldn't manage this, then there would be no point in complaining and wanting better representation since it would be largely impossible.

Which kinda sucks, because frankly, it's a magical moment that most of us reviled White Males will likely never get to experience.

As someone who can pass for the majority anytime he would like, simply by lying to everyone continuously and hiding aspects of my personal identity (which is FUN yay me!), you're not that reviled.

I know the experience of being told "you're a white male, you don't get it" and yeah it does suck. It's frustrating to see movies depict white people as 'lacking culture' compared to the vibrant cultures of other groups. It's annoying to be told that these problems don't exist.

Well, I'll admit that it does happen, but honestly as someone who gets to see both sides of the fence, you're getting off lightly. If your experience is enough for you to be ranting about it on here... just try to use your imagination for a second and picture how frustrating the more extreme experiences of others might be. Then you'll understand why you're seeing rants on these issues.

Then maybe gaming is not for you.

It's not sadly. Continuously, every day I have reminders that practically nothing was built with me in mind. I have to make do with entertainment and media that was built for someone else.

Gaming has ALWAYS been for fun, and if it truly hurts you, then maybe you should find something else that won't.

Gee that would be nice. I was kind of hoping that after a day of dealing with this sort of bullshit I could relax with a video game, but that's just a reminder that I'm not welcome too.

[Caehlim]

1) I want more female protagonists. I want women who are scumbags and savage monsters. I want muscular, ripped women akin to Kratos. I want old women. I want more women like Aveline de Grandpre, like Amanda Ripley, like April Ryan, like Chell, like Clementine, like Jade.

2) I want more gay and bisexual protagonists. I want more same-sex love interests where there are love interests to be found.

3) I want more protagonists of color. I want more female protagonists of color.

4) I want more transgendered protagonists.

5) I want fewer female love-interests that are killed to advance the plot and give the male hero motivation. I want more love-interests that are fully fleshed and developed. I want more female love-interests that do their own thing and are just as awesome as the hero.

6) I want more diverse personalities in male heroes. I want more shy and sweet scientists. More happy-go-lucky cuties that brighten everyone's day. More emotional, sensitive guys.

7) I want more female villains, who are even scarcer than female protagonists. More women like GLaDOS, like SHODAN, like Alma Wade, like Amanda Evert, like Dahlia Hawthorne. I want sympathetic villains that you can't help but feel for, I want absolute monsters that scare you, that you can't wait to end.

8) I don't want any more overt misogyny played for laughs, Duke Nukem Forever style.

Yes please. That would be lovely.

[Melusine]

And two more I forgot and I think should be added:

9) I want more disabled protagonists. (Does Adam Jensen count?)

10) I want more mentally ill protagonists, with their mental illness portrayed with realism and dignity.

[Kathadon]

I have several points to raise to this.

Well I see lots of "points", but no actual arguments. Let us be honest here you choose a majority of fighting game protagonists one of the biggest offenders with overly powerful and idolized representations of both men and women with the widest rosters out there that lets the player choose  alternate character designs and bloody costumes as your points? Really? And Street Fighter too? One of the games that has one of the most diverse rosters when it comes to racial groups.

How about you know this outfit for Cammy?

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Or maybe we can have the really fat guy in case someone wants that?

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Add to that your examples are one alternate costume for Samus and a close up of Kratos and you leave out these?

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

See here is the problem you are supposed to be fighting for DIVERSITY and INCLUSIVITY in gaming right? And then you try and make points with one of the most diverse and inclusive genres for character backgrounds, sex, and races. The fighting game where the player picks from a roster of characters. Important part of that sentence is the roster. There is a lot of choice in those games for every need. Are some characters overly sexualised in fighting games? Yeah. In fact it can be argued EVERY character in fighting games is a hyper idealized version of someone's wet dream that exists only to pummel their opponents into the dirt, from Zangief to Dhalsim.

Chosen to take offense to? That logic is horseshit. (Don't choose to take offense to that last comment)
You seem to be missing the point of the critique. Nobody thinks that they can change a game that has already been released. It's perfectly reasonable however to make it known that you want more or less of something in future games. People need characters to identify with, and not everybody is a white heterosexual cis male. It's not unreasonable for people to want the only characters they can identify with to actually be how they want them, and not how another social group wants them. I've had more than enough characters to identify with, it's really time to give somebody else a chance because let's be fair; we don't need MORE badass womanising muscleheads slaying the world with a pelvic thrust to avenge his dead girlfriend/sister/mother. Seriously, we've had enough. Let's try playing an intersex genius inventor who solves problems with non-violent inventions. Get some new fucking perspective.

Hey look some kind of argument there. A strawman and deflection, but I guess it is an argument. So lets take it apart and see what we have here.

"Nobody thinks you can change a game that has already been released". Well duh. The point of a review is to tell me as a consumer if I might like a game enough to buy it. A review is not for the critic to tell me  they did not like a game for reasons that is an op-ed. Objectivity towards the audience versus subjectivity toward the medium. I have watched as whatever this is has blathered on from both sides of this debate missing this point entirely. There can be no objective review of a game. There can be an objective view or tone toward the audience in a review. Example: "I find the overt sexualization of the characters in this game troubling. Here are my short reasons (preferably without snark or hyperbole). Here is why you, Mr. Gamer, might like it anyway."

"It is perfectly reasonable to let someone know you want more of less of something in the future." Okay and? In a review? Or an op-ed? Clarity please.

" It's not unreasonable for people to want the only characters they can identify with to actually be how they want them, and not how another social group wants them." Who chooses the criteria for this monumental assignment? Who gets to make that call? DO some women like Bayonetta just the way she is? Do they not count? Who makes someone the politically correct watchmen? Should every developer make a straw poll? You have a sentiment, but no plan or criteria for what makes a player identify with some character. So yeah.... good luck with that.

And finally since most folks in both sides of this debate do not seem to grasp it. AAA already knows who they are making these games for. They have extensive research from their marketing departments on who buys what in what genre. That is why Elizabeth was pushed to the back cover of Bioshock Infinite. The developers even argued it, but the marketers won because their research trumped artist expression and political correctness. This is why the whole Gamergate thing is ridiculous. The marketing teams for these games know what is a nice safe bet to recoup their costs.

This is why those of us pounding the table for diversity are in the tougher jam. Marketeers have some numbers on Gamergate and they are massive, vocal, intractable, and only represent a minor population of the more hardcore set that frequents the game enthusiast sites. Conservative estimates place them at tens of thousands of gamers. They also have some numbers on those that want more diversity faster and for triple AAA to take risks with alternate characters. They have for years and even with outside non-gamers helping, even mainstream media blasting them, and bloody Stephen Colbert taking the piss out of everyone all attempts to grass roots out shout the Gaters have failed, within days.

[Slywyn]

""Bananetta is strobg female game woman you ladies should be greatful because she is for you and not at all about being sexy for dudes you are stupid harpy witch to suggest otherwise" they say

Turn on game and receive immediate slow, loving pan over Bananetta vagina.

Look I don’t really have a problem with Bayonetta but don’t try to pretend she isn’t goofy cheesecakey male gaze. This is like if God of War kept freezing the action to follow droplets of glittering ball sweat running down Kratos’ legs."

Yeah. no, sorry. Bayonetta is not a 'strong female character meant for females'.

[Kathadon]

""Bananetta is strobg female game woman you ladies should be greatful because she is for you and not at all about being sexy for dudes you are stupid harpy witch to suggest otherwise" they say

Turn on game and receive immediate slow, loving pan over Bananetta vagina.

Look I don’t really have a problem with Bayonetta but don’t try to pretend she isn’t goofy cheesecakey male gaze. This is like if God of War kept freezing the action to follow droplets of glittering ball sweat running down Kratos’ legs."

Yeah. no, sorry. Bayonetta is not a 'strong female character meant for females'.

You mean her crotch right because I doubt Nintendo allows for vagina. Also again the gaze technique in cinema and now video game cutscenes has a purpose outside of male (lesbian, Bi-sexual) titillation. The spectator of any media desires to look at the screen and derive visual pleasure from what he or she sees. Part of that pleasure is also derived from the narcissistic identification she or he feels with the person on the screen. But there is more; the spectator also has the illusion of controlling that image. This has been a common psychological theory in cinema for decades. The gaze technique has no gender bias inherent to its use. There is no male gaze or female gaze it is just the gaze technique. We actually see it used most often in commercials as the camera lovingly pans across the curves of a sports car or food piping hot and ready to eat. It is designed cinematically to mimic the human gaze after all.

Ignoring the odd ad hominem in the first sentence and the reference to Kratos's ball sweat (Really who finds that attractive?) how is an empowered female protagonist with an provocative sexuality mean she is not meant to pander to both halves of the audience? SHould the developer just leave all the male audience's desires at the door? Should the developer instead try for an entirely female point of view in every way in the action game genre? How are you defining that she is not meant as a strong female character for women?

I'll leave you with the same questions I left Kushiel also:DO some women like Bayonetta just the way she is? Do they not count? Who makes someone the politically correct watchmen? Should every developer make a straw poll? You have a sentiment, but no plan or criteria for what makes a player identify with some character. So yeah.... good luck with that.

And finally something to think about when approaching criticism of a subjective medium. You can have an opinion, and say, "I do not think Bayonetta is a strong female character for women." And then we can have a discussion on why you think that. But your last sentence was simply a definite statement, "Bayonetta is not a strong female character meant for females." That leaves the burden of proof entirely on you and often gets people's back up, including females that might think otherwise. Just a bit of food for thought with some of the current flame wars these topics tend to elicit.

[Shjade]

Did the camera zoom in on his ass and pecs multiple time in every cut scene? Yes.

I decided not to take your word for it on this.

I didn't watch the entire 90 minutes, but you know what I saw most while skipping around this video?

Face shots and far-away full body shots. Also, a guy wearing a trenchcoat that in no way allowed for close-up shots of his ass even if the camera wanted to go there. No zoomed-in crotch shots while he flails his legs around. No gratuitous flexing or posing to show off his body for no apparent reason in combat or while just having a conversation with other characters. There's a pretty ridiculous early scene where he's flying through the air naked with various silly object-blocks of his crotch while he gets dressed, that's about it unless I missed some other glaring exception; the majority of scenes were nothing of the sort.

In other words, as far as I can tell: you're lying to me. This does not bode well.

[Kathadon]

There are a lot of Devil May Cry games. Try number 3 with the white hair when he mainly just wears the trench coat without a shirt underneath and hip hugging jeans. I remember a nice ass shot when he dropped onto his bike that made my SO take notice while I was playing it. She loved that white hair Dante, and was pissed when they remade the character to the black hair one.

In every movement that trench coat flips up and guess what that shows? His ass in tight jeans or he poses for a second after doing a little uppercut showing his physique. Shocker. Maybe that is why they had him wear tight pants in all the games and a beat up grey tank after the redesign in the latest one? Why they bothered giving him back an undershirt at all is beyond me. So yeah it is likely meant to be a sexy male power fantasy in my opinion, because if not we could just have had another Kratos or War from Darksiders and get the exact same action combat gameplay. Right? Just like Bayonetta is meant to be a sexy female power fantasy and still appeal to the male audience. That requires sexual stuff go figure.

And does the scene where he flies through the air naked in the black hair one just not count now? Oh look it is funny because the random objects block his penis. Bayonetta's hair blocks you from seeing her naughty bits too you know? And no game will have zoomed in crotch shots of a male, not yet anyway. Even in Metal Gear when the guy was completely naked he managed to cover his junk doing flips.

Bayonetta is a female character that uses her sex as a weapon, not in a deceptive way, but in a direct in your face way. The character is damn near as close as a dominatrix as could be portrayed in a video game, and still clear that M rating. Are the camera angles in Bayonetta more exhibisionist? Yep. Because that is the point in the hyper sexual kinky character that is comfortable with her own sex enough to use it in the middle of a fight and bloody enjoys it. Hell her finishing move is called a Climax, you know the common slang for the female orgasim.

Which is a good thing in my opinion. Room for Bayonetta, room for Dante, and room for Kratos and War. Diversity in characters and designs in the same boring genre. Gotta love it.

[Chris Brady]

If they said that, it's utter bullshit. The game is about criminals. If they introduce a female PC, she should be a criminal too.

That's not what they SAID.  They WANTED A POSITIVE FEMALE LEAD IN A GTA GAME!  This is what they said.  Of course, it's unusual, it's the nature of the argument!  It didn't make sense in the Polygon review of GTA5!  It still doesn't make sense NOW!

1) I want more female protagonists. I want women who are scumbags and savage monsters. I want muscular, ripped women akin to Kratos. I want old women. I want more women like Aveline de Grandpre, like Amanda Ripley, like April Ryan, like Chell, like Clementine, like Jade.

2) I want more gay and bisexual protagonists. I want more same-sex love interests where there are love interests to be found.

3) I want more protagonists of color. I want more female protagonists of color.

4) I want more transgendered protagonists.

5) I want fewer female love-interests that are killed to advance the plot and give the male hero motivation. I want more love-interests that are fully fleshed and developed. I want more female love-interests that do their own thing and are just as awesome as the hero.

6) I want more diverse personalities in male heroes. I want more shy and sweet scientists. More happy-go-lucky cuties that brighten everyone's day. More emotional, sensitive guys.

7) I want more female villains, who are even scarcer than female protagonists. More women like GLaDOS, like SHODAN, like Alma Wade, like Amanda Evert, like Dahlia Hawthorne. I want sympathetic villains that you can't help but feel for, I want absolute monsters that scare you, that you can't wait to end.

9) I want more disabled protagonists. (Does Adam Jensen count?)

10) I want more mentally ill protagonists, with their mental illness portrayed with realism and dignity.

All these would make me pretty happy, and they're really not difficult to accomplish.

See, this is a start.  A shallow one, but a start.  Because we're still glossing over the details.  Simply because we have no idea as to WHAT exactly would constitute any of those categories.  Would it be OK with a Gay/Lesbian villain?  Or a Crippled one?

And frankly, I have no idea how any can implement any of these, because if Movies and T.V. shows won't do it, I sincerely doubt Video Games will.  Although frankly, TV and Movies should...  But haven't in over 50 years of existence.  Typically minorities tend to be glossed over.  Especially anything that might make the audience uncomfortable, or really...  I mean, yes, we've seen Gay and Lesbian protagonists, usually in Comedies, or as shock/novelty characters/shows.  And as of yet, I've known of only one main lead that's an amputee (How to Train Your Dragon 2's Hiccup.)

I mean, take 9 and 10 on your list, do you honestly think anyone can do crippled (physically or mentally) hero/ines well enough that SOMEONE won't scream 'RACIST' or some other -ist at them?  Those types of things are tricky to do, and one thing I've noticed, is that people always take the safe way to do something, especially if they don't want to be seen as a racist, sexist or whatever.

Then again, at this point, I'm firmly in the belief that no one will ever be pleased.  Simply because if they were, then this entire shouting match would be over, and they'd have to look for another cause to take up and scream in the streets about.

I am however calling this one out:

8) I don't want any more overt misogyny played for laughs, Duke Nukem Forever style.

No one wanted this.  They wanted a better game and character than we got, instead we got this tripe, and you know what?  Sales bombed and bombed hard, pretty telling as to how much we wanted this.  What gamers wanted, and what gamers got were not in sync, and reviewers called out the excessively sexist commentary in the game.

I find this very unusual. Every gamer I've talked to before identifies with the PCs in the games they play.

Really, that they can identify with whatever Captain Shepard they make in Mass Effect but still go through the entirely scripted story, or with God of War's bundle of destructive rage that's Kratos, or with any of the three leads in Grand Theft Auto 5?  You've talked to some weird people...

Well that's a ridiculous question, did we start taking hostages and you need our demands?

How is it ridiculous?  Screaming 'WE WANT CHANGE!' and not specifying what sort of change you want is not very conducive to a discussion.  You DO want a discussion, right?

You know what's really sad?  There are a few PR companies out there that have told the Game Devs to shut down the conversation whenever someone starts even hinting at wanting 'Diversity' in a question, as they view it as a trap that will get the developers in question harassed.  And you know what?  A lot of the time, it is a trap.  Because no one wants to tell anyone what they really mean by 'Diversity'.

Would you like to see the portrayal of geeks and nerds remain fixed at the 1980/90s level? An endless parade of Steve Urkels defining how other people should perceive you?

With more respect than we're getting now.  Instead we're getting attacked and shamed, and we're falling for it.  Every article on how all (and yes, they've painted ALL male gamers with the same brush here) gamers are dicks and jerks that spout racist epithets like we're all those early XBox Live kids, that ALL gamers will utter death threats, and how all gamers are misogynistic pigs that should be relegated to jails with the rest of the pedophiles, some of which are written by male gamers, all point to the same thing:

Lack of respect for each of us as individual people.  Instead we're getting put into this group of lowlife 'neckbeards' that are assumed to live in our mom's basement.  How often do we STILL get that portrayal?  More than I'd like.  What I want, is what I'm assuming most of us want here:  Respect.

Take a look at Bernard Benouli in maniac mansion or day of the tentacle (not a brilliant example, because those games were deconstructions of the cliques in media at the time but honestly video games have never been too terribly unkind to nerds for obvious reasons so it's hard to find examples) and compare that to how a computer savvy, technically literate character is treated in Watchdogs.

Most games don't have gawky, skinny, self-conscious nerds as the main lead of their game.  They're typically relegated to the secondary role of Support.  Most games have big, buff, handsome male leads that make most Marines envious.

I know the experience of being told "you're a white male, you don't get it" and yeah it does suck. It's frustrating to see movies depict white people as 'lacking culture' compared to the vibrant cultures of other groups. It's annoying to be told that these problems don't exist.

And you're getting it every day, and without realizing it, you're OK with it.

Well, I'll admit that it does happen, but honestly as someone who gets to see both sides of the fence, you're getting off lightly. If your experience is enough for you to be ranting about it on here... just try to use your imagination for a second and picture how frustrating the more extreme experiences of others might be. Then you'll understand why you're seeing rants on these issues.

Lightly?  Every time there's this article about how white males are somehow to blame for something, because MAJORITY, you're getting painted with the same brush.  And believe you me, there are A LOT of those all over the place.

It's not sadly. Continuously, every day I have reminders that practically nothing was built with me in mind. I have to make do with entertainment and media that was built for someone else.

Usually, Japanese, if you love RPGs.  Not sure who Fantasy games (in general) are catering too, but it's not us North Americans.  Maybe Europeans.

Gee that would be nice. I was kind of hoping that after a day of dealing with this sort of bullshit I could relax with a video game, but that's just a reminder that I'm not welcome too.

Welcome to Gamergate, the latest of a long line of abuse that Gamers, especially the Male kind, have been subjected to for the last 30+ years.

Which is a good thing in my opinion. Room for Bayonetta, room for Dante, and room for Kratos and War. Diversity in characters and designs in the same boring genre. Gotta love it.

By the by, Bayonetta was designed by a woman.  Everything about her was designed by a woman doing her personal power fantasy.  Her name is:  Mari Shimazaki

[Vorian]

Which is a good thing in my opinion. Room for Bayonetta, room for Dante, and room for Kratos and War. Diversity in characters and designs in the same boring genre. Gotta love it.

See I more or less agree here (not familiar with Bayonetta or Dante specifically), but I think the real point is there's also room for female leads who aren't sexualized and we don't see nearly enough of them. Diversity.

Edit: And not just leads - villains and supporting characters as well.

Really, that they can identify with whatever Captain Shepard they make in Mass Effect but still go through the entirely scripted story, or with God of War's bundle of destructive rage that's Kratos, or with any of the three leads in Grand Theft Auto 5?  You've talked to some weird people...

Personally I strongly identified with my Commander Shepard, she represented a part of me I can't really express in the real world. That's why I loved the series so much despite its flaws. Kratos I couldn't identify with at all and that's a big part of why I never bothered to finish even the first game. The more I can identify with the character I'm playing, the more I enjoy the game in general.

[Melusine]

That's not what they SAID.  They WANTED A POSITIVE FEMALE LEAD IN A GTA GAME!  This is what they said.  Of course, it's unusual, it's the nature of the argument!  It didn't make sense in the Polygon review of GTA5!  It still doesn't make sense NOW!

I might not have expressed this well, but I do believe you. I'm agreeing with you.

See, this is a start.  A shallow one, but a start.  Because we're still glossing over the details.  Simply because we have no idea as to WHAT exactly would constitute any of those categories.  Would it be OK with a Gay/Lesbian villain?  Or a Crippled one?

I don't see why not.

And frankly, I have no idea how any can implement any of these, because if Movies and T.V. shows won't do it, I sincerely doubt Video Games will.  Although frankly, TV and Movies should...  But haven't in over 50 years of existence.  Typically minorities tend to be glossed over.  Especially anything that might make the audience uncomfortable, or really...  I mean, yes, we've seen Gay and Lesbian protagonists, usually in Comedies, or as shock/novelty characters/shows.  And as of yet, I've known of only one main lead that's an amputee (How to Train Your Dragon 2's Hiccup.)

How they can implement it? That's easy. Show your male protagonist going on a date with a guy. There, automatically he's not straight. Make your protagonist female and chinese. There, automatically she's female and chinese. Show your character communicating with sign language. There, automatically they're deaf.

Whether or not they WILL is a different matter, but I'm optimistic. Movies and TV should shape up, and so should videogames. People loved Hiccup, didn't they? Also, Clint Barton from Avengers has established hearing problems.

I mean, take 9 and 10 on your list, do you honestly think anyone can do crippled (physically or mentally) hero/ines well enough that SOMEONE won't scream 'RACIST' or some other -ist at them?  Those types of things are tricky to do, and one thing I've noticed, is that people always take the safe way to do something, especially if they don't want to be seen as a racist, sexist or whatever.

Yes, I do honestly think that. I've seen it happen. It might be tricky to tell a story from a different perspective but with some research and an open mind, it can be done. You yourself gave an example: the game with the asian american protagonist, which was made by white american men. Was there an outcry with that?

Then again, at this point, I'm firmly in the belief that no one will ever be pleased.  Simply because if they were, then this entire shouting match would be over, and they'd have to look for another cause to take up and scream in the streets about.

I said it before, it's extremely insulting to believe that people like me just enjoy being upset and having shouting matches.

No one wanted this.  They wanted a better game and character than we got, instead we got this tripe, and you know what?  Sales bombed and bombed hard, pretty telling as to how much we wanted this.  What gamers wanted, and what gamers got were not in sync, and reviewers called out the excessively sexist commentary in the game.

And I'm glad for that. That was a great response to the game.

Really, that they can identify with whatever Captain Shepard they make in Mass Effect but still go through the entirely scripted story, or with God of War's bundle of destructive rage that's Kratos, or with any of the three leads in Grand Theft Auto 5?  You've talked to some weird people...

I haven't met ANYONE who didn't identify with their Shepard. That's the point of being able to create your own PC: so you can make them like you, and most people take advantage of that chance. The point of Kratos and the Grand Theft Auto protags is that they promote power fantasies. They don't appeal to everyone, of course. Some others identify with Nathan Drake, others with Ezio, others with Lara Croft, others with Samus Aran.

By the by, Bayonetta was designed by a woman.  Everything about her was designed by a woman doing her personal power fantasy.  Her name is:  Mari Shimazaki

Please note that the director of the game is Hideki Kamiya, a man. Please also note that the second game was promoted by Playboy magazine, with a woman cosplaying Bayonetta and posing sexily.

[Kythia]

I've just spent a lot of time working through the search results of this search and I can't find that review (the GTA v one that so upset you) anywhere.  Are you sure you've got all the details right?  Are you sure you're not making it up?  Is there anything else you can remember about it that might narrow it down?

[Shjade]

And does the scene where he flies through the air naked in the black hair one just not count now? Oh look it is funny because the random objects block his penis. Bayonetta's hair blocks you from seeing her naughty bits too you know? And no game will have zoomed in crotch shots of a male, not yet anyway. Even in Metal Gear when the guy was completely naked he managed to cover his junk doing flips.

No, it definitely counts. That grand total of 1 cutscene in the whole game definitely counts.

I know there's more than one Devil May Cry game. You're the one who said to check DMC, so I checked DMC, and while it has occasional physique-flash shots, they are far from the constant exhibition present in Bayonetta, which is what I asked you (and what you, falsely, told me was the case).

[Slywyn]

There was another conversation going on at the same time to bear with me on these quotes but-

No, I’m not. I’m talking about Mari Shimazaki’s interview with Gerald Villoria at Gamespy, where she says that she “had a lot of conversations with Kaimya” about what is sexy from a male point of view and what he wants in the character



That if she had free reign to design whatever she wanted Bayonetta is also what she thinks is sexy (and this is where she mentions she thinks Jeanne is more Kamiya’s type, though this does not negate the earlier statement that she was tasked with designing what Kamiya told her men find sexy)



And that as far as power fantasies go, when she plays Bayonetta she feels like she is Bayonetta in the same way that she feels like she becomes the male protagonist in games with a dude as the lead character.



There is nothing wrong with designing a sexy character or wanting to play a sexy lady in a game, but she was pretty clearly designed with dudes in mind and Mari Shimazaki straight up says as much. Like, I am not trying to take away Bayonetta as anyone’s personal power fantasy, but let’s acknowledge she was designed with what makes the average gamer dude happy in a pretty prominent place on the priority list.

So let's stop pretending Bayonetta was designed with women in mind.

[Ephiral]

Since it seems that we're at this point in the conversation: Male gaze vs female gaze in a nutshell.

Idly, Chris, I have a question. Not unique to you, but you're the one I've seen expressing this sentiment most recently. What exactly is it that makes someone a gamer? I've been playing games for 30 years, but because I want to see better games with broader appeal, apparently I'm an outsider infecting the community. I've played everything from ADVENT to Civ:BE to Assassin's Creed 4 to a number of MMOs, but because I'm tired of being treated as something dirty - an insult or a punchline - by a community that presents itself as a safe space for outcasts, I'm an outsider who wants to tear everything down.

If "playing and loving games, and wanting to see more and better games" doesn't qualify me, why not?

[Chris Brady]

I've just spent a lot of time working through the search results of this search and I can't find that review (the GTA v one that so upset you) anywhere.  Are you sure you've got all the details right?  Are you sure you're not making it up?  Is there anything else you can remember about it that might narrow it down?

I said Polygon and GTA 5.  It was all there, and I found it relatively easily using those two keywords, I'm sorry you couldn't find it.

http://www.polygon.com/2013/9/16/4720458/gta-5-review-grand-theft-auto  And the 'offending' paragraphs is right here:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

All of Grand Theft Auto 5's leads are deeply unsatisfied in their own ways. Crushed by the monotony of life or the thumb of the system, they seek adventure, money and mayhem. Rockstar demonstrates real progression for the series narratively and in characterization, and for open-world games in general — unless that character is or involves a woman.

There are more interesting female characters on Grand Theft Auto 5's disc art than there are in Grand Theft Auto 5; the female cop and female criminal printed onto the disc are never seen in the game's vast world.
"There are more interesting female characters on Grand Theft Auto 5's disc art than there are in Grand Theft Auto 5"

I counted roughly (and generously) six semi-important female characters in the game, maybe a couple more if I include the occasional quest giver or victim of theft. None are playable. All but one are shrill buzzkills; the latter has Stockholm syndrome. And the two grisliest murders in the game happen to women. One side story involves the persistent and unsettling harassment of an absent female character, the purpose of which is to show the cruelty of Trevor, but which goes upsettingly far beyond what feels necessary to the story.

While most of Grand Theft Auto 5 feels like an evolution of the blockbuster video game, its treatment of women is a relic from the current generation, which is too often fixated on bald men and big breasts. In terms of landscape and architecture, San Andreas is the most realistic virtual world I've visited, but the population is aggressively, comically, distractingly male. I cannot think of any piece of media more fascinated with the male phallus.

Oh, and for the record, I hate the GTA series.  I'm not one to play out and out selfish crooks.

The issue here is that none of the main leads are supposed to be fully likeable.  They're IDIOTS in their own way.  Franklin, the Black guy's idea of 'moving up' is to join a bank robber's crew.

Michael is/was a successful bank robber, is exceedingly rich, but his marriage is on the rocks.  His wife's cheating on him, his daughter's practically prostituting herself and his son is a marijuana addict, right down to the lack of ambition and spending his time at home toking up.  His solution to his money problems?  STEAL MORE MONEY!

And Trevor is every single GTA video game that treats it solely as a game, and not caring about narrative (which I'm not blaming or accusing anyone here, but if you sit down and watch the albeit very funny stunts that they pull off, if they tried any of it in real life, you would get...  Trevor, if not dead) wrapped up into a rather offensive hillbilly redneck conspiracy theory stereotype.

These are not positive people.  They're not people you should identify with.  The fact that women are not also portrayed like these morons is actually a blessing, as you COULD (and I do) take it that women, in general aren't as dumb as most of the men in this game, and the fact that there are more men who are idiots than women, is and I repeat myself here, an affirmation that women are smarter than to pull this stuff.

...

Dammit, I just realized I just got sucked into the wrong argument again.  It's turned into a feminist argument, which Gamergate was never about.  I apologize to everyone here, and I'm backing out.  I'm still trying to figure out how to make gamer news outlets more accountable for their reviews and potential paid ads as reviews.

No matter what happens, Happy Gaming.

[Kythia]

That doesn't even nearly say what you claimed it said.  Not even nearly. You claimed that a review had wanted:

They wanted a 'positive female lead' in GTA, because all the other ones were stupid/selfish/criminal.

That's not what the review you quoted asked for.  Not by any meaning of any of the included words.  You have read that wrong.  The review is asking for interesting and important female characters, not positive role models.  I couldn't find that review because it bears no relation at all to the one you described.  In short, you did make it up.  I thought you probably had.

[Ebb]

Then again, at this point, I'm firmly in the belief that no one will ever be pleased.  Simply because if they were, then this entire shouting match would be over, and they'd have to look for another cause to take up and scream in the streets about.

Dammit, I just realized I just got sucked into the wrong argument again.  It's turned into a feminist argument, which Gamergate was never about.  I apologize to everyone here, and I'm backing out.  I'm still trying to figure out how to make gamer news outlets more accountable for their reviews and potential paid ads as reviews.

That's probably for the best. In your first quote you're flat-out saying that you think the people arguing against you are being disingenuous; that they do not honestly hold the opinions that they're espousing, and that they're only propagating this 'shouting match' because, I guess, they enjoy 'screaming in the streets'. That's horrendously offensive, and essentially poisons the well of discourse so thoroughly that any reasonable discussion becomes impossible. If you cannot respect those you're speaking with to grant even that they are being sincere in their voiced beliefs, then you have no business engaging in conversation with them.

[Caehlim]

Oh, just for the record, earlier on when I said that Bayonetta had a potential artistic argument as portraying the nature of power fantasies I didn't mean to imply that it was a female power fantasy. I meant that it exaggerates the sexual divergence of how power fantasies treat men and women differently to a point so ridiculous that it potentially parodies the discrepancy. In other words rather than being a female power fantasy it seems a mockery of male ideas of female power.

I'm not sure if that was the intent of the series since I honestly know very little about the game. It may just be intended as cheap titillation, although I'd like to hope that it was a deconstruction.

[Shjade]

Dammit, I just realized I just got sucked into the wrong argument again.  It's turned into a feminist argument, which Gamergate was never about.  I apologize to everyone here, and I'm backing out.  I'm still trying to figure out how to make gamer news outlets more accountable for their reviews and potential paid ads as reviews.

Which seems like a laudable goal, and I hope you figure out the answer to that problem.

GamerGate, on the other hand, is more concerned with being terrorists. That's not hyperbole or an insult; I'm using the term literally.



No "it's not about women" or "it's not about harassment" or "it's about ethics" distractions, just someone straight up saying Gamergate is out to terrify and silence all media they feel is "with SJWs."

Spin that one.

[Kythia]

In fairness, Tunney is batshit crazy.

[Shjade]

In fairness, that's sorta the point.

[Kythia]

I dunno.  If someone with a track record of batshit craziness tweets batshit crazy stuff under a given hashtag, I'm not sure that can be taken as representative of the hashtag's aims, just of that person's craziness.  Yanno, I could tweet:

#GamerGate is nothing more than stage on of my plan to install myself as Empress of Earth

That wouldn't make GamerGate stage one of my plan to install myself as Empress of Earth, it would make me a nutjob.  I just think you need to be wary of using Tunney, specifically, as an example of anything except what a whackjob Tunney is.

[Kathadon]

http://ask.fm/JustineTunney/answer/120480616467

Says right there that their interests just aligned. No threats of violence just of bankrupting them. That would be by boycotts and contacting advertisers like the Gaters have been doing so far already and it has worked. Ten seconds of research on some random persons twitter feed. Wow.

As someone neutral I usually see people that are Anti-Gamergate say there is no Anti-Gamergate, yet with junk like this you prove that type of stuff false. You take some random person's out of context tweets, and use it as the basis of a hyperbolic insult that does nothing, but drag this mess out. The common definition of a real terrorist Shjade is a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism. Terrorism is those violent acts that are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political, or ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants. Good thing the Gaters denounce all threats of violence and have even targeted harassers on Twitter.

And before you say it Guilt by Association is a fallacy so do not bother with it. It is: A) Counter productive. B) Unjust and Illegal everywhere.

If you are saying Gamergates are terrorists Shjade then someone should tell the NFL, Chick-fil a, Disney, Firefox, and Donald Sterling and the NBA that they were the victims of a terrorist attack when people organized boycotts and contacted their advertisers for their concerns too. So I guess it is a good thing most people do not fall into the hyperbole camp, and try and use the second meaning of the definition like you do. Because that would mean a lot of good people are terrorists, including those folks above that "frightened" these companies with losing business into change, huh?

Dammit, I just realized I just got sucked into the wrong argument again.  It's turned into a feminist argument, which Gamergate was never about.  I apologize to everyone here, and I'm backing out.  I'm still trying to figure out how to make gamer news outlets more accountable for their reviews and potential paid ads as reviews.

No matter what happens, Happy Gaming.

So how about instead of arguing with and baiting the guy we ask him how he sees going about ending this? He is the one with the concerns with the status quo after all. So lets start a real discussion and try and leave our bait, ad hominums, and other assorted fallacies at home. Novel idea I know.

Okay Chris. How do we control the access to the journalists that AAA has? What is wrong with the current status quo? Why should we care when the Editors in Chief of these sites see nothing wrong? How are they so "corrupt" and unethical?

[Blythe]

Thread locked for a cooldown.