We're All Tired Of Gamergate

We're All Tired Of Gamergate

I know many people who don't like Gamergate who are tired of it. They're not alone. I was talking to a Gamergater last week who seemed tired: tired of all the tweeting, tired of all the arguing. I watched a video of a Gamergater who seemed downright exhausted. And then another; he seemed tired too.

I thought about an email I'd gotten from Brianna Wu a couple of days after she'd been frightened from her home by harassment that she said came from Gamergate, and I recalled how tired she seemed but how hopeful. She was moved, she said, by my own words that we at Kotaku reject the status quo that "discussion about gaming, games media ethics, and gamers will be forever contaminated by an ugliness disproportionate to the issues at hand." Days later, she seemed exhausted, too.

It's certainly been a tiring two months for anyone caught in the maelstrom of Gamergate, from the proponents to the targets to everyone in between. We've felt it here at Kotaku: the drag of perpetual animosity, the tiredness of the targeted.

Of course you'd be tired, our pro-Gamergate critics might say. You want it to go away. Well, kind of?

I'm under no illusion that Gamergate is going away any time soon. I'm not sure if it even should or if that would even help anyone. Feminist critic Anita Sarkeesian calls Gamergate another name for the people who've been harassing her for years. Doubtless if Gamergate ceased as a hashtag tomorrow, she'd still be getting threats. I even get the idea, pushed by many a Gamergater, that, in their view, Gamergate shouldn't have to go away, that there are plenty of people in it who stand against harassment, who are in it to defend gamers and to expose media corruption. They have received their own harassment, they have told me, and they're going to keep on going. Maybe, they imagine, some good can still come of this.

I even suggested in early September that some good could come of Gamergate:

Gamergate has been a lot of things. ... [I] hope that, in the future, it will be seen as an impetus for everyone to say enough is enough and treat each other better than before.

Here's where we seem to stand: Much of the press and the gaming world is repulsed by Gamergate, a movement that is — be it the case that it was the actions of extremists or not — is inextricably associated with harassment and that, as much as its roots may be claimed to be about games journalism still suffers the core rot of having taken seed as a blog post written by a person trying to assassinate the character of his ex-girlfriend.

Gamergaters I've talked to or whose online posts, Tweets and videos I've consumed still believe that they can sort this out and claim Gamergate as an effective watchdog movement for policing games reporting.

I'm sceptical. A good goal in and of itself, but I'm not sure it will be effective under the Gamergate banner.

I'm sceptical because I routinely see Gamergaters fail to let incompatible facts get in the way of a red-ink-stained imgur. I've had some tell me Gamergate would have been over if only Kotaku had acknowledged complaints about our reporting (but wedid right away and have been up-front about corrections for years) or if we and others hadn't colluded (not true) to attack gamers (uh, we didn't? "If you call yourself a 'gamer' and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person"). Some have brought in the old concerns about how we have been co-opted by corporate game developers when, in fact, we piss them off all the time. We are such firm believers in the importance and wonderfulness of gamers that, well before Gamergate even got off the ground, we spent several months reorienting our site to make it the most gamer-oriented gaming outlet... ever?

One of my least favourite aspects of the Gamergate controversy is how black and white it is; how, while demanding its rigid ethical codes, pressing for a single style of journalism or attempting to financially cripple, say, a gaming industry trade publication because of one essay that pissed some gamers off, it resists the reality of life's grays. This cut-and-dried mentality is all the more befuddling given how scattershot and chaotic Gamergate itself is.

If you are in Gamergate because you demand there to be a news outlet that will never screw up or publish an opinion you disagree with, you are in store for disappointment. If you're in it because you want the feminists to shut up, they're not going to. If you are in it to express the ideas that the gaming media are idiots, that Kotaku has posted some pretty dumb articles, that social issues are ruining games, have at it. But know that you live in a world where some in the gaming media are pretty smart, that Kotaku has published some great criticism and, investigative reporting (yes, yes, I'm biased) and that some people believe that caring about social issues is making gaming better. Some parts of the gaming press and gaming need improving. Some are doing well as is. It's a mix, right? There is no black and white.

I'm worried, frankly, that all the anger and hyper-tweeting and Internet fury involving Gamergate is unhealthy. I'm worried, as I said to Wu, that this will become status quo, that this is how we'll be talking about games and gamers and games media from now on — this with-us-or-against-us stance, this assumption of perpetual corruption and complaint, the suspicion that any harassment is a given for the unlucky people, mostly women, who reach a certain level of prominence in the gaming scene.

This status quo is exhausting for everyone involved. That doesn't mean we won't cover it. We will, with renewed vigor. But I — we — will also continue to hope that everyone involved can find common ground and, more importantly than ever, I think, some calm. We could all use a rest.


Comments

    Can't we just play video games?

      NO NOTHING CAN EXIST WITHOUT A RAGING POLITISTORM BEHIND IT #ALWAYSLEFTORRIGHT

      This, We all enjoy the same culture. We love games. we love Gaming. We love geek / Nerd Culture. why the fuck are we causing so much grief for each other? just get over this shit and lets get back to enjoying the games.

        I brought up that same point not too long ago when "GamerGate" was still fresh, ended up getting down voted to hell with 10+ comments disagreeing with me.

        I blame the righteous internet White knights.

          Anyone whose opinion is worth listening to already disregards anything Anita says.

          Just because you're being attacked by idiots doesn't mean you're correct.

          Last edited 21/10/14 2:24 pm

            While I don't agree with all her points, she does make some useful observations.

            "Disregarding" the opinions of anyone except confirmed nutters (of whom there is no shortage on the Internet) is a quick route to an echo chamber "this must be true because everybody agrees with me" mentality.

            The sickening thing about Gamergate isn't that people disagree with Anita. It's the physical threats and abuse she has been offered in exchange for what is a reasonable opinion. "Agree with me or I will torture your dog" (or equivalent "arguments") is NOT a reasonable position to take. (Not saying that you do, but clearly some do.)

            Sadly I don't think it is, ultimately, an issue that we can do anything about. As long as the Internet remains largely anonymous in nature (and there IS value in that anonymity) it will be effectively impossible to police such behaviour. Twitter (or Kotaku) can cancel the accounts of abusers, but there's nothing stopping them from setting up a new account and continuing.

              The fact that I'm being downvoted by people who clearly haven't actually watched her videos shows that this whole thing is just a white knight bandwagon effect.

              So anyone who disagree's with her is being painted with the same brush as the idiots who are just trolling for attention. Which is actually worse than what she's doing, you're censoring your peers based on blind faith, it's similar to burning people cause your neighbours all keep saying that they are a witch....

              SWAT'ing is a far bigger problem than Anita being threatened.

              Last edited 24/10/14 12:22 pm

                I've watched some of her videos. I find I agree/disagree 50/50. Cherrypicking her examples, then extrapolating, is her largest flaw. She does make some valid points. Even her bad points are worth at least thinking about.

                SWATting is bad - and I agree probably a bigger problem than these death threats, since it puts actual lives at risk, which is not demonstrably true of the death threats - but that doesn't mean sending death threats to strangers with whom you disagree is somehow then OK. The existence of a greater evil does not mean that we should ignore a lesser one.

                  Yeah it's true, I just think it doesn't justify the attention it's receiving. I know gender equality is far from being a non-issue but I also think the white knight effect is real and demonstrable in this case.

                  Even if she does have some valid points though it's the old 'turd in the punch bowl' problem. As soon as she argued that all female video game characters are sexualised and only exist to serve as objects of domination/sexual satisfaction for male protaganists she lost me, it's a ridiculous stance that isn't even close to being supported by fact, even the examples she sites are not accurate at all.

                  Reasoned responses like yours are not the reason I'm upset :P And the ignorance and bandwagoning is definitely present on both sides of the fence when it comes to this situation. E-thugs threatening peoples lives is obviously completely unacceptable, but there are laws to deal with that, we don't need a lynch mob :P

                  Last edited 24/10/14 2:07 pm

        According to Leigh Alexander, no, because being a gamer means we are "maladaptive people seeking maladaptive coping".

          If she really felt that way why would she get into games journalism?
          Seems weird to have so little respect for your audience that you'd paint them with one brush.

            Yes, seems weird, until you find out she has a book being released soon on this specific topic. Check out theralphretort.com which has a lot of info.

            Probably because it is possible to love motorcycles without being a biker.

            There's a difference between enjoying a pastime that comes with a specific subculture and being a member of an antisocial subculture within a subculture. Whether you think the term "gamer" is representative of the whole game-loving subculture, or the hateful, maladjusted sub-subculture she applies it to is up to you.

            She describes a subset of a larger culture accurately. The argument is over the branding.

              That's a pretty good analogy you've got there. Well, sort of. Actually I'm changing my mind.
              I mean, it would work but I think Leigh probably does play games. Ride motorcycles. Whichever.
              How about "it is possible to love motorcycles without liking other bikers"? That works.

              I guess the question becomes "does working by talking about bikes offset having to deal with bikers?"
              Which is only a question she can answer, once you've given her context on why you're talking about motorcycles .

      No fun allowed. Civil Protection will arrive shortly to administer your daily dose of punishment.

      No but seriously when there's an agenda to be pushed by someone, the argument is invariably polarised into a 'with us or against us' state of affairs. EDIT: Funny Kotaku should talk about this in the article, yet is quick to point out that because extremists in the GamerGate camp are being dicks and harassing people, the entire movement is full of hatred. Both sides seek to polarise the argument, both sides are spitting venom. That shade of grey exists on both sides.

      Last edited 21/10/14 11:41 am

      Anyone, absolutely anyone who thinks gamergate is a "thing" needs to read this and then refute every single point.

      http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134839993&postcount=15450

        I don't care about Zoe or Anita. I care about the crappy articles people are being paid to write and persuade me to buy a crappy product.

        There. Refuted.

          Yet most of gamergate's actions are direct hatred against Zoe and/or Anita.

          You want to complain about corruption in video game reviewing and video game articles? Then direct your arguments towards specific video game reviewing outlets or reviewers accompanied by PROOF. So far, gamergate has a lot of complaints, but NOTHING to back it up.

          Gamergate as a thing needs to be left alone and ignored so it just vanishes when the attention seeking xchan masses get bored of a lack of attention, and the rampant misogynistic morons get the appropriate scorn they deserve.

            Yet most of gamergate's actions are direct hatred against Zoe and/or Anita.

            Source? Because it really isn't. Have you even scrolled through the hashtag?

            And I do express my issues to the outlets. They have been ignored for years. I'm quite happy now that, for instance, BMW, Mercedes, Unilever and others have withdrawn advertising from Gamasutra. Several of there writers have tweeted grossly inappropriate comments.

              Yeah, because BMW, Mercedes and Unilever make so many video games... And note that I said "actions", not tweets.

              This is the kind of misdirection and garbage that is synonymous with people trying to cloud the issue and make it seem like it's about something it's not.

              Again, xchan getting its jollies on playing with the Internet.

              Last edited 21/10/14 6:54 pm

                Yet most of gamergate's actions are direct hatred against Zoe and/or Anita.
                Source? Because it really isn't. Have you even scrolled through the hashtag?

                Still waiting. Unless that was your misdirection and garbage.

                  If we're playing that game, I asked for proof first. Still hasn't been provided.

                  Sorry, you're not wasting any more of my time.

            There was some pretty damning evidence against Hernandez and nothing came of it.

          How do you tell the difference between a crappy article and one that just disagrees with you? I have hated games that lots of people love. I don't blame journalism, I accept that people have different opinions.

        OMG, links to verifiable data as opposed to the conjecture, already debunked claims being bandied about as fact and Youtube opinion pieces from cranks!

        Verifiable data is like Kryptonite to the more fervent Gaters.

      Yes we can, let the angry people rage and complain while we play games and have fun

      When people are no longer receiving death threats and being forced from their homes, then we can just play video games.

    You know what the stupidest part of all of this is...

    Depression Quest, the game that kicked off this whole thing, is free.

    Even if Zoe Quinn banged every single games journalist in the world to get positive coverage of her game, and you were somehow misled in to playing it. It is free.

    Gamergate people continue to waste countless hours of their lives angry about possibly being tricked in to spending some time playing a free game.

    That is stupid.

    Last edited 21/10/14 11:41 am

      Uugghh.
      Fist off, i don't have twitter or reddit or 4chan, but:
      It didn't start with JUST that.
      You also forgot to mention patricia hrandrzrrz (kotaku's own).
      I think some of gamer gate is immature and childish, but hey, that sounds like the half the internet, only it's in a hash tag.

        Shhh... They are telling you what it is about! Don't argue! Despite it being a hashtag lacking any misogyny that is what they are telling you it is full of so that's what it damn well is.... And anyway you're dead remember...

      Well, just because it's free doesn't mean she hasn't gotten anything out of it. She's now got a whole lot more notoriety than before, which means extra attention given to any future projects that do involve money. Plus a wider audience donating to her patreon account or whatever. I guess the idea wouldn't be so much that people are being tricked into playing her game, so much that she's "undeservedly" getting attention that could be given to another more deserving dev. Or something.

      I dunno, I don't really have any stake in this whole thing, just tossing out thoughts.

        Nothing is stopping other devs sleeping with gaming journalists.

          There certainly should be, insofar as professional integrity is concerned. The journalist ethic is to report news, not to tailor it, and certain types of relationship between a journalist and his subject undermine public trust.

          Regardless of whether Gamegate was an example of this or not, this is something we should not compromise on. It's a core tenet of free press.

            There are really only two solutions;

            No developers sleep with any journalists OR
            All developers sleep with all journalists

            I know what side I'm on.

              The solution that has worked for decades of free press is that journalists may not write about subjects where non-professional relationships are involved. Prominent disclosure is also a solution, albeit less preferred. But if it were forced to be one of the two options you presented, the more ethical solution would be for no developers to sleep with any journalists.

              Last edited 21/10/14 1:06 pm

                You are very serious.

                  That's why they call me Serious Jesus. Wait no, they call me Zombie Jesus. Well shit, I don't even know now. Zombies can be pretty serious, right?

            Gamergate is certainly not an example of this issue, given that the allegations were fabricated.

            And whatever relationships journalists might have - remember, they are people, and are permitted to do things like have relationships and ideas about things - that only becomes a matter of public concern, and journalistic ethics, when it impacts upon their journalism. And there's never been any evidence of that in this whole affair either.

              I was about to say this. Was there any proof that Zoe slept with the journalists or is it just something that gamergate made up? Which to me is the most childish accusation... Highlights how stupid the gaters are...

                No, the only 'evidence' in support of the allegation was the claim made by the crazed former boyfriend that there had been such a relationship. Why anyone would take that as reliable evidence is beyond me.

                And even if there were any truth to the allegation that Quinn had some sort of personal relationship with Grayson, he didn't actually review or otherwise write about the game for Kotaku or anyone else.

            I agree 100%

            But have you picked up a paper or watched any major network news show lately? That ship sailed a long time ago.
            I can't help but feel many just go through the motions of outrage when they focus on a snippet of a much larger problem.
            (I don't mean you)

      Why do you say that a woman has to "bang" her way anywhere to get something achieved or get a positive response?

        Um, what? Where did I use the phrase "has to"?

    I have avoided all this discussion and just happily went on loving games and playing them. I also continue to visit a site if i enjoy their content and will arrive at my own opinions about what sites to go to and what not to.

    I'm a proud gamer and have a number of friendships within the gaming industry and every single person I have met, devs, testers, publishers, editors and even a few CEO's have been the most amazing people just like you and me. They are all working, often longer hours and for less pay to do what they love and I am just so sick of how the noisy minority are acting.

    Love games, enjoy the hard work that everyone in this industry puts into bringing you this great entertainment. If you don't like something, and I mean where you have a well informed personal opinion, feel free to discuss it with others and call it out, but do so as you would a workplace dispute. Be respectful and calm.

    When i sit down years from now with my son to explain this time in gaming history, It will be like explaining segregation. (I'm not comparing the two in severity, more that it's going to be difficult to explain why there was such passion and hatred and why some people were scared for their lives over this).

    I see this as an extension of the overwhelming negativity and entitlement that has dominated gaming for years (again, vocal minority) now and I really don't like the direction it's heading in and I certainly don't feel represented by this hashtag/movement.

    I don't want people to read this and get into an argument, I want them to take a step back and just enjoy your hobby again. No idea who i'm writing this for, but I needed a place to share that.

    Last edited 21/10/14 11:53 am

    Then why don't they just... stop. I don't get it. Just play video games and let it be over with. What am I missing here? *Continues to slay Uruks happily*

    Last edited 21/10/14 11:56 am

      Because some of the people who just want to make and play and talk about games are being inundated with credible threats of violence. Some chucklefucks are ruining it for all of us and like it or not, they are using the gamergate banner.

      You have a problem with bad journalism? Cool. I do to. Gamergate has been poisoned. You can still like drinking water, but refuse to go to the poisoned well.

    I don't know what all the fuss is about...

    There's nothing wrong with GamersGate

    http://www.gamersgate.com/

    It's a perfectly fine digital distribution site.... :P

      I've been feeling really bad for gamersgate.com for the past few months. Poor buggers.

        Why? Negative publicity that has nothing to do with them can only be seen as positive publicity when it's all said and done.

        Case in point: I didn't know about that site until just now.

          Enough people confuse gamergate and gamersgate that I'm sure they would have received a few strongly worded emails.
          I feel bad because a human being would have to deal with that crap, someone would get to sit down and read through crap erroneously flung in their direction by idiots.
          Talk's over now.

            -removed-

            Last edited 21/10/14 4:14 pm

    I just want it all to be over so Internet Aristocrat can get back to making Tumblrisms videos.

    Agreed. Just like the Fappening, move on already.

      We're trying. Problem is the people involved keep bringing it back to our attention with speeches and whatnot on how victimised they are and how everyone who looks at the now released images is a rapist.

      I think they fail to realise that in less than a year, those images would be confined to the same depths as celebrity fakes and completely ignored except for the small niche who gives a shit.

        Yes, how dare they interfere with your freedom to commit sex crimes.

          Three things. No one should be considered guilty of a sex crime for looking at a photo. Releasing private photos, sure. Taking illegal photos, sure. But looking? No. If you think so, enjoy your police state, nazi.

          Secondly. Nude photos aren't precious memories. A facial is not something to look back on with fond memories, like a daughters birthday. I have no sympathy for people who take these photos. Especially those who don't look at or pay attention to the settings of the device they're trusting with their nudity.

          Thirdly. They're naked human bodies. Who gives a shit? They have nothing more or less special about them than anyone else. That's why no one cares. That's why, after average joe has seen what's under the hood, they don't care and go back to their normal assortment of pornography. Unless their normporn is celebrity, they'll probably never look at those photos again.

      i really don't get the fappening, hundreds of nudes online already, why do people care so much about crappy actors?

        It was the novelty of it, for a few days. We have mostly forgotten about it and gotten on with our lives.

    I've actually been impressed with the efforts that Kotaku US have been making to improve the quality of their articles. I admit I haven't always been constructively critical but the guys and gals don't deserve any of the vitriol that people often spew their way. As for GG in general, on the one hand, this is not new. History is full of conflict and extremist groups making the lives of others hell because they either disagree, or are designated a target because "reasons". On the other hand though, gamers are a particularly insidious type of extremist group when they want to be because we essentially sit on a stockpile of nukes called "The Internet" and a lot of us know how to do precision strikes with thermonuclear warheads (ie. Hacking, doxxing, etc.). How I long for Yesterday...

    Last edited 21/10/14 12:24 pm

    Tired of gamergate. Writes another article about gamergate.
    Accuses gamergate of being black/white in an article that enforces a black/white viewpoint.

    I honestly feel like im eating crazypills like tictacs in this gamergate bullshit from both fucking sides. Except the only website that is STILL posting shit about this that i visit is Kotaku.
    Im gonna go play Borderlands TPS and try to ignore the hypocrisy from one side and the vileness of the others.

      Tbh I'm more tired of Totillos war on gamergate. I never see him try to report on it in any meaningful manner, just constantly throwing them all in together whenever there's some bomb threat.

      What you've said is quite true.
      On one side you have a whole lot of authors trying to push a narrative like "gamers are dead" and "gamergate is only about misogyny" and then on the other side you have people unironically using terms like "redpill" and "controlling narratives".

      Then we end up with two extreme ends and nobody wins.

      Can you explain to me where in the article he paints all of one side with one brush? Granted he talked more about the negative aspects of GamerGaters than, uhh, not GamerGaters (?) but I got the feeling he went out of his way to point out that he'd talked to GamerGaters with a whole range of opinions, some of which he thought were worth pursuing.

        "Here’s where we seem to stand: Much of the press and the gaming world is repulsed by Gamergate, a movement that is — be it the case that it was the actions of extremists or not — is inextricably associated with harassment and that, as much as its roots may be claimed to be about games journalism still suffers the core rot of having taken seed as a blog post written by a person trying to assassinate the character of his ex-girlfriend"
        The press is repulsed by gamergate. Therefore you are pissed about gamergate, down with gamergate.
        He then ties gamergate to the extremists who are filled with hate who latch onto anything they possible can and says its inextricably tied to that. Its an argument made endlessly by the press, this website, and anti gamergate people, when MOST have tried to. But while the media is against these people with points, to the point where Stephen mistakes them as "If you are in Gamergate because you demand there to be a news outlet that will never screw up or publish an opinion you disagree with, you are in store for disappointment."
        He hardly mentions the death threats to pro gamergate people, hell people like boogie2988(francis) who used to be ENDLESSLY posted on this site, hasnt had a single thing posted here in a while has endlessly had death threats because hes fat, has now received EVEN more because he agreed with ALOT of the pro gamergates points while berating those who do the extremist behaviours of the extreme pro gamergate nutjobs while having alot of his public records put online.
        So now hes getting double teamed. Where are his articles? Oh right. Hes a fat dude and hes been attacked by the same group we are advocating for, better not bring that up.
        Just because he briefly mentions how some people in the gamergate have opinions that have some merit that should be pursued, in an article that is designed so heavily in the other side, doesnt suddenly make it a fair and balanced view, unless were talking Fox News fair and balanced.

        Personally im sick of the lack of empathy from alot of people on EITHER SIDE, im sick of the hatred, im sick of the disgusting behaviors, the hypocrisy from the media who just post the same shit over and over again...
        Alot of gamers have been attacked by the media they actively read/listen to, all because assholes decided to escalate over and over again from the fact an ex got owned and decided to bring to light how incestuous alot of gaming websites (especially THIS ONE) were/are in regards to not only to the big publishers, but now the indies as well because he couldnt handle the betrayal he felt and it continued to escalate further and further by the media who were outed and horrible human beings who were just itching for an excuse to be c*nts to women because they are women with *shock* opinions.
        What i hate the most however, is the never ending forcing of an opinion by both sides. See the post that @rimmy made below for a comic that illustrates this perfectly.

        Im not taking a side, im not taking a stand. Im exhausted.
        I just wanna take a seat and play video games.

      Right on, I come here to get away from media bs...looks like its made its way here too. I've been thinking about giving kotaku a break for a while.
      Anyone know any other good Aus gaming sites?

      Last edited 22/10/14 12:37 am

    Straight up exhausted. I wish my friend would shut the fuck up about it too.

    Hey here is a crazy idea, what if gamergate went on for 4 more years & lets us see which side is more exhausted after that amount of years (4 more years reference is a reference to the ww1, a very tragic war that put mental trauma for all the nations involved, which unfortunately led to ww2). But come on end this internet conflict now or else many people involved may need a whole lot of therapy to get over the trauma associated with this contraversy.

    Last edited 21/10/14 1:16 pm

    I couldn't agree more in wanting this stupid crap to blow over. GamerGate has become the exact type of insular clique it was calling out journos for being a part of, lashing out at anyone who isn't them regardless of whether or not they deserved it. However, the other side aren't completely blameless either; by painting the movement as entirely hate-based and throwing gamers under black and white banners, all they do is incite more anger and perpetuate problems.

    Agreed. I'm sick of seeing anything about it. Totilo raises good points about their transparency... except one.

    "If you worship Islam and are a cool person, keep on being a cool person. When we say 'Islam needs to die' we're not talking about you."

    Replace 'Islam' with 'Gamer' and that's what was said. Unacceptable way to generalize a religion, unacceptable way to generalize a group of enthusiasts. That was NOT a Kotaku strong point. It was thoughtless and stupid, riding on a wave of backlash hysteria, uncaring of who got caught in the broad-stroke generalizations.

    If you saw anyone else saying that with a straight face, you'd think you were watching Fox News.

    They actually describe what they're doing, in the article:
    "['Gamer' is] being used in these cases as short-hand, a catch-all term for the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by gaming’s widening horizons." How on Earth was that ever OK? How did Plunkett OR his editor ever read that sentence back and realize that the behaviour described is bad and should be chastized, not endorsed?

    Let me change two nouns, see if you can spot the difference, when they explain:
    'Muslim' is being used in these cases as short-hand, a catch-all term for the type of reactionary holdouts that feel so threatened by Western-culture's widening horizons."
    On any other day, I'd expect to see Kotaku CRITICIZING this kind of bigoted generalization. I guess it's OK to be bigoted against your own, out of cultural cringe, gamer-shame.

    That was a low point, Kotaku. You shouldn't be posting it as an example of your 'progressiveness'. It's the exact opposite.

    Last edited 21/10/14 2:44 pm

      This... So much of this.... I'll even leave some in the fridge to have cold for breakfast..... This.

      "I don't really like spinach."

      "BUT IF YOU CHANGE THE WORD SPINACH TO JEWS THAT'S A HORRIBLE THING TO SAY. I AM DISGUSTED BY YOUR ANTI-SEMITISM."

        The flaw in your argument isn't that they were arguing they 'didn't like' spinach.
        The noun isn't important. Gamer, Islam, Judaism, spinach-lover... it doesn't matter WHO they were targeting as much as what they were saying about the group.

        To follow your example: It's more like they said:
        People who like spinach are vile misogynists endorsing rape culture and implicitly grouped together with hate and death threats, and spinach-lovers are over and deserve to be shut down and vilified. Oh, but if you're a spinach-lover who isn't a terrorist, don't worry, we're not talking about you, keep loving spinach. Don't be offended about the headline and 1500 words calling spinach-lovers socially maladjusted, because we're including this last line at the end of the article as a disclaimer for you.

        Pretty big difference in scale. And saying, 'no offense' after saying something horribly offensive is asshole behaviour.

        Change 'spinach' to Jew, Muslim, Gamer, 'tofu', whatever, that article was always going to be unacceptable.

        But for some reason it didn't seem as obvious when they said 'gamer' for some reason? I changed it to something that everyone recognizes as a bigoted comment to highlight the hypocrisy. THAT was my point.

        Last edited 22/10/14 12:56 pm

          There is SO FUCKING MUCH false equivalence here. I don't even.

            Uh... where exactly is the false equivalence? Unless you meant to reply to bondles?

            If not... Did you read the article? Leigh Alexander declared that 'gamer as an identity is dead and over' and we should be happy with that, because the only people who are gamers are part of some toxic culture. Denying the existence and validity of a cultural indentifying label and then assigning it negative qualities in the same article. It was a baffling example of insulting, dismissive disregard for gamers, and Plunkett went out of his way to celebrate its insults and barbs, before going on to qualify with a brief, "no offense," that these articles he loved so much weren't actually talking about us gamers, but those gamers - the nasty ones. Y'know. So when they say 'gamer' needs to die, they mean no offense, because they're not talking about us when they maliciously appropriate the label we use to identify ourselves by.

            They arbitrarily decided there should be a divorce between the toxic and sane elements of gamer culture and that the toxic side got to keep the house... if only so they could burn it down with the occupants inside.

            (And see my post below as to why the use of the label IS still relevant and useful and still belongs to the rest of us, not just the minority of internet terrorists.)

            Last edited 22/10/14 7:28 pm

            Let's do the broken-down-into-simplest-terms version:

            Some assholes looked at the behaviour of a small minority who don't represent the larger group, and said: 'gamer' as an identity is toxic and vile and culturally irrelevant and needs to die. If you consider yourself a 'gamer' and aren't toxic and vile, then that's cool, we weren't talking about you, just gamers.

            How is that not insulting to gamers? They tarred a large group by the actions of a minority within that group. Replace gamers with ANYTHING ELSE and it's insulting to that group. What the fuck is there to not get about that? How on EARTH is that false equivalence? It's DIRECT equivalence.

            Especially when we see bogans saying practically the same thing about why there shouldn't be mosques. Because they believe 'musies' are a hateful people, breeding and sheltering terrorists, who shouldn't be identifying by their religion in a secular country.

            Last edited 22/10/14 7:40 pm

              If gaming is your religion, then let's start with that.

                Oh wow. That's truly eye-opening... and not in a good way. You're telling me that you think that because religious communities are somehow 'more important' than any other self-defined community... you think that means there's really no logical equivalence between examples of bigots discriminating against, stereotyping and insulting a community? The examples don't hold any equivalence based on the type of community being marginalized?

                It's that kind of dismissive, marginalizing, ignorant bullshit that's the problem with the discussion AND society. Good to know you're in favour of hate and discrimination for communities that you don't deem important enough and that you can't see any similarities. I hate to think of what kind of behaviour you think is acceptable towards other communities...

                Unbelievable. I've lost a lot of respect for you.

                Last edited 23/10/14 9:36 am

                  You've also decided what I think.

                  Religion is not the same as community defined by a vague and diverse pastime. These are not apples to apples. It's actually an insultingly marginalising argument to those who have actually suffered persecution. FYI: you are not one of them. At least not because you are a "gamer".

                  If you honestly think that religious persecution and gamergate are the same thing, then I've lost a lot of respect for everyone in your general vicinity.

    I thought GamersGate was a digital game store? Haha, I don't even know anything about it and I feel better off for it.

      According to Wiki:

      A gamergate is a reproductively viable female worker ant that is able to reproduce with mature males when the colony is lacking a queen. Most commonly occurring within the primitive species of the poneromorph subfamilies, gamergate females differ from their fellow workers by a combination of elevated fecundity and aggression-related mutilation of competitors' secondary sexual characteristics. Subsequent to their first mating event, however, aggression is no longer needed as females secrete chemical signals that lead the workers to accept their role as reproducers for the colony. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate

      Now we've all learned something today.

    After stepping back and looking at the arguments of both sides, I've come to a conclusion about pro-gg and anti-gg.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B0Q3D1NCYAIQZ_q.png

    Last edited 21/10/14 4:07 pm

    Who has two thumbs and doesn't think it's worth anyone's time getting worked up over "corruption" in games journalism? SERIOUSLY, YOU GG PEOPLE NEED TO GO OUTSIDE AND GET SOME PERSPECTIVE. INSTEAD TRY PUTTING YOUR ENERGY INTO THINGS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER, LIKE CREATING A BETTER WORLD BY REMOVING DIPSHITS FROM GOVERNMENT LIKE TONY ABBOTT.

      I love people who blame Tony Abbott for all their ills....

        And I love people who assume and conjecture...

    -removed-

    Last edited 01/01/15 1:38 pm

      You could apply most of the same arguments against feminism (that a vocal and unrepresentative minority have hijacked the cause and permanently tainted the name), but if you did, the absurdity of what you just said would be made apparent. You wouldn't judge all of feminism by the handful of vocal, angry misandrists who make up a small part of the movement, so why would you judge Gamergate the same way?

      Both sides think anyone who disagrees with them are the enemy. Both sides have harassed members of the other side. There are fanatics and fools on both side of this equation and none of them are representative of their respective sides.

      Freedom of speech is completely compatible with journalistic integrity, so yes, it does work like that and has worked like that in free press for decades.

      Reasonable debate isn't dictated by the 'banners' under which people stand, it's determined by how reasonable the people participating are. Refusing to engage in debate because of a banner is judging an entire movement by its worst members and then using that as an excuse. If you're refusing to debate ethics solely because your opponent identifies with Gamergate, you're the one being unreasonable: you're the problem, not them.

      Last edited 22/10/14 6:42 am

    Gamergate summed up In 10 seconds. Nerds like games with tits and guns. feminazis are jelly so they want the tits removed from games with tits and guns. Hilarity ensues.

      "Feminazis" aren't asking to tits to be removed. They just want the tits to be on the hero once in a while, instead of constantly being on the "damsel in distress". This gravely upset some people, who jumped to the illogical conclusion that one woman with a youtube series was going to destroy video games forever. Pitchforks and torches were grabbed, and a campaign began to kick the girls out of the gaming treehouse, all under the guise of "ethics in journalism".

      Of course, if it REALLY was about ethics in journalism, they surely would have taken down The Escapist by now, especially after general manager Alexander Marcis personally backed developer and GamerGater James Desborough's book (set in a universe where women are willing sex slaves), after giving said developer preferential press coverage. http://cathodedebris.tumblr.com/post/99828481723/the-escapists-alexander-marcis-has-been-crowdfunding

        The content of Desborough's book is irrelevant, we live in a society where art and fiction are free to express what they like. Desborough was interviewed for the Escapist on the topic of GamerGate, along with 16 other game developers on both pro- and anti- sides of the GamerGate issue. Alexander Macris didn't didn't write or participate in the interview.

        There are some key distinctions between this and the cases GamerGate is addressing:

        - Macris is a few degrees separated from Desborough and the author of the interview. GamerGate is mainly critical of authors who directly benefited (or benefited from) the subject of their article.
        - The interview was about GamerGate, and had nothing to do with Desborough's project(s). GamerGate is critical of authors who write beneficial pieces about projects they've backed.
        - The article doesn't portray Desborough in any positive or negative light. It simply asks questions, the majority of which appear to be form questions written beforehand. GamerGate is critical of pieces intended to give positive coverage to the subject.

        What we do agree on is that the project backing by Macris should have been disclosed. That's in line with the Escapist's ethics policy (albeit vaguely as it relates to management staff) and wasn't followed here. The Escapist was taken to task on that by a lot of people, both pro- and anti-GamerGate, and the interview was first updated and then removed because of it.

        So yes, it is about journalistic ethics, and yes, Escapist was taken to task for their lack of disclosure.

        I have a question for you in response: Can you explain in what way the content of the interview is 'preferential press coverage'?

        Last edited 23/10/14 8:54 am

          I have a question for you in response: Can you explain in what way the content of the interview is 'preferential press coverage'?

          Really? You don't think that, out of all the developers The Escapist could have interviewed, they just so happened to interview a guy with a book coming out, which Marcis has personally helped finance? And you don't see a problem with that? GamerGaters absolutely went to town on Zoe Quinn (a developer) because of an alleged relationship with a journalist. Marcis obviously has close ties to Desborough (another developer), but somehow, when a male games developer has a personal relationship with a gaming website, there's no issue? Are you serious? And how about the fact that Marcis (otherwise known as Archon) sourced the so-called-random-sampling-of-developers of his mates at 4chan? Including Slade Villena (aka Roguestar) the guy who tried to set Zoe Quinn up for tax fraud? The guy who wrote "NONE of this would have happened if ZQ kept her vagina shut"?
          https://storify.com/alexlifschitz/escapist-drama

          You're honestly supporting THOSE guys?

            There are parts of your response that make no logical sense. Let's address the details we have available.

            1. Macris backed a Kickstarter project run by Desborough for a pen-and-paper RPG book. A different journalist at Escapist interviewed Desborough (as one of 18 developers on both sides of the debate, two of which are now removed) on the issue of GamerGate. Desborough's project was not mentioned at all in the interview. Escapist confirmed that they ran interviews with all people who responded to their request.

            2. Quinn was attacked because of allegations that she used sex on multiple occasions for professional gain: her boss, a co-worker and a journalist. The allegations were denied by most involved parties, but as with most allegations like this, no proof has been made public, for or against.

            Yes, I consider these to be incomparable. Now let's look at some of the statements you made:

            "which Marcis [sic] has personally helped finance"
            Let's keep things in perspective. It was a Kickstarter campaign, that Macris contributed to. This isn't venture capital here, we're talking about Macris throwing a few bucks in on a crowd funding campaign on the internet. I've backed several Kickstarter campaigns, maybe you have too. That doesn't imply any kind of relationship between the backer and the campaign runner. Kickstarter relationships are closer to retail than investor.

            "Marcis [sic] obviously has close ties to Desborough"
            On what basis? Because he backed a Kickstarter campaign? I backed Star Citizen, probably for more money than Macris backed Desborough's project. Does that mean I 'obviously have close ties' to Chris Roberts? Of course not, don't be ridiculous. This statement is not backed by information currently presented. What other evidence of ties between Macris and Desborough do you have to present?

            "when a male games developer has a personal relationship with a gaming website, there's no issue"
            What personal relationship? Because of the Kickstarter campaign? Someone had better tell Chris Roberts that I have a personal relationship with him, he probably doesn't know it yet. This statement of yours makes no sense based on the information currently presented.

            "how about the fact that Marcis [sic] (otherwise known as Archon) sourced the so-called-random-sampling-of-developers of his mates at 4chan?"
            Unsubstantiated claim without evidence. Macris was informed there were developers who also used 4chan that were interested in talking, but on condition of anonymity. The identity of all of the people interviewed, including Desborough, was plainly available in the interviews. This statement is not backed by information currently presented.

            "You're honestly supporting THOSE guys?"
            I support rational, evidence-based discussion, and strong ethical adherence in journalism. I don't support or reject people, only ideals. I don't believe the Quinn incident had anything of merit to campaign on and I think the attacks on her were abhorrent, however I believe the underlying issue of ethics and integrity in games journalism is worthy of attention and support, and I don't believe the actions of an unrepresentative minority deserve to have any impact on that support.

            Last edited 23/10/14 12:45 pm

              They interviewed Desborough without disclosure that the general manager of the website had donated money to him. That's exactly the kind of behaviour GamerGate claims to be against. If you support ethics in journalism, then you support full disclosure of ANY possible links or connections. It's that simple. You want to support ethics in journalism? That's great. So do I. But there's no way I'd EVER want to associate myself with GamerGate. That label is toxic, and the movement is based on an incredible amount of misinformation, as well as outright lies.
              http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134839993&postcount=15450

              EDIT: It is possible to support ethics in journalism WITHOUT a hashtag.

              Last edited 23/10/14 2:10 pm

                I don't use a hashtag, and I don't associate myself with GamerGate. But I also don't dismiss people who do based on the petty notion that a handful of people can somehow permanently 'taint' a tag and a name. That's stereotyping, and it's not a rational response.

                  "the petty notion that a handful of people can somehow permanently 'taint' a tag"

                  Ever heard of the swastika? It went from originally being a symbol for luck, to something that represents a group that committed some of the worst acts in human history.

                  @scruffy Yes, I have heard of the swastika. Are you aware that it's still in regular use today in its original Hindu and Buddhist contexts? The symbol isn't tainted, it's just a symbol.

                  Last edited 23/10/14 2:53 pm

                  @zombiejesus

                  Just a symbol? Why don't you ask some Jewish people how they feel about that symbol? Or some African American people who have suffered at the hands of white supremacists wearing that symbol?

                  @scruffy Anyone with a modicum of intelligence understands that it's just a symbol. Stop trying to turn it into something it isn't, you're grasping at straws. http://fareastfling.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/swastika_by_avix.jpg

    One thing I don't get about gamergate is the seemingly hypocritical double standard that the video games enthusiast press must hold itself to strict standards of transparency and accountability, yet when someone commits sexism and hate under gamergate, they are quickly disowned and proclaimed as "not a real gamergater". For gamergate to be legitimate, it needs to adhear to the same level of ethical and moral accountability and transparency that they preach. I'm talking about a clear mission statement, defined leadership etc so that it's not some nebulous force that can't be defined or pinned down. At this stage, gamergate stands for everything and nothing at the same time! Yet, without any hint of accountability and transparency, they demand accountability and transparency.

      What an absurd demand. For a social movement to be 'legitimate' in your view, it has to have a defined leadership and accountability for all of its members, even though there's no registration or vetting process and anyone can freely call themselves one? By this logic, feminism isn't legitimate, nor anti-racism, nor gay rights movements. They all have self-identified members who are themselves sexist, racist or sexuality-prejudiced.

      Are these entire movements somehow responsible for the actions of a minority of people who identify with that movement? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Social movements aren't organisations. Media organisations like Gawker and Allure are.

        Can you please explain gamergate to me?

          I don't identify with the movement myself so I can't say with any surety, but my understanding of it is that it's a push against unethical behaviour in games journalism. The Quinn issue (the part that you could actually call 'Gamergate') was a flashpoint but the story has been rising to a boil for some time, with anonymous (press-confirmed) members of the game publishing industry confirming that review scores are often heavily influenced by underhanded tactics like paid dinners, free consoles and games and other 'gifts' that any industry would consider inappropriate.

          Partly, it's also a push back against several articles that appeared in recent months attacking the 'gamer' identity, stereotyping gamers as misogynistic fat basement nerds trying to hold on to a sexist power identity and culture that is on its way out. The articles were insulting to pretty much anyone who identified as a gamer because it painted everyone involved with broad strokes.

          There definitely are sexist, racist and highly disturbed people getting involved under the name Gamergate, but they don't represent what I understand the purpose of the movement to be. At its core, I don't think journalistic ethics and fighting negative stereotypes of gamers are bad things to support.

            Well, as a watchdog style movement it's a collosal failure.

            The trouble with the whole issue is that there is so much misunderstanding, or misinformation. "The Quinn issue" was ridiculous; Nathan Grayson, the journalist who allegedly slept with Quinn in exchgange for favourable coverage, only ever wrote one article involving Quinn, and one involving Depression Quest. It was these: http://tmi.kotaku.com/the-indie-game-reality-tv-show-that-went-to-hell-1555599284 and http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/01/08/admission-quest-valve-greenlights-50-more-games/#more-183169. Both were written before their alleged affair, believed to have started in April, and neither gave Depression Quest a positive review.

            As for the "attack on the gamer identity", what those articles are saying is that in this day and age there's not really a need for people to identify themselves as a "gamer" when it's something everyone does; it'd be like identifying yourself as a "booker", or a "movier" just because you read books or watch movies. It's not who we are; it's just something we do. I've been playing for 25 years, but I never identify myself as a "Gamer", because it's only a part of who I am, of who we all are, as people.

              Almost a valid argument if not for the fact that it belittles people choosing to identify themselves by their passion.

              Also, completely wrong.
              People DO identify themselves as Bookers and Moviers. You just you got the names wrong. 'Movie buff' and 'Bookworm' might yield better results if you're trying to find enthusiast groups who self-identify by their passion.
              Right up there with 'foodies' (formerly 'gourmets') who self-identify by their passion for food, when we ALL eat. You can't be ignorant of this, I suspect just blinkered.

              Petrol-head... but we all drive cars! Metal-head, raver, emo, goth... but doesn't everyone enjoy music? The list goes on and on and on as to just how wrong you are about the labels people choose for themelves, whether it's a philatelist or someone identifying by their support for their footy club. 'Gamer' is just as valid as ANY of those.

              I absolutely identify as a gamer because I don't JUST 'play some games now and then'. Very few people in society 'just do it' to the extent that I do, in their passion for games. It's my primary hobby and passion, and it doesn't just drive my division of leisure time, but who I socialize with and how I find them. I research how they're made and the industry around them, I'm involved (sometimes a few connections removed) in their creation and critique.
              THAT is what a gamer is. That's not 'all of us'. That's just us gamers.
              Whether you call it 'gamer' or 'games enthusiast' or whatever, it describes the same thing: a person more passionate about games than most people. And as a group of people, that's who I identify with, socialize with, seek out for interaction. Just like any good label for self-identification.

              Claiming that "It's mainstream now," (which incidentally, it's not; just turn up to any work function and look for people to talk games with you) is not a good excuse to claim that people shouldn't have the label.

              ESPECIALLY not when you then go on to spend a few thousand words defeating your own argument that it's not necessary ('because we're all the same') by then assigning specific, toxic attributes to the people self-identifying under the label you're trying to suggest doesn't exist.

              What Leigh did was despicable, in that she declared herself the arbiter of cultural bounds, and declared that all the toxic individuals represented 'gamers' and that the rest of us didn't get our own label because we're part of the mainstream (which is demonstrably false). Not only was it the height of arrogance and insensitivity, it was an insult. Utterly absurd. She couldn't have been more obviously ignorant if she had decried the recent violence and declared that 'footy fans as an identity are dead, the exclusive domain of toxic louts, unnecessary for the sane followers, because we all love sport'.

              Last edited 22/10/14 7:16 pm

                This article is about Gamergate, not about 'being a gamer'. They are two very different things.
                Being identified as a 'gamer' isn't the issue, being identified with 'Gamergate' appears to be.

                Last edited 22/10/14 7:45 pm

                  This article is about Gamergate, not about 'being a gamer'. They are two very different things.

                  Totally, and I don't care about Gamergate. Whatever merit it had totally isn't worth standing side-by-side with the Internet Ku Klux Klan to make a point. I automatically ignore almost anything anyone has to say about it - for or against - because it's either going to be delusion, a cover for hate, or masturbatory-fart-sniffing from the moral high-ground.

                  What I object to is what Scruffy said:
                  As for the "attack on the gamer identity", what those articles are saying is that in this day and age there's not really a need for people to identify themselves as a "gamer" when it's something everyone does; it'd be like identifying yourself as a "booker", or a "movier" just because you read books or watch movies. It's not who we are; it's just something we do. I've been playing for 25 years, but I never identify myself as a "Gamer", because it's only a part of who I am, of who we all are, as people.

                  I don't care about gamergate, but I DO care about people using it as an excuse to attack gamers. Which is exactly what http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/08/we-might-be-witnessing-the-death-of-an-identity did to a lesser extent, and the articles it was endorsing (and weakly excusing) did to a truly insulting extent. Have you read the source article? I'm well aware that it was riding on the back of some backlash against the handful of gamers making death threats, but it was an attack with a nuke, catching the rest of us in the blast radius.

                  Being opposed to someone so obviously wrong does not make everything else you do automatically right. Like using it as an excuse to tar the rest of us with disillusionment over forum trolls.

                  ‘Game culture’ as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- it’s not even culture. It’s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it’s getting mad on the internet. It’s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don’t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don’t quite know why they themselves are standing there. ‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games.

                  If that's not half a dozen insults wrapped around a brick thrown at gamers, I don't know what is. Dismissive belittling of 'games culture' that I proudly enjoy as the sole province of meme-spouting consumer-sheep with no social or professional skills? That's NOT an attack on gamers?

                  So sure. Attack gamergate. But don't endorse or excuse the bullshit articles that came out in the wake of it that tarred us all with the same brush and gleefully declared that 'gamers are over'.

                  Last edited 22/10/14 8:01 pm

                  There are seemingly two 'Gamergate's - the event itself involving Quinn and the response solely to that, and the general movement that event spawned in response to a number of recent events, the Quinn incident being just the catalyst. The recent attacks on gamer identity are part of the impetus for the latter, and this article seems to be about both.

                "People DO identify themselves as Bookers and Moviers. You just you got the names wrong. 'Movie buff' and 'Bookworm' might yield better results if you're trying to find enthusiast groups who self-identify by their passion.
                Right up there with 'foodies' (formerly 'gourmets') who self-identify by their passion for food, when we ALL eat. You can't be ignorant of this, I suspect just blinkered.

                Petrol-head... but we all drive cars! Metal-head, raver, emo, goth... but doesn't everyone enjoy music? The list goes on and on and on as to just how wrong you are about the labels people choose for themelves, whether it's a philatelist or someone identifying by their support for their footy club. 'Gamer' is just as valid as ANY of those."

                And that's my point; labels of any kind are largely pointless as they only highlight a single part of who a person is. Someone may be a "gamer", but what does that tell you about them? That they like video games? I'll bet there's "movie-buffs" and "petrol-heads" who do too. What does being an "emo" tell you about a person's culinary tastes? What does being "foodie" tell you about their political or religious beliefs? Or what movies they like? And what about people who have multiple passions? I've been playing video games for 25 years, and I love it. I also love playing and writing music. I also love sport, and am even have yearly memberships for the AFL and A-League. I don't want to identify myself as a gamer, or a muso, or a sports fan because I don't believe in putting labels on people, or trying to stuff someone's identity into one little box. The gamer label is used, as all labels are, as an act of tribalisation. People use it to create an "us versus them" mentality, which i believe leads to segregation and stereotyping.

                "Claiming that "It's mainstream now," (which incidentally, it's not; just turn up to any work function and look for people to talk games with you) is not a good excuse to claim that people shouldn't have the label. "

                I can't speak for everyone, but finding someone to talk games with hasn't been a problem at my current job, or my previous one (in catering and production).

                "What Leigh did was despicable, in that she declared herself the arbiter of cultural bounds, and declared that all the toxic individuals represented 'gamers' and that the rest of us didn't get our own label because we're part of the mainstream (which is demonstrably false). Not only was it the height of arrogance and insensitivity, it was an insult. Utterly absurd. She couldn't have been more obviously ignorant if she had decried the recent violence and declared that 'footy fans as an identity are dead, the exclusive domain of toxic louts, unnecessary for the sane followers, because we all love sport'."

                It's one person's opinion. If you don't agree with it, ignore it. Why waste your time getting upset over something as insignificant as an opinion on the internet? Either we have a free and open internet, where everyone is free to say what they think, or we engage in censorship and remove opinions we don't like. GamerGate, despite claiming to support ethical journalism, is working hard to censor the opinions of those they don't agree with.

                  It's not your place, nor anyone else's, to decide what the rest of us can and can't identify with. If we want to identify as gamers because our passion is gaming, that's our choice. Why shouldn't we defend the label we've chosen for ourselves when people attack it with misinformed prejudice?

                  We don't engage in censorship, and Leigh is free to write what she likes. We are, likewise, free to respond to her opinions with our own, and criticise her views as backward and offensive. If she'd written an article offensive to religion of sexuality you'd undoubtedly believe that critical backlash is warranted, why is the gamer identity not deserving of the same treatment?

                  @zombiejesus
                  "Why shouldn't we defend the label"

                  Why put the label on in the first place? You do realize that labels only LEAD to stereotyping and misinformed prejudice, right?

                  "We don't engage in censorship"

                  That's a massive lie. Operation Disrespectful Nod has been targeting websites, and advertisers involved with those websites, exactly for publishing opinions they don't agree with. That IS censorship.
                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/20/inside-gamergates-successful-attack-on-the-media/

                  @scruffy I'm sorry, I don't know what Operation Disrespectful Nod is. When I said 'we', I was mirroring your use of the word in "either we have a free and open internet, where everyone is free to say what they think, or we engage in censorship and remove opinions we don't like". Mirroring your language, 'we' have a free and open internet, 'we' don't engage in censorship. If you have an issue with the collective term 'we', you probably shouldn't have used it when presenting your dichotomy. It's not a lie, and I'd appreciate you refraining from making baseless accusations like that about what I've said.

                  Last edited 23/10/14 2:30 pm

                  @zombiejesus

                  "I don't know what Operation Disrespectful Nod is"

                  Then why are you defending a group if you don't know what they're actually up to?

                  @scruffy You seem confused, we have more than one conversation thread going at the same time. This thread is on the gamer identity, which I do defend. It's not a group, and it has nothing to do with what you linked.

                  What I do defend about GamerGate is the right for people who associate with the name (to paraphrase Martin Luther King) to be judged by the content of their character, not by the actions of an unrepresentative minority.

                  If you saw a page that said "We are Muslims and we're going to blow up Australia", would you believe that to be representative of all Muslims, or would you wisely understand that it clearly isn't? You're doing the same thing with GamerGate, finding pages and individuals who do misbehave and misattributing their conduct to the entire GamerGate movement. Of course that's the wrong thing to do.

                  Last edited 23/10/14 3:14 pm

                  @zombiegoat

                  "If you saw a page that said "We are Muslims and we're going to blow up Australia", would you believe that to be representative of all Muslims, or would you wisely understand that it clearly isn't? You're doing the same thing with GamerGate"

                  GamerGate is NOT a race. It is NOT a religion. It is a movement. It is not comparable, in any way, shape or form to being a Muslim. It is more comparable, however, to ISIS. An extremist movement founded on hate. Much like ISIS, GamerGate has relied on lies and misinformation to terrorize, threaten and intimate those who stand against it. If you want to side with these cyber-extremists, knock yourself out.

                  @scruffy That's the dumbest thing you've said yet. GamerGate is comparable to ISIS? Earlier you compared the GamerGate name to Nazis. You lack any comprehension of why your prejudice is a bad thing. You haven't listened to anything I've said to you and you've spent the entire time trying to present false dichotomies and invalid comparisons. You clearly don't understand anything about the origins or ongoing existence of GamerGate, or you wouldn't be spouting the nonsense you have been.

                  GamerGate doesn't have to be a race or a religion for you to be prejudiced, scruffy. The fact you can't comprehend this simple notion is indicative of a desire on your part to remain combative in the face of rationality.

                  I'll say one more time for your benefit: GamerGate is a much larger movement than the handful of bad seeds you try to pretend the entire movement is made up of. Until you understand this, your arguments will remain empty and powerless.

                  I said this earlier:

                  I support rational, evidence-based discussion, and strong ethical adherence in journalism. I don't support or reject people, only ideals.

                  You've shown you're incapable of engaging in rational, evidence-based discussion. The fact you intentionally misspelled my name when referencing me as some kind of childish attempt at an insult is just icing on the cake. We're done here.

                  Last edited 24/10/14 5:11 am

                  @zombiejesus

                  Apologies for getting your name wrong; zombiegoat is actually a username i employ elsewhere.

                  You accuse me of not knowing about GamerGate, yet you hadn't heard of Operation Disrespectful Nod.

                  I understand perfectly what GamerGate is all about. It is a movement that CLAIMS to be about "ethics in journalism", but what "conspiracies" have they actually uncovered? That Zoe Quinn slept with Nathan Grayson to promote Depression Quest, despite the obvious fact Grayson never wrote a positive article about it? If they were serious about ethics in journalism, why aren't they going after the REAL offenders?

                  I'm talking about Activision. Electronic Arts. Ubisoft. The big publishers who spend MILLIONS on advertising on game review websites. I'm talking about Gametrailers, who announced Call of Duty as "Game of the year" while splashing massive Call of Duty ads all over the site. I'm talking about Gamespot, who fired Jeff Gerstmann after he gave Kane and Lynch a poor review score. GamerGate want to rid gaming of unethical journalism? So why aren't they actually going after the unethical parties? Instead of focusing their efforts on the multi-billion dollar big guys, they've attacked an indie dev (based on a lie) who made a free game? WTF?

                  And what's with the use of "SJW" as a slur from GamerGaters? They claim they're against harassment, but they act like being someone who fights for social justice is a bad thing? Martin Luther King himself, (who you even paraphrased) was a social justice warrior. So how is fighting for freedom from inequality and discrimination a bad thing?

                  And GamerGate is VERY much comparable to ISIS. Both are movements founded by people who felt disconnected. Disenfranchised. They found solace in their passion, and were led to believe that passion of theirs was under attack. So they retaliated, the only way they knew how. The methodology carried out may be different, but the psychology? It's the same.

                  And if you don't believe me about gamers feeling disconnected or disenfranchised, read this excerpt from a statement by EA Director Chris Mancil:

                  "I think the real problem here is alienation. Not of values. That’s misguided. Its not liberal/conservative values, politics, or world-view. Its fear of being meaningless. Its about our loss of connection between ordinary gamers and the games industry. We are losing our connection with people. I think our industry has been drifting further and further away from our fans, as our business get larger, and our global reach gets broader. This lack of a relationship, of mutual feedback, of a personal connection between ourselves and the audience (I believe) is really the true culprit of most deep seated anger here."

                  Oh, and another thing. If GamerGaters are for free and open discourse, why are they attacking gaming websites like Kotaku and Gamasutra for publishing opinions they don't agree with? Freedom of speech means that sometimes you'll hear something you don't like, but isn't it a far better option than journalist unable to properly report on a story, or even voice an opinion (which we are all entitled to) because of the fear of backlash?

    Kotaku: We're all tired of GamerGate. Here's an article about GamerGate!

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now