Vox Vulgi · @AFacelnTheCrowd
15th Oct 2014 from TwitLonger
@frequentbeef @sanguis3k @CloneManga The culture that's been reported on...
The culture that's been reported on is toxic, yes. The problem I have with that statement is who you're trusting to report for you, because the only primary source there is exactly the people we're 'consumer revolt'-ing against. It's a case of wolves in shepherd's clothing.
I don't really know if you care or not, but i've been seeing comments like yours over and over, and i've reached the point where i just want to make a huge post about it - so, if you want to blow me off as just another gamergater, you have that right. Skip everything after the dots:
So, what i've wanted to say for a while now is why exactly i'm arguing for #gg, because i feel that knowing why people think what they do is valuable. I don't hate women, i don't hate experimental psuedogames like Gone Home, I don't think anyone should be *prevented* from making a product or presenting an opinion, and i most definitely haven't been tricked into my present beliefs by any Shadowy Cabals. So why the hell am I here?
Here's what GamerGate looks like to someone on my side of things. We start off with a journalistic industry, a hobbyist press with a history of accountability issues. ( to cite the most notable, see Gerstmann's 2007 firing for daring to call a bad game bad ) Everyone knows that the big megacorps pay their printing and ramen bills so they have to tread lightly around THEM, but the expanding indie scene is a breath of fresh air. So, of course, something happens to ruin that.
Something that, at a glance, LOOKS skeezy happens in the indie scene. Whether or not it is, is ultimately irrelevant - it looks bad. Well-meaning friends of those concerned try to hush it up (see the GamesJournoList leaks dated around this time ) and largely succeed - the only people free to discuss this thing are the fringes of the internet. These marginalized factors start yelling about the thing, because this is a relevant thing and nobody else is talking about it, what the f***. As is their way, they shove the the good, the bad, and the terminally stupid all down their cannon and fire it at everyone in sight. They get told to shut up.
(This is where anti-gg 'it's rooted in misogyny' claim is closest to having a point - the debate started in a place that a lot of people don't like... because it was intentionally prevented from happening anywhere else. What's more, a lot of people will tell you what these people are. They are all wrong; these people aren't One Entity, they're a large group of, by nature, highly fractious PEOPLE. You put twenty of them in a room, they won't be able to agree which way 'up' is, let alone form a conspiracy to drive women out of the public sphere.)
Now, some other people notice the first group at this point, and say, 'well, a lot of this is awful, but they do have a point or two.' These people ALSO get told to shut up. What's more, they meet the measures still in place to prevent anyone from talking about this thing. ( see the mundanematt DMCA claim, and the multi-thousand post CynicalBrit thread on reddit that was redacted line by line by a moderator ). This is where things start to break down.
So, due to turnover and industry networking, the entire games journo sphere is basically one extended network of friends. Not saying this is necessarily bad, just how it is. One day, Tom sees Jim in his twitter feed, yelling at some guy about something Tom hasn't heard of. Tom, obviously, jumps in to help Jim because, you know, he worked with Jim two years ago and they live in the same city, meet up for beers a few times a month. He just wants to help his friend. And then Tom's friends see HIM yelling at some rando on twitter and... well, you get the idea. Just through acquaintances of those originators pulling in their friends, who pull in THEIR friends, 90% of the games journo scene gets in on this issue and circles the wagons around their social network.
So, not entirely unreasonably, one side is entirely unwilling to discuss what's happening. It isn't about what started it anymore, it's about the fact that they won't even consider that this might be a real issue. The journos get sick of it, remember the marginalized sorts that started it and the trolls that hover o'er those lot incessantly like dung-eating vultures, and declare that only Bad People would ask the questions that're being put to them. This fails to accomplish anything because there's nothing that incenses people more than being told what they can't think, so Games Journo puts it's head together and drops the Tactical Nuke of Pettiness - 12+ websites declare all on the same day that not only can you not question them about this, but that if you even share a hobby with the people who DO dare, then you too are now a Bad Person. ( nevermind the fact that this is the hobby it is their job to talk about. )
So, now they've increased the number of people mad at them by an order of magnitude or three, and nobody is willing to be particularly rational anymore. One side can't back down at all because their whole narrative is that everyone against them is Evil. The other side doesn't want to back down because they see this whole situation as proof that the system is suffering from institutional insanity and is fundamentally broken. So now that a reasonable discussion is utterly impossible, one side tries to call advertises to get the funding pulled from the journos at the center of this mess as a boycott, and the other side calls everyone who doesn't accept their version of events misogynists, hackers, and madmen.
The issue here, and the reason that i'm on the side that I am, is that you're trusting the media to report on problems in the media, and they're telling you that, surprise, there are No Problems in the media. That just seems immediately suspicious to me even before they tell you about these bad people that're ruining our collective fun, and why don't you go shame them for being so awful.
Like I said, I don't think I fit the mould anti-gg has cast as a hateful zealot. I've spent my afternoon trying to tell people on the internet how i feel about something as neutrally as i'm able
All i wanted in the beginning was an admission that it's rationally possible to disagree with a woman in gaming without being a misogynist (I'm sorry that other people abuse that right, but i promise i won't), and the tiniest smidgen of professionalism and disclosure on who's buttering your magazine's bread this month. After the August 28th Day of Wrath, i added 'an apology for insulting the entirety of your audience under the pretense of equality' to the list.
That's it. Those three things, and i'll put down my pitchfork. Hell, I'll find a way to donate five bucks to make up for the hardship our disagreement has caused. That's ALL I want... but apparently, just acting like we're real people is too much for the other side to countenance. I don't hate these 'journalists', and I don't want them to lose their livelihoods from the boycotting, but they've systematically refused to listen to anything less. I am somewhat dismayed that they've chosen tribal loyalty and a thought-terminating cliche over their audience, their hobby, and the goodwill they had left with us, but i would still take them back if they showed interest.
As a side note, you the reason for my embarking on this rant was that you hit BOTH of the points that have been bothering me in anti-gg arguments; the second being that if there's anything good in gg, that people like me should withdraw and start afresh. As someone who just spent 7000 letters trying to sound moderate: No. Unequivocally, No.
First, let me put aside this convenient strawman - I assume that you're suggesting this in good faith. Salvage the good, leave the bad, it's the best of everything. But when you say this, what it SOUNDS like you're saying to a lot of people is, "we're finding you troublesome to deal with, please divide yourselves for easier conquering." And while I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt to any single individual, I find that I cannot grant it to the whole; I suspect strongly that there are those who espouse such for exactly that reason.
Second, this is not a problem that came up out of nowhere. Resentment against games journo practices has been simmering for years and years (again, see Gerstmann!) but every time up to now, it's been flashes in the pan, successfully papered over inside of a week. Gamergate might look bad to some people, bad people are admittedly using it as an excuse to do horrible things, and the conversation it has spawned has turned bitter and vicious - but we're finally actually having the damn conversation that, hey, maybe some of these things aren't okay and you need to DO something about it, or else WE'LL do something about it. This insane crapstorm is the MINIMUM pressure we're currently aware of that can even get people to talk about the fact that there's a problem.
Lastly, there's the issue that we are opposing The Media here, and therefore 'they' control the forums, the spaces of the internet in which a fair debate would be had, as proved by how this all played out. When they say that gg is tainted by association with what spawned it, what's to stop them next from saying that whatever banner we move to won't be 'tainted with association to gamergate'? We have seen how they act - the pressure to silence the debate, the petty insults against their constituents, the threats and abuse for daring to dissent - and we no longer believe that making the first step could accomplish anything. I don't think it's consumer entitlement to require a sign of good faith from them first, given that they pay the bills by serving us ads.
So, that's where i'm coming from in this. I can only speak for myself, but i don't think that i'd be considered a complete out-there looney by the standards of. And, honestly, if you've bothered to read this far, I genuinely hope it helps you understand what's going on in our little heads.