39 replies to this topic

[Green Goblin]

I got bored and couldn't sleep.  So I wrote this.

So #GamerGate is a thing.  If you've been on the internet for the better part of the past 4 months and you are even partially aware of gamer culture, no doubt you've seen your share of it, and people fall on one of 3 factions: Pro-GamerGate, Anti-GamerGate and "who gives a fuck?!?".  I'll spare you the history lesson, as you can find it elsewhere.  Right now though, it seems to be reaching its boiling point.  Some people will say that it needs to simply die a poor death and move on.  But anyone who knows how human beings act should realize that that's not very likely.  It may end with an actual attack caused by something that the more rational branch of the movement can no longer control.  It may end with Sarkeesian suddenly revealing her evil plan and we're all enslaved by horrible feminists who shoot fire from their vaginas (At least one guy out there would say that he called it).  But one thing, I'll say is this:  I was pro-GamerGate and even I have to admit that it needs to end.

But it needs to be a collaborated effort here.  From all sides.  So we can get back to doing what we actually all have in common:  Video games.

# 5 EVERYONE:  Quit being dicks to one another.

I know this may sound like the biggest "no shit sherlock" ever.  But I want you to really hear what I'm saying: Quit being dicks to ONE ANOTHER.  I don't care which 3 of the factions you're a part of, I'm talking to you still. 

 

Pro-GamerGate:  I know we've been anti-harassment whenever someone posts the opposition's address (which upsets us, because no news article ever reports that).  But we still gotta stop snapping at the other side, every time they poke our internet cage with a stick.  I know it's infuriating that the other side gets to condemn from on high, but we truly need to be as altruistic as possible here, because we're never going to be trusted to act on our own morals.  

Always pick Paragon over Renegade.

Anti-GamerGate:  I know because you fight for a good cause, you all assume that your ends justify the means.  You know who also thinks that?  FUCKING EVERYBODY.  Yes, the discussion of sexist tropes in gaming is a discussion worth having.  You know who else agrees with that sentiment? You'll be surprised to find a large majority of your opposition.  So try not to compare them to terrorist cells or pedophiles, as not only do they have a lot of the same moral leanings as you (the majority of GamerGate is liberal), but in the case of a lot of gaming websites, they also help pay your bills (How's that lack of Intel ad revenue treating you, Gamasutra?).  If you feel they're missing a point, speak to them like you would a colleague, not a student.  Be patient and don't speak down to them.  You may be better versed in Civil Right 101, but a lot of your opposition have been gaming for decades.  And you're in their world, not yours.  

"Who the fuck cares" Group:  Whenever this argument is brought up, there's always this group.  Wanna know where the majority of the trolls on either side come from?   This faction right here.  The faction that sticks their head in just enough to hear one side of the story and through the use of internet anonymity, help fan the flames of this culture war.  They love it because if it goes awry, they can always go back to "ehh, who the fuck cares anyway?" and return to whatever else they were doing.

Probably something equally as stupid

If you honestly don't have a horse in this race, just make it easier on all of us and leave it be.  Don't post about it one way or another.  Just leave it the hell alone.  

#4 PRESS:  Apologize for that "Death of Gamers" bullshit 

I know what you journalists were thinking.  Your readership is so fickle and you're tired of always having to cater to them.  And then this report comes out showing that gaming has expanded to include moms at home with Bejeweled and women that enjoy the occasional game of Angry Birds or Temple Run when they're waiting in line at Chipotle or something.  

Neglecting heavily how well Adventure games can translate over to mobile

Suddenly, your world doesn't look so narrow or bleak.  "Fuck these hard-to-please neckbeards.  Gaming has evolved BEYOND them!!" You probably said, as you started writing your declaration of exactly that. 

All 12 or so of you. 

Within the same 48 hour period. 

And you wonder why some gamers are paranoid? Here's the truth:  Those people still aren't gamers.  My grandmother (God rest her soul) who played Tetris on a Gameboy Color to keep her mind sharp and help with her arthritis was not a gamer.  My friend's mother who plays Bejeweled at home due to the addictive nature of the majority of "free to play" games is not a gamer.  Being an enthusiast about the culture of games themselves makes you a gamer.  And guess who are the major readers of your site?  That's right. Those "fat, white, virgin neckbeards" you just pissed off with your article.  I believe an act of humility is in order.  Especially after so many women and people of color (myself included) identified with the group that you just insulted with words that triggered us back to our middle school days


Despite what pop culture told you, the 80s and 90s were not good decades to be nerds.

No one's calling for your jobs here.  Well, okay.  Some people are calling for your jobs.  But I think an honest apology would really do a world of good here.  I mean, that's what we need to do, right?  rebuild bridges and giving the gamer consensus a reason to trust you again, yes?  Which brings me to my next point....



#3 Stop Focusing on the negatives

Quick question, readers:  How many of your knew about the Fine Young Capitalists charity drive to get women into game development?  I'm asking truthfully, because damn near no gaming website has talked about it.  Like at all.  And there's a reason:  It was doxxed and flooded by one of Zoe Quinn's followers, attacked and shut down for being transphobic (they aren't) and was revived by the GamerGate movement; specifically 4chan's /v/ boards.  


That's right.  4chan actually has a surprisingly large faction of non-asshole regulars.  Try not to faint.

Directly through 4chan, the project got over $20,000 and through the #GamerGate movement, they managed to meet their goal and even surpass it ($71,000) total.  TFYC even allowed 4chan to collectively create a character to appear in the game.  And that is the origin story of GamerGate mascot:  Vivian James.

Ta-da!!!!!

Sort of a female everygamer.  She was lauded around 4chan and held up as the "daughter of /v/".  And of course, within the first few drawings, there was porn of her (because 4chan is still 4chan). Still, it goes upon asking:  Is this really so narrative driven that sites aren't even willing to report on actual positive points in the  movement?  I mean, Anita Sarkeesian got paid $150,000 to talk about the problems of women in video games, but it takes 4chan of all places to raised up nearly 25 grand to DO something about it?  Even if the project collapsed in on itself, the fact that they actually TRIED is proof enough that you're still dealing with human beings here.   Surprisingly, we want a lot of the same thing.  It's just the method, I feel, that separates us.  Regardless of how you may feel about them overall, how about a little recognition for actually getting behind a decent cause, eh?

#2 MS SARKEESIAN:  Stop focusing so completely on the negatives

 

Imagine you're on a boat fishing.  You're relaxing, taking in the atmosphere and don't have a care in the world.  Now imagine someone walks up (Yes. I dunno how he walks to your boat.  Maybe he's Jesus or something.  Shut up.) to you and says that you're fishing rod is wrong and should encorporate a different kind of line that's more biodegradable over time.  He continues to trash your fishing rod (and the company that made it) well beyond the point of politeness and has made it clear that he doesn't show signs of stopping.  I don't know about you, but when someone unwarranted tries to preach at me, my first thought is to tell them to promptly fuck right off.  It doesn't matter to me if he's a fishing expert.  It doesn't even matter if he's technically right.  This is your special time and you don't feel like being preached to.   Maybe if you see the biodegradable line in the store next time, you'll pick it up, but this guy's just annoying and turning you off to it the more and more he talks.   Congratulations.  If you could follow that, you now understand how most gamers feel about Anita Sarkeesian!! That is, if you COULD follow that.  That was my very first fishing analogy

 

Pictured: Not me.

We get what the movement is trying to say.  But how about not focusing so much on the negative aspect of virtually every game that gets brought up.  Yes, I know that you say it's possible to talk critically about games and still love them, but that just brings me back to one of the big rules of any visual narrative:  Show, don't tell.  How about focusing on some games that have actually well-developed three-dimensional female characters in them?  

And I don't just mean preachy games that show how bad we all are.

Last year, the 3 biggest games all had women that were either the main character or the side character

Lara Croft, Elizabeth Comstock and Ellie Notellenpaige

Each one was made strong, but not overtly sexualized.  Not one of them was a love interest.  And the two side characters played pivitol roles in the storylines that tackle not only the notion of stong-yet-still-feminine ladies, but also the feelings of adopted fatherhood for the guys.  I'd say that's a big triumph that needs to be addressed in Feminist Frequency, don't you?  That's the way the industry needs to go, yes?  And shining the light on the positive can help inspire others to follow in their footsteps.  Suddenly, that guy yacking your ear off about fishing line has been replaced with a guy offering you a free spool to try at your leisure.  You thank him and he's on his way.  And also, we're back to fishing because why not?

The extent of my fishing knowledge

#1 MS. SARKEESIAN:  Allow comments on your videos

 

It may feel like I'm singling Ms. Sarkeesian out, but she did opt to be the public face of this.  And I think I'm being polite as possible here. A good idea needs to be able  to stand up to criticism.  Simple as that.  And an idea put in the public square (Youtube) by a woman claiming to open up a discussion needs to actually be.....well, open to a discussion. 

I've heard arguments against this before:

"It's not her job to give you a stage to speak on."
This analogy isn't accurate.  It's not her refusing to give us a stage.  It's her TAKING AWAY the stage that is already there.  She went through the effort to disable the comment section and the ratings of her videos, because she wants them to stand on their own.  Uhhh....yeah, they're not.  Standing on their own requires approval ratings and a hearty discussion underneath.

"You're more than welcome to refute her claims in your own video" 

Yeah, and people have.  But the only people who watch them are ones who already have a preconceived notion not to trust what Sarkeesian puts up.  Like Twitter, it's an echo chamber, with no diversity.  Both sides of the argument can be laid bare in the comments of the video of the original idea being posited.  Comments in a refutation are only about the refutation.  

 

"She was being harassed and insulted in the comments of her first video"
As much of a copout as this sounds like: Welcome to the internet!! 

"Ya get use to it."

People can be dicks.  I've seen shitty postings on the most harmless and incontroversial of videos.  But there's something on the internet worse than trolls and flamers:  People who think they're being silenced.  Seriously.  That's pretty much the one thing online that is guaranteed to bring a group of righteous crusaders to your digital doorstep.  Let assholes verbally fight it out down there.  You might actually get some good feedback there too.  Maybe suggestions that you might not have thought about before?  Just saying.   Eventually, when trolls are ignored, they tend to go away (hence the term, don't feed the troll).  You'd be surprised to know that a lot of what you talk about might even be agreeable to a lot of the people within GamerGate.  And with that, I feel the title can come to a close.  No more Twitter campaigns (you know how many of us can't fucking STAND Twitter? ).  No more harassment.  Peaceful discussion.  But only if we all play our parts.  Then we can all go back to just playing games.
 

Edited by Green Goblin, 18 October 2014 - 12:33 PM.

[Veteran]

I'm already in the "leave it be" section of the "don't give a fuck" crowd, and this is probably the first time I've decided to say anything about it.

 

I feel this is a sign of we 'originals' growing up and having to share the gaming space with modern, younger versions of ourselves. We who were born in the 80s are currently very comfortable in every form of media. Why? Because content creators are our age as well finally! I see nerdy pop culture references in all sorts of programmes that people in their teens and 40s have no idea about. Hell, there was a TV gameshow question the other day that had the Dogtanian theme song as one of its answers! Brilliant. Our time is now.

 

Also the other day (maybe a different day) I found some old stuff from when I was a teenager and it was a letter I was going to send to a Nintendo magazine decrying the quality of new games coming out and not understanding why anyone could give a shit about Pokemon (ha!). It wasn't a kind letter, I came across as a dick.

 

All we really see on the internet as adults are immature dicks. That's not to say these are all teenagers, but also those of us who failed to grow up and remained a dick. But I will guess at there being more dick teenagers than dick adults because evolution and law of averages. Plus we tend to be more appreciative of the internet as we lived through The Dark Times.

 

So basically all I'm saying is, I don't even try to understand situations like GamerGate because I no longer understand why I wanted to write that letter to Nintendo.

[Hana-Nezumi]

How to end "GamerGate": Stop talking about it. Both sides are too stubborn to ever have their minds changed or come to an understanding, so there's no point. Like any other hashtag-driven campaign, it will die out quickly once people just plum forget about it.

I still disagree with you on the same points that we talked about in the last thread you made about this, but I'm not going to repeat myself.

Edited by Hana-Nezumi, 15 October 2014 - 06:21 AM.

[Delphi]

I agree with Hana that it won't stop until we stop talking about it.

Gamergate has become this all consuming black hole that has been sucking (yes i know black holes dont have suction but bear with me) in more and more people who didn't have anything to do with it.

I guess Sarkeesian was going to talk at Utah State University and death threats, blah blah blah repeat everything that's been happening. And then people start blaming Mormons for it.

Hold up. I live in Southern Utah and I didn't hear diddly squat about this until today. Nor did any other Mormon I know. But now we're to blame because we...because we make up 40% of the state's population I guess? Because some of the assholes may be (bad) members? Well have I got a newsflash for you. There's assholes everywhere, in every group, since the beginning of time. Doesn't mean I'm going to blanket statement that the whole group is responsible.

Then other people and groups are getting sucked in going "Wait, wtf? What dog do we have in this fight? Leave us out!" but the black hole keeps trapping more and more.

And we're getting sick of it.

Given that I didn't know much about gamergate or what was really going on because hell we're never going to know at this point I opted to stay out of it. But then someone called out my religion because...well I still really can't figure that part out.

We going to blame the deer in the forests in Oregon for contributing next because they were there munching grass instead of stopping things?

So it's got to stop. If good is going to be done, it can't be attached to gamergate. It's too charged now and is just a big clusterfuck. Let it die so we can move on and get some good done in the wake of the perfect example of what NOT to do.

[Selena]

It will only end when people want it to end -- and I don't think that's likely to happen any time soon. It doesn't matter if the rational voices plead for sensible discussions. The angry voices will always yell louder and get more attention. They legitimately want a fight. And most of the people want a fight aren't even all that interested in the gaming aspect of it all.
 
 
GamerGate has always been a front for a conflict between new wave feminists and the people who react to that sort of thing by going "UGGHHH POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, JUST SHUT UP." That's really all it ever was. 
 
 
Journalistic integrity? You'd have a hard sell getting me to believe that was ever the primarily motivation behind it. That said, journalism is like any other industry -- it only cares about money. So long as they're getting money, they don't care about what the "integrity" side of the GamerGate movement thinks. Just like the NFL doesn't care about Native Americans protesting the name "Redskins," and how Hobby Lobby doesn't care about upset liberals. They simply don't care unless revenue dries up. So, the best way to combat corrupt journalism is to no longer visit their sites. 
 
I've never seen much about organizing boycotts against these seemingly corrupt entities, though -- only poorly directed malice and harassment. If that aspect of GamerGate has failed, then it's because it was never executed well. Not because the media is being unfair bullies. They wouldn't be unfair bullies if people had gone about this better.
 
 
 
 
#5 is a given, and I agree with #3 (and by extension #2).
 
I don't like Sarkeesian (and those like her) specifically because they harp endlessly on the negatives and demonstrate very few positive examples of women in gaming. I don't like that approach in any kind of social rights movement -- be it about race, gender, sexuality, what have you. You should give people something to aspire to, and praise them for good behavior. Not constantly make them feel like assholes. Because that makes them feel defensive. And people on the defensive are not open to change. It's fair to highlight the bad, but offset it with good examples. 

 

And really, most male gamers are perfectly fine with female lead characters. Samus is much beloved, Tomb Raider was universally praised, and almost everyone has a soft spot for Femshep. I think most of the hesitance about making female-led games comes more from studio executives than the actual gaming community (same with movies).
 
The important difference is that I don't pitch a melodramatic fit at Sarkeesian just because I disagree with her methods. And I certainly don't call in goddamn death threats. I just no longer watch her videos.
 
 
 
 

"Who the fuck cares" Group: Whenever this argument is brought up, there's always this group. Wanna know where the majority of the trolls on either side come from? This faction right here.

 

[...]

My grandmother (God rest her soul) who played Tetris on a Gameboy Color to keep her mind sharp and help with her arthritis was not a gamer.  My friend's mother who plays Bejeweled at home due to the addictive nature of the majority of "free to play" games is not a gamer.  Being an enthusiast about the culture of games themselves makes you a gamer.  And guess who are the major readers of your site?  That's right. Those "fat, white, virgin neckbeards" you just pissed off with your article.  I believe an act of humility is in order.  Especially after so many women and people of color (myself included) identified with the group that you just insulted with words that triggered us back to our middle school days.

 

Putting these two quotes together, because although they come from different parts of your post, they tie into each other.

 

 

In regards to the "do not care" group..... well, I think most of us legitimately do not care. Speaking just for me, I think everyone involved is being overly dramatic and making mountains out of molehills. I think it's fair to say that the actual majority of gamers don't care at all about GG (one way or the other). It's just loud voices on the edges of the gaming community, but they're shouting so loud and so passionately that it looks like Gamer Civil War.

 

I dislike that the "Pro-GG" faction is routinely described as being made up of the "true gamers." Because I've been gaming my whole life, and I'm repulsed by the whole thing. People are rather haughtily determining who "gamers" are by using rules they just made up. As a gamer, I frankly don't want to be associated with GamerGate. Kind of like #NotYourShield, just the other way around.

 

 

 

 

(re: Anti-GG people) You may be better versed in Civil Right 101, but a lot of your opposition have been gaming for decades.  And you're in their world, not yours.  

 

 

 

I hope this isn't an attempt to disassociate Anti-GG people from the gaming community. Most of them have been gaming just as long as anyone else. 

 

 

 

Gaming has changed, and the face of gaming has changed. I think a lot of traditional gamers are feeling displaced, or feel that people are moving into "their territory" and disrupting gamer culture. It's like how fun certain websites used to be... until the general public became aware of them, and things quickly got watered down. That's the aspect that doesn't feel right. It's kind of like having your mom hang out with you and your friends. You love your mom, you just don't want her there.

 

But here's the thing -- there was always a lot wrong with gamer culture. A lot of good things, yes, but a lot of bad things. With the internet being used by everyone, and with most everyone gaming to some degree nowadays, some shit just won't fly anymore. There were always lackluster elements of game development (few females, few minorities, unfair sexualization, etc.). That all used to be fine, and it became the norm, and now that people are wanting to actively change something that was always kinda bad, it feels like an attack.

 

Same applies to nerd sites. It's not that 4chan (and affiliates) is suddenly bad, for example. It was always a cesspit (with some redeeming features), and now people are rightfully getting sick of that side of it. 

 

 

 

The change is coming. Gaming culture will be altered. Growing pains are just uncomfortable. But I think it's for the best in the long run, because for all the amazing aspects of gamer culture, there were also plenty of things that were shitty.

[MikePetersSucks]

I just want to say that it'd be kind of great if all this shit about journalistic integrity and corrupt false SJWs and such got corrected just so everyone involved in Gamergate HAS to shut up.

[Egann]

Can we move on and discuss other things with actual relevance to the game industry? Like preorders are almost as stupid as review embargoes?

 

No?

 

Look, Quinn BARELY qualifies as a game developer. Depression Quest has the production values of a highschool student's spring break project and is quite literally not a video game. It, like all choose your own adventure games, is technically a card game. You just don't think of it that way because the card is three paragraphs of text, not an ace of spades. One of the major reasons it's bad is because Quinn clearly didn't understand this.

 

Near as I can tell, Quinn is a depressed sociopath who doesn't think her game(s?) through, and so she's essentially doomed to make terrible, low production value diarrhea for the rest of her time in the video game industry. If I were personally involved or a person she would listen to, I would say it's high time for an intervention, but I'm not. I'm just some bloke on the internet. This shit does not involve me.

 

Also, Quinn, prove me wrong. I dare you to make a good video game. I will eat my word every day of the week if it means I get to play a good video game. Heck, I will settle for a good game, PERIOD.

Edited by Egann, 15 October 2014 - 07:23 PM.

[Green Goblin]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I still withhold the right to talk MAAAAD SHIT about Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn and even Brianna Wu (She tried to trolled, got counter-trolled, and screamed "harassment").

 

[SteveT]

Can I get an update on this?  I stopped paying attention when it was still about petty revenge and/or gaming press corruption.  Sounds like it's grown in scope.

[Selena]

When you strip away all the excuses and justifications, it's basically a shouting-war between feminist gamers and people who hate preachy social justice warriors. Which has been increasing in intensity. I rarely see Quinn mentioned anymore. She was just the spark that lit a bonfire. 

[Green Goblin]

It's still about press corruption, more than anything.  The charity drive of the Fine Young Capitalists is over and they're in the midst of game development.

There was a report on MSNBC about it a couple nights back.  This chick named Brianna Wu attempted to start up a meme, calling all gamergaters whiny babies (using the internet to fight a larger portion of the internet.  Not the wisest of decisions).  The meme was turned on its head, making fun of her, and she claimed harassment.  A couple days later, she received the same kinda tweets that Sarkeesian made, all spanning the course of 5 minutes, detailing with her address.  The same post was made on 8chan (where the movement went, after moot shut it down on 4chan) and members basically flagged it immediately and got it deleted.  People are claiming it's suspicious, as Wu herself frequented 8chan and the Twitter post seems strikingly similar to what happened to Anita Sarkeesian a few weeks back (which looked shady in its own right).  She then agreed to try and meet up with Milo Yiannopoulos (a journalist on the side of GamerGate) in an attempt to build bridges.  Through e-mail, she had requested that they both start up a donation drive to fund her to get flown to San Francisco to speak with him in person, where they can then raise more money for respected causes.  Feeling a bit of a red flag, Milo says that a podcast stream should be fine and that he will even go through the questions he intends to ask her ahead of time, so that she's not suckerpunched.  Even gave her veto power on questions she didn't wanna answer.  2 days before the lengthy podcast, she stops e-mailing him.  Then the day before the Podcast, she goes on MSNBC, trashing the entire movement, while Milo is left with his dick in his hand, and has to cancel his podcast for the week. 

 

Anita Sarkeesian was set to give a speech at a Utah university about violence against women (not even video game related), when an anonymous letter was dropped off to campus police, threatening the largest school shooting in history if Sarkeesian speaks there.  I won't go into detail, but....well...it was intense.  She initially still wanted to do the speech, calling the person's bluff.  Until she found out that Utah has an Open carry law, and as such, the campus police literally could not stop anyone from attending, even if they did bring a gun.  Most people within GamerGate are condemning the letter and trying to distance themselves from it (nowhere did the letter mention GamerGate, or video games in general.  It was a "hatred of feminism" manifesto).  But I think the damage has been done.  GamerGate is rattling cages, and when something truly terrible happens, they're the ones that will be blamed, regardless if it's true or not. 

And that's about where we stand now.

[Green Goblin]

When you strip away all the excuses and justifications, it's basically a shouting-war between feminist gamers and people who hate preachy social justice warriors. Which has been increasing in intensity. I rarely see Quinn mentioned anymore. She was just the spark that lit a bonfire. 

Most people in GamerGate refer to Quinn like Franz Ferdinand of Austria.  Not of huge importance, but his assassination triggered World War I.

[Veteran]

The way I see it is, these days there's GamerGate and ages ago there wasn't GamerGate. So there must have been a moment when there not being GamerGate went away and there being GamerGate came along.

 

So what I want to know is, how did we get from the one state of affairs to the other state of affairs?

[Doctor Pogo]

Here's the thing that gets me. The folks who support Gamergate want to act like it's all just extremists on either side, that one side is just as much trouble as the other. Let's look at that. I think the comparison may show something.

 

Keep in mind the following is focusing on ONLY the most extreme, the fringe freaks, not the mainstream active members:

 

The most extreme and far out members of one side are engaging in vicious name-calling and accusations.

 

The most extreme and far out members of the other side are engaging in repeated and unambiguous threats of sexual and physical violence, and actively publicizing private information about their opposition.

 

It's very clear that these are not morally equivalent.

 

 

The question at the root of the whole thing seems to be this: does the status quo need to change? If you believe it does, but the side you're aligned with is the side that is issuing death threats against people who are saying the status quo needs to change, maybe you're on the wrong side.

 

I'm sure for some people it's actually about press corruption. I'm sure for some people it's actually about trying to have a dialogue about women in games. I'm sure for some people it's actually about doing something. I'm sure there are some KKK members who believe that their mission is about advancing civil rights and achieving racial harmony.

 

It's a delusion, plain and simple. The conviction that it's possible to satisfy the goals of progress but still keep the world the same. To keep the things we love sacred but still carry them into the future. It's a delusion that lives at the heart of all conservatism, really. And in a lot of ways it's healthy, as far as delusions go - resistance to change can make for smarter change.

 

Threats of violence are not symptoms of a healthy resistance, though.

[Green Goblin]

GamerGate members have been doxxed too.  Quite a few in fact.  And Milo Yiannopoulos was sent a used syringe in the mail.  Twitter-dwellers have issued death threats to GamerGaters too. 

 

 

Difference is, it doesn't get reported on.  Almost as if journalists had a reason to ignore them.  See how a conspiracy would start making sense to some of them?

Edit: Oh, also, the people doing this to GamerGaters do it right out in the open, shamelessly.

Edited by Green Goblin, 16 October 2014 - 07:53 PM.

[Doctor Pogo]

This I've yet to see. I'm not exactly following this closely. I believe you, though. I'm not going to stoop to insinuating that they made it up. I have no grounds for that and it would be a pretty awful thing to say. *pointed look*
 
I'd be interested in why there is less or no coverage of these events, though, if that's the case.
 
As far as journalistic coverage goes, I've learned nothing about the entire situation from journalists, only from interested parties passing along information via social media. As far as I know, until yesterday, the mainstream journalistic community was mostly ignoring the whole thing, save a lot of editorials on gaming-specific or feminist-specific sites and private blogs. That hardly smacks of conspiracy.
 
Also - the gamergate folks who have received serious threats or been doxxed: do the attacks seem like individual actions or a coordinated attack? There's a difference. The attacks are equally deplorable, and they definitely damage the credibility of the cause they were born from. But it's worth noting that many of the attacks on female developers and allies bear the marks of coordinated efforts by multiple attackers, i.e. a conspiracy.
 
But let's go with it, and dismiss the idea of a moral high ground at all. Look at both sides on their merits.
 
I've got a really bad habit, and it's that I tend to see both sides of disputes and political arguments. It gets me in trouble with friends who want a partner to vent about their position, and my response is "well..." I value the ability to put myself in the shoes of either party and think through their argument.
 
But in this case, something rare has happened. Almost never have I ever come across a cause that had just nothing at all going for it, nothing to grab on to, no redeeming justification whatsoever. But this... good heavens. There are things to criticize about the stopgamergate movement, both in ideology and activity. But gamergate itself, I'm just boggled by. What started with one douchebag ex-boyfriend doing douchey things has ballooned and exploded into a touchstone for every douchebag ex-boyfriend on the internet. It has no ideology, no plan, no justification, no coherence, no message, just frustration and anger. There are attempts at justification (it's about press corruption!), but they are transparently empty. There are semi-admirable attempts to focus the emotion into positive action (Fine Young Capitalists), but they are half-measures, more for show than for progress, they only serve the underlying delusion (we can effect change without experiencing change!).
 
And it's anger and frustration I don't understand in the first place. Maybe because I'm not a 'gamer,' not involved in the videogame scene. But I just don't get what is so upsetting in the first place. People are pointing out that there are problems with the depiction and treatment of women in culture at large, and gaming in particular. The people doing this are not shutting down game companies. They're not preventing the sale of games. They're not preventing anyone from playing games. They're not knocking on the door during anyone's private time. They're not advocating for legislation (at least, to my knowledge - if anyone is doing this, they are wrong). They're challenging the status quo, by criticizing the products that represent it.
 
What exactly is the problem with this? That they're too negative? That's absurd. It's what criticism is. They're not praising the games that are making strides and raising the bar? Also absurd - the games that succeed at these things are getting heaps of praise. It is completely reasonable to praise things that are good and still criticize other things that are not. They don't allow comments on their videos? This is the most absurd of all - everyone should be, and rightfully is, able to moderate the content of their own website or youtube channel. It's not stifling discussion. The entire internet is everyone else's forum, your site should be yours, and the things that appear on it should be things you want to appear on it.
 
I can't tell what the movement's message is, if there is one. It seems to be: we don't want this to change. That's the message that appears to be underlying the whole thing, but nobody is claiming it. It's like nobody wants it to look like that's the message.
 
The whole thing is strange to me. One side appears to have absolutely no merit, in purpose or ideology, and that's very, very rare in public discourse. It makes me wonder if there's something I'm missing, but repeated dunks into the arguments have yielded nothing.

Edit: words

Edited by Doctor Pogo, 16 October 2014 - 09:18 PM.

[Green Goblin]

Right.  Let's do this then.

When it comes to the accusation of attacks, sure the polite thing to do is just accept it and comfort folks, but I don't see it as being inherently wrong to question something more thoroughly beforehand.  Much like how you said, in your second paragraph. *looks pointed*

However, when someone is attacked online or doxxed, requesting verification or evidence isn't some great offense, nor is criticizing he evidence presented.  Speaking of: 
http://www.slate.com..._proves_it.html

https://twitter.com/...666683916255232

 

Let it be known that I will do my best to back up what I've stated.  You are fully within your right to try to ask for proof. 

 

You call say that the cause of journalistic integrity is transparently empty, yet earlier you also remain curious as to why harassment against GamerGate supporters goes unreported (often by journalists and developers themselves.).  You declare a $70,000 charity drive a "half-measure"?  Why? Who are you to judge the intentions of a multitude of people from all over the world, of various backgrounds, colors and genders?  Inherently, it feels as if you're dismissing it based on what your preconceived notions are on a movement you haven't fully looked into. 

 

Criticism is not inherently negative, as Selena has said above.  CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is a thing, ya know?  Just saying "X is bad because *blank*"  Just makes anyone who actually ENJOYS X feel defensive on general principal.  Instead, saying "Wouldn't X be better if instead of *blank*, they did Y?" makes all the difference in the world.  Complaining about a problem without proposing a solution to me, is just bitching.*

The games that make strides may be getting praise, but it might not inherently be for what they should be for.  And once again, when someone is looking into sexism in video games, to have a game like "The Last of Us" not even be brought up, it sends the wrong message.  Either that the game doesn't say anything directly relating to female characters and therefore doesn't deserve mention, or that the person in question is trying to not acknowledge it for fear of it taking away from a message of inherent negativity. 

Anita Sarkeesian claims to want to open up a discussion.  Then makes the conscious decision to disable discussion tools that are automatically enabled on her videos.  That's preaching.  I'm sorry, but it is.  Yes, we have the whole of the internet to refute it, but if she makes a mistake in her vids that a gamer recognizes but a layman would not?  Well, then that's just the dispersing of false information.  One way to combat that is with a comment section directly within the video, proper.  What parts of the video did you agree with?  What parts did you disagree with?  It comes to mind that the only reason that a person would try to censor another is because they are genuinely afraid of what the other has to say.  Doesn't sound like an invitation to a discussion, IMHO.

 

The game industry IS changing.  And by and large, I don't think the majority of gamers have a problem with it.  Most of us have no problem playing as a female protagonist.  As Selena herself posted (and I agree with her), I think the main fault lies in development studios wanting to play it safe.  That's gotta be combated from within, with the addition of more women into video game development.  Now, if only there was a way to get more women into game development......Oh, wait

http://apgnation.com...ung-capitalists

**I reserve the right to use the term "bitching" in a completely nonsexual way, to denote intense complaining.

[Doctor Pogo]

Hmm. If the goal is in fact to get more women into the video game industry, it seems to me that attacks against the ones that are already there might not be the way to go about it.

 

Because that's part of the problem folks are pointing out: there already are lots of women involved in the gaming industry, but they're not being taken seriously.

 

Here are some examples of not being taken seriously:

 

"Yes, we have the whole of the internet to refute it, but if she makes a mistake in her vids that a gamer recognizes but a layman would not?"

 

This is the subtle killer, the pervasive notion that women can't be experts. The objection is not that she's not allowing for discussion, it's that she's not providing a space for guys to correct her. Because she's clearly a layperson, there's no way she could be considered one of us.

 

From the interview: "The Fine Young Capitalists’ mission is to create media using underrepresented labor [and] unexplored demographics to fund non-profit organizations, thereby “creating the means for the production”. In simpler terms, we are a loose group of artists and entrepreneurs who work with minorities to help them make video games, graphic novels, and videos. Our current project is to get women to design video games and in March we did an open call where any women could come up with an idea for a video game. We took the top 5 best ideas and assigned them concept artists to design their game. Those ideas are currently online and the Internet is voting on the best one. If there is enough interest in the form of pre-orders through crowdfunding then we’ll work with the winning woman to create her game and [give] her a percentage of the profits with the rest going to charity. The majority of the women who applied did not have the necessary skills or connections to make their game."

 

Again, there it is. Women need our help to get in. They can have an idea, and our team of experts will make it reality! It's patronizing and theatrical. There are ALREADY WOMEN WHO HAVE THE SKILLS AND ARE MAKING GAMES. This project could be employing them. That money could actually be going towards helping women make games, instead of helping dudes make games based on a woman's idea. So yeah. It's an empty gesture. A half-measure. Serving the delusion: the appearance of embracing change, with none of the actual change.

 

"Criticism is not inherently negative, as Selena has said above.  CONSTRUCTIVE criticism is a thing, ya know?  Just saying "X is bad because *blank*"  Just makes anyone who actually ENJOYS X feel defensive on general principal.  Instead, saying "Wouldn't X be better if instead of *blank*, they did Y?" makes all the difference in the world.  Complaining about a problem without proposing a solution to me, is just bitching. ...**I reserve the right to use the term "bitching" in a completely nonsexual way, to denote intense complaining."

 

The understood implications and cultural heft of the word 'bitching' notwithstanding, it's not the job of the critic to offer solutions. BUT that's irrelevant anyway, because there IS a solution being suggested, a big fat one: TAKE WOMEN SERIOUSLY. Just pointing out the problem suggests the solution! Problem: some games depict female characters as subhuman flesh-objects. Solution: depict the female character as a human. Problem: this character is merely a plot device to create conflict for the protagonist. Solution: spend more time writing a better character. Problem: female developers have a hard time being taken seriously. Solution: encourage people to take them seriously and don't take any guff about it.  SOLUTIONS EVERYWHERE.

 

"The game industry IS changing.  And by and large, I don't think the majority of gamers have a problem with it.  Most of us have no problem playing as a female protagonist."

 

The underlying problem again. Most of us. Us being gamers. 'Gamers' being implied to be dudes (yeah, that's the implication - otherwise, why would it make sense to say that? Of course if girls were gamers they wouldn't have a problem playing female protagonists). Us dudes have no problem with playing as a female protagonist, problem solved. As if just having a female protagonist is the thing everyone is looking for. Sure, virtual women being taken seriously as characters is a good thing. It will help. But the bigger issue is real women, in the real world, not being taken seriously as people with skills and knowledge and the ability to be correct.

 

And yes, the press corruption thing is transparently empty. Just ask: what specific instances of corruption are we referring to? What actual gaming reporter, employed by a serious journalistic publication, has been substantively accused and subsequently convicted of accepting a bribe, or trading in sexual or other favors, in exchange for promoting a game or particular developer that is relevant to the discussion at hand? The entire framework of the discussion is bogus. It started with trumped-up hogwash posted by an angry ex-boyfriend, and it has advanced in substance exactly 0% since.

 

So, having delved deeper, still no merit.

[Green Goblin]

You make a lot of assumptions there, friend.  And the main one being that I'm some kind of asshole.  I don't take kindly to you telling me what my intentions are, so I'll request that you not do it.  Thank you.

It's not a pervasive notion that women can't be experts.  I prefer ALL videos to have comments and ratings open, be the host male or female or in-between.  And it's been seen with my time on the internet that videos that specifically disable comments are inherently trying to prevent any notion of dissent, be it large or small (typically associated with religious propaganda or far-end political rhetoric).  But EVERYONE makes mistakes, and having a comment section helps to reflect on discussions as well as point out mistakes.  Typically, with a mistake being fixed with an annotation or (if they're larger), addressed directly in another video down the line.  It's an inherent benefit. 

 

The majority of the Fine Young Capitalists' development group are composed of minorities and women, with the intended goal of also helping the winner create an artistic portfolio to help be used in future production jobs in the industry.  So a charity, staffed with women, who've also made videos specifically ABOUT great women in game development is making a game, with a female producer, made by a core team of primarily female developers.  You don't have to tell me that there are already women making games, BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE WITH THE FINE YOUNG CAPITALISTS.  Do you honestly have a problem with the notion of us helping to diversify a heavily male-centered industry? 

If I didn't take women seriously, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  "Being taken seriously" is not the same as "Being taken on blind faith".  If I find something in a person's work that I want to question them on, the last thing on my mind is their genitalia.  The fact that I'm trying to work out inherent kinks by recommending more efficient solutions is HOW I take someone seriously.  I'm doing it because I want to see them do BETTER.  Because as of right now, they've done nothing but made the landscape more hostile.

Tropes are not inherently detrimental to a game's theme.  If someone's complaint of a platformer is "This game uses a damsel in distress trope", my response is "yeah, so?"  The idea behind a damsel in distress is one of the oldest narratives in western civilization as rescuing a loved one is still a strong motivation that requires no further explanation.  You wanna change it? Gimme something better to put into the platformer to work with.  Certain narratives get cliche, but video games, unlike other forms of media, often don't require a very strong narrative.  Just something to get the gameplay going, really. 

 

I had a slip of the tongue there with the "Gamer/Us" thing.  In no way do I think that gamers are inherently male.  So yes, us dudes have no problem playing with a female protagonist. 

As for the press corruption, there's the now defunct game journalists mailing list.  Where several prominent gaming journalists across America, from various websites discuss what to cover, what to ignore and what type of approach to take on breaking news.  Then there's the 48 hour period where 10 websites all reported one thing, when their followers were just ASKING if there was any sort of connection between Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson:  That "Gamers are dead".  Of course, during this time, Quinn was also being attacked by a legion of trolls as well.  Assuming that the trolls and the people asking questions were one in the same the leaders of a bunch of the websites, rather than attempting to get people to settle down, just deleted all posts in question (and as I said up top, no one online likes being silenced).  The Streisand effect triggered and GamerGate was born.  It was at that point, that a bunch of devs and Journalists all started talking MAAAAD shit to the movement as a whole (which was once again, just made up of people trying to get info) and all individuals who sided with it.

[Doctor Pogo]

I apologize for the harsh delivery. Brusque dismissal seemed like the appropriate response to the obstructive nonsense the gamergate movement is passing off as a cause. However, I make no assumptions about you personally and have no intention of telling anyone what their intentions are. I don't recall using the pronoun 'you' at all, as a matter of fact. You may be a defender of the movement, which is perplexing, but you are not the movement, and I have no interest in evaluating you.

 

Some of the things you said were in line with some pretty common tropes that I and others have seen from members of the movement, though, and it seemed more constructive to use the words at hand than to invent examples. Apologies if your words were used capriciously: the problems they served to illustrate stem from far wider sources than your post.

 

It really is a pervasive notion that women can't be experts. I mean, nobody actually says so out loud, it's not that kind of problem. Most people probably have never even thought it. But it's there nonetheless. It's harder for women who are experts to get their opinions heard than their male colleagues. Nobody's telling them to shut up or anything, it's more subtle than that. It's ingrained so deeply that it's not just an industry issue, it's a cultural one. I've certainly heard it in my own voice a few times - I've noticed it later when confronted about it or when revisiting a conversation in my mind. I've personally stood in a group of people discussing ideas and the group addressed the ideas of male members more comprehensively and seriously than the ideas of female members. The female members were more likely to be interrupted. More likely to have their ideas quashed without investigation. I have been part of it, and been called on it later. It's probable that I'll be part of it again - hopefully someone will point it out to me then as well. I never noticed it at the time, not even a little. But having my attention called to it, it was clear as day. I'm as guilty as anyone of perpetuating the problem, even when I'm trying to be conscious of it, and I'm an illustration of why it's such a complex problem to work on.

 

It's deep down in the culture and getting it out is going to involve more than grand gestures and letting more diverse people design things. It's a matter of correcting habits, and adjusting actions that a lot of people aren't even aware of taking, and it's going to take some seriously agonizing nitpicking. And I think at it's bottom the gamergate movement is basically just an adverse reaction to the prospect of facing that agonizing nitpicking.

 

The majority of the Fine Young Capitalists' development group are composed of minorities and women, with the intended goal of also helping the winner create an artistic portfolio to help be used in future production jobs in the industry.  So a charity, staffed with women, who've also made videos specifically ABOUT great women in game development is making a game, with a female producer, made by a core team of primarily female developers.  You don't have to tell me that there are already women making games, BECAUSE SOME OF THEM ARE WITH THE FINE YOUNG CAPITALISTS.  Do you honestly have a problem with the notion of us helping to diversify a heavily male-centered industry? 

 

Perhaps I was too quick, this sounds good. There may be something to this. And I like a lot of the things said in the rest of the interview, though there is cause for skepticism when a professional uses their interview to bag on another professional. Defending the project from criticism is one thing, but if after the claims are addressed the interviewee goes on to negatively address the personality and character of a colleague, that's kind of a red flag. And it seems to play into, without quite expressing, a lot of the negativity that was centering around her at the time. It could be just an interview about the project, and a lot of nice things were said about the goal of supporting women in the industry, but there were also a suspicious number of references to movement touchstones and memes. Not quite enough to veer into outright propaganda, but specific and familiar enough to wonder. It could be the interviewer, it could be the interviewee, it could be nothing.

 

Besides which, associating a project like this with something like gamergate, from which it did not originate but received a considerable but still minority amount of financial support, is probably just muddying the water. Gamergate is a black hole from which nasty emotions emerge both from supporters and opponents. If this project is legit, and it appears that at one time it was, although the structure of it is still inherently patronizing, anything it creates will likely be negatively affected by the association.

 

And again, it's a superficial measure. It doesn't address the deeper problems of bias and subtle discrimination, and it doesn't preclude the need for the agonizing nitpicking.

 

But there is nothing to be gained from maintaining the status quo here, and superficial measures can help. Writing characters as more than tropes would be a good thing. Sure, tropes have been around for ever, that doesn't make us doomed to chain our stories to them ever more into the misty yon. A mere smidgen more attention to writing could yield huge rewards. The kind of rewards that can contribute to the cultural shift the nitpickers are attempting to instigate.

 

In the end, taking women more seriously is not as simple as not taking them on blind faith (although lamenting a perceived inability to criticize someone's work is pretty rich when so much of the gamergate movement's actions have been taken to attempt to eliminate or punish critical voices). It's not just about inviting everyone to participate and treating them like humans when they do (although that's really important and it's not really being done yet). It's about examining ourselves and our world and picking out the things that make it suck for ourselves and others, however deeply ingrained, however complicated they may be to dislodge.

 

And the purposeless nastiness and general confusion sown by the gamergaters is not an asset to that examination. Neither, to be fair, is any purposeless nastiness and general confusion sown by the other side. But seriously, the feminists and SJWs at least have a point. Gamergate seems to transcend the whole idea of ever having been about something.

[Green Goblin]

That last sentence, I feel I agree with.  And I honestly do want this to end. 

[Jasi]

Sorry but you want what to end? Gamergate?You've now made your second giant thread about it. If Gamergate folks would move on from this stupid pointless argument then it would end. You are the only person prolonging this discussion, and basically just picking fights at this point because everyone has already made up their mind. If you want it to end, you could start the conclusion on a small scale here by not making giant baited posts.

Edited by Jasi, 17 October 2014 - 11:10 AM.

[Green Goblin]

In what way is my post baited and who have I picked fights with?  If anything, you've been more hostile in your one post here than I've been. o_O;

[Jasi]

Not with specific people, but with everyone on the forums who have already expressed their disapproval of Gamergate. I know you earnestly believe what you're saying but surely you also understand that almost no one on LA agrees. It's baiting people into arguing with you about it AGAIN, thus prolonging Gamergate (albeit on a small, local scale). I'm saying if you REALLY wanted it to end, all you'd have to do is stop getting into arguments with people about it, and if everyone in Gamergate would do the same thing, it would die naturally.

Edited by Jasi, 17 October 2014 - 01:32 PM.

[Green Goblin]

I do want GamerGate to die.  What I'm saying though is that in order for not only the movement, but also the ideas BEHIND the movement to truly be done and over, some form of resolution needs to occur.  That's what I tried to lay out in my original post.  That's all.  I'm not trying to rally people to join in a crusade.  Just sharing what I thought would be honest steps from all sides towards a resolution.  Because telling people who are pro-GamerGate to essentially just shut up and let it die is going to lead to nothing but festering long-term resentment. 

[Jasi]

What are the ideas that need resolution though? I thought you just agreed with Pogo that it's not even about anything anymore. So what's the point? That you want Sarkeesian to allow comments? And for people to be more positive? It's not exactly inspiring. And what steps are you asking Gamergate people to take? All I see is you asking all the people you don't like to apologize and stuff.

[Green Goblin]

Honest Question:  Apart from "a whole lot of shuttin' the hell up", what would you ask from the GamerGate movement?  I'm honestly curious here on your opinion.

[Selena]

Some points:
 
It's hard to take GamerGate seriously, because right out of the gate -- when it was just about Quinn -- one of the first things that happened was a smear campaign that effectively just called Quinn a whore (the "Five Guys" nickname). And people were happily laughing about it. So the angle never felt like it was about journalistic integrity. Because let's face it, journalism is not corrupted by one otherwise unknown indie developer. It's corrupted by the folks at the top. But those folks never saw the malice Quinn did. That doesn't mean Quinn is or isn't an asshole, but it means that the "Journalistic Integrity" crusade was misaimed from the very start. 
 
And because it was misaimed, it looked very much like people were just in it for no other reason than to laugh about Quinn being a whore. Which naturally upset the feminist community and their affiliates. Which, in turn, annoyed people who hate "SJWs" and political correctness. Which resulted in a big, messy screaming war. So it has never felt like it was about corruption in journalism -- just an excuse to fight with SJWs.
 
 

The game industry IS changing.  And by and large, I don't think the majority of gamers have a problem with it.  Most of us have no problem playing as a female protagonist.  As Selena herself posted (and I agree with her), I think the main fault lies in development studios wanting to play it safe.  That's gotta be combated from within, with the addition of more women into video game development.  Now, if only there was a way to get more women into game development......Oh, wait.

 
As clarification, I don't think having female protagonists is the "culture change" at work. As I said, I think most guys are perfectly fine with female protagonists. In any form of media. Everybody loves Lara Croft, Ellen Ripley, and The Bride. They're not over-sexed, they're treated as proper lead characters, and they aren't portrayed in offensive ways.
 
But.
 
I don't think the geek community is all that welcoming of minority voices. For a long time, geek culture was dominated by dudes (especially white dudes). That's where the foundations were laid. Slowly, over time, being a geek has gotten more popular. The geek empire has expanded to include people of every gender, race, orientation, etc. What was once a cult-like culture has since become mainstream. And the original geeks aren't used to sharing space, and they certainly aren't used to "outside" voices petitioning for change, because they never had to accommodate other groups until recently.
 
Gamers are fine with minority characters, so long as the existing industry makes one on their own. Because then it feels like it came "from them." But when minorities talk about wanting more representation, those people are treated like whiny "outside" voices. 
 
Some examples:
 
LGBT. When Mass Effect came out, the female Commander Shepard could romance male or female characters. People were fine with that. When LGBT gamers lamented the lack of same-sex options for male Shepard, traditional geeks pitched a fit. Told the LGBT crowd to shut up, that they were whining over nothing, or used the ever-popular "get your agenda out of my games!" Basically, it was all fine and dandy... until the "outsiders" started complaining and "pushing an agenda." And the request wasn't really all that demanding.
 
Racial. Lots of minorities have asked to see more Arab/Asian/African/Native characters in games, and are always countered with the "get your agenda out of my games" mentality. People loved Jade Empire and think it's a great game, but people don't like it when minorities ask for a game just like Jade Empire (i.e.: a fantasy game with a fully non-white cast, rather than a traditional medieval-Europe fantasy game). So. Jade Empire is good, but a game just like it is bad, because politically correct outsiders asked for it. Essentially.
 
Gender. Samus is good. Lara Croft is good. Male gamers and traditional geeks love the few female protagonists that are out there. When lady gamers lament there not being more of them? Similar experience as the above example. "Stop pushing your agenda," or "quit complaining." One of the recent examples was the new Assassin's Creed controversy, which I'm sure we're familiar with. 
 
 
It's that mental process -- something is good, unless that minority group asks for it. It happens outside of the gaming community, too. People hate it when they feel someone is "pushing an agenda." And I could name any number of non-gaming examples. But it's that same mentality that is part of the gaming community. And it's that same mentality which has caused the main conflict of GamerGate -- on both sides. 4chan et al have had "campaigns" against feminists and SJWs for a while now (see: the tumblr raids). So GamerGate has become part of that over-aching conflict. 

 

The change is the mentality. As gaming continues to grow more popular, and as more people get into it, old excuses ("welcome to the internet") stop being a free pass for acting like an asshole. People will have no choice but to be more open, accepting, and respectful. Gaming culture has always had that insulting element to it, but that's increasingly less acceptable than it used to be. Which also feeds into the current conflict, because the "sensitivity" of the other side is seen as repulsive.
 
 
 
 
As for Sarkeesian, if the main complaint about her is "she doesn't allow comments on her videos," then I'd frankly say... tough. Is it fair? Maybe not. But it's not like she's Gaming-Satan. I don't see why she's so hated, or why people feel the absolute need to comment directly on her videos and tear down her arguments. I also don't understand why it's not acceptable to make your own videos if she keeps comments closed.
 
The reason I don't understand this is because most vloggers seldom respond to dissenting comments. They might keep the comments section open, but they only ever respond to positive or neutral comments. If they even respond at all. Most have a passive relationship with their audiences and stick to regular programming, so to speak. So, does it really make someone feel better if they leave a 500 word rant in the comments section, even if it has a 97% chance of being ignored like always?
 
 
And about all the "false flag" fake-hacks various women are accused of making for the sake of publicity, does it make logical sense for all of them to be pulling off hoaxes? Really? Every single one of them? Because every time one of them gets hacked or harassed or threatened, all the GamerGate people cry out that it's a stunt for publicity. Every single time. Does it make sound, logical sense that each and every one of these women are just making it up for attention? 
 
Or is it more likely that people are genuinely being assholes to dissenting voices?
 
Because I've been on the internet long enough to know that the second scenario is way more likely than a massive conspiracy set up by a whole bunch of women.

[Green Goblin]

Selena, I absolutely love you.  I don't have a single problem with anything you just said. 

[Jasi]

Honest Question:  Apart from "a whole lot of shuttin' the hell up", what would you ask from the GamerGate movement?  I'm honestly curious here on your opinion.

You're not even responding to anything I've said! What do I want from Gamergate? Honestly I think they're the ones that need to apologize and gain some self awareness and education of feminist issues, so I guess that would be it. But I don't expect it to happen, and I'm a pragmatic person more than an ideologue, hence the more reasonable "please just go away" request that I have.

But again what is this even about? Now all the sudden you agree with Lena and Pogo for saying Gamergate makes no sense and is kind of pointless, so seriously, what are you even advocating if you're advocating for something that you agree is misguided and directionless?