Video Games without all the boring bits

THE SARKEESIAN EFFECT DECLARED INEFFECTUAL

3/3/2015

Every time we've touched upon GamerGate on Digitiser 2000 we've ended up either not making ourselves clear enough, or stoked the ire of people on both sides of the debate.

Previously, we've stupidly attempted a slightly different approach to much of the rest of the games media.

We tried to come at the whole horrible situation from a sort of empathic, humanistic perspective - taking our own feelings and opinions out of the equation, and adopting a (with hindsight) sort of weak-livered, ineffectual, middle ground that made the well-intentioned (if misguided) suggestion that life is never entirely black and white, and that we could have a stab at treating each other with empathy because we weren't getting anywhere. Alas, it just ended up making us look stupid.

Unfortunately, for failing to explicitly condemn either camp, it meant we ended up getting grief from both GamerGaters and Social Justice Warriors alike. We received a stark lesson in why hippy-drippy sentiments such as "Why can't we all just get along, maaaaan?" are doomed to failure when you're dealing with entrenched positions and historical bruising on both sides.

Anyway. Whatever. Life's too short, and commenting on GamerGate isn't something we ever intend to do again.

Howeverrrrrr....

ONCE MORE WITH FEELING
Some of you may be aware of a Patreon-funded documentary entitled The Sarkeesian Effect. Currently, at the time of writing, the film is backed by some 376 patrons, with over $8,000 pledged for every time the team behind the video posts an update on the progress of the production.

What's the film about? In short: The Sarkeesian Effect was/is being put together by a couple of GamerGaters called Jordan Owen (personal style: bear) and Davis Aurini (personal style: creepy illusionist), and here it is in their own words:

"The Sarkeesian Effect will be a feature-length documentary covering an ongoing phenomenon in video game and tech circles, culminating in the recent outrage known as #GamerGate: the progressive infiltration by disingenuous 'Social Justice Warriors' - individuals who claim high minded ideals while operating unethically.

"The documentary will start with, but not be limited to, the eponymous Anita Sarkeesian, the face of Feminist Frequency, and one of the most well-known voices of Social Justice."

READ ON
So long as you don't accidentally give them money, it's worth having a read of their entire Patreon page (and then head over to our one once you've scoffed - by all means accidentally give us money), because it's... well... it's... well... basically... See... we went to this party one time, and we got cornered by this very intense guy who had a ponytail and wore a trenchcoat, who told us he had written an episode of Star Trek: Voyager. He told us all about it in great detail, and we were very impressed - even if he was a bit, y'know... weird.

However, the truth gradually dawned on us that, while he had indeed written an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, it was not one that ever got made. Or, indeed, would ever even remotely come close to getting made. Frankly, so full-on was he that we half expected to wake up that night to find him standing over us with a Klingon bat'leth, ready to slit our throat. Basically, when we read the Patreon page for The Sarkeesian Effect, it's impossible not to hear his voice.

FLANKS
Unfortunately, The Sarkeesian Effect has seemingly become yet another crowd funded project to embrace the damp flanks of The Tragedy Dog; Owen and Aurini have had a quite spectacular public falling-out, which it is quite difficult not to take at least some degree of pleasure/amusement in, regardless of who you are. Not least because one of the aims of the documentary was to unearth the wanton squandering of crowd funding donations, by the likes of Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn.

Regrettably, both men are now claiming to be the victim in the situation, and each has pledged to finish what will undoubtedly be a searing and professional-level documentary - leading to the threat of two competing The Sarkeesian Effects. Imagine!

But why rely solely on us stoke the grimly sputtering fires of your pleasure? Here's Owen doing it himself (in the interests of balance, we'd love to link you to Aurini's take on the situation, but it's impossible to link to his stupid blog without donating Bitcoins first - great!):

38 Comments

Matt W

3/3/2015 01:07:23 pm

I have kept away from Gamergate, I have to be totally honest and say that I have found both sides utterly mind numbingly tedious. It was almost as bad as Labour vs The Tories!

Just give me decent games regardless of whether the main character is a woman or a man, and decent games journalism (thankfully Digi is sorting the latter out for me!).

Shish link

3/3/2015 11:31:01 pm

This~ Digi is the smallest magazine in my news feed, but the one I care about most, as it seems to put games first while everyone else concentrates on ad revenue (ie, stirring up drama for clicks)

Keith

3/3/2015 02:08:20 pm

I kind of think that digitiser/Biffo implicitly comes over as sound anyway, with regards to gamergate, In the sense that Biffo's writing has pretty much always been up to the ethical standards that gamergaters have claimed that the movement is about (even though it isn't really about that, as you don't have to be an SJW to know) while always being aware of and vocal about sexism in video games too.
In a way, that's why I do agree that Biffo's writing so far on gamergate has (unintentionally) been, as he says, a bit wishy washy and "neither summit nor owt", as northerners would say.
I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that it's because in order to come over as neutral in the sense of being "midway between two extremes", it involves moving away from the neutral position of "where I think the reasonable position is"
If that makes sense?

Mr Biffo

3/3/2015 02:32:52 pm

I *think* I know what you're saying, Keith.

But yes - I was trying something different with it to what I'd normally do. Which, basically, is me putting my usual opinion and feelings and commentary to one side - because I couldn't see that anyone was getting anywhere by "taking a side", or just piling another lit keg of blame onto the situation.

But... yeah... that clearly isn't what people are after with Gamergate, it seems. On both sides of the divide, people are looking for allies - not diplomatic negotiation, or a middle way. Yet nobody seems to be proposing a solution beyond an enduring stalemate, fuelled by enflamed passions.

The saddest fact of it for me is that however reprehensible the rape and death threats and bullying and intimidation might be from GG-ers - and as I've previously stated, my liberal tendencies, and as a father of three daughters, mean I'd instinctively, OBVIOUSLY, always side away from something like that - after the pieces I wrote I got a load of shite from a handful of anti-Gamergaters, which slightly tested those sympathies, to say the least...

As Matt says above... I'm finding the whole thing a bit mind-numbingly tedious now, and certainly can't be arsed to cover any of it in much detail from now on. Especially not if some people are just going to choose to misinterpret whatever I write on the topic to suit their own cracked agenda! It's bloody Gaza and Israel in microcosm.

3/3/2015 02:52:54 pm

Aye. I think the most vocal on either side of a polarised debate are the ones responsible for anyone without a vested interest feeling like the fairest position is in the middle.
Add to that that understanding both sides is never a bad thing and it must soon become really difficult to attempt to write with any clarity and empathy (let alone levity) without presenting anyone as a bogeyman or something.

3/3/2015 03:00:56 pm

(Btw I don't really have a dog in this fight. For me, video games are a solo pursuit and I don't even really like admitting to myself that it isn't just me who has wandered through skyrim, let alone that there are ideological and vicious factions amongst people who like games, so my opinion on this is based solely on reading articles about it with a sense of dread that THIS is how people who play games are seen by non gamers)

Tane

4/3/2015 01:22:30 am

When the BBC covered it and did the teary interview with Ms Quinn - I knew at that point all the pensioners of the land who don't read the Daily Mail thought we were idiots.

Then of course The Daily Mail covered it and now 100% of pensioners think "kids who play video games" are idiots.

Sadly with the whole GG/Ghazi thing they aren't far off.

4/3/2015 01:25:39 am

Yep. Any valid points are getting drowned out by hysteria. Increasingly, that's what it looks like to me - a bunch of kids bickering in a playground. And when teacher comes along and asks who started it, it's all "He did!"/"She did!". The only option now is to keep them in at break time, and put them in separate classrooms.

Wicked Eric

4/3/2015 01:36:46 am

Jordan Owen looks a bit like a tramp doing a John Romero impersonation.

Superbeast 37

4/3/2015 01:44:32 am

How about just not getting involved?

We don't need politics in gaming and ultimately the free market will decide what games are produced, the nature of the player controlled characters and the topics the plot covers.

I knew the gaming press were corrupt 20 years ago so I don't need to use a Twitter hash tag now.

Of course what will get my goat up is when extremists refuse to accept the outcomes of the free market and instead try to force their own idealogical preferences on products against the will of the market.

That type of thing will lead to lower sales and damage the industry.

I think we need less tweeting and more game buying. Spending (or not spending) money on a product is worth a million tweets and will ultimately determine what games look like in the future.

4/3/2015 01:52:13 am

Deference to free markets is an ideology.

4/3/2015 02:42:36 am

We live in a free market democracy. This is a high level market ideology that is completely impartial and unbiased as far as the nature of products is concerned. The free market treats Hatred style games as fairly as it does Gone Home style products.

I don't care about either side of the GG debate but I will fight attempts at creating a command economy for games - regardless of which low/micro level ideology those people wish to push.

So that applies to both sides. It applies to core gamers who would try to force their preferences on game length, dislike of QTE's/narrative heavy titles on others, and it applies to the "SJW's" who would attempt to force their progressive design preferences on to the market.

I support a high level macro ideology that I believe should be allowed to adjudicate over these two groups of low/micro level ideological extremist nutters.

It actually works for the games media too. Previously there was a lack of competition in the gaming press due to the high barriers of entry involved in setting a large gaming site. That in part allowed the corruption to persist. Now with every Tom Richard and Harry able to start a YouTube channel in their bedroom we have enough choice and competition for the market to function and weed out those who aren't delivering what the consumer wants.

4/3/2015 03:35:28 am

I absolutely agree that creators should be free to make whatever games they wish. To use your own example, I've got no problem with a game like Hatred being available for people to buy. My politics are absolutely and unambiguously anti-authoritarian.

What I'm objecting to the idea that your original statement is free of either ideology or politics.

Stating that you don't want politics in gaming is another way of saying that you endorse the status-quo. It's a political statement dressed up as an impartial one. Arguing that free markets should be the sole crucible in which games should be appraised of their merit isn't ideologically neutral, it's absolutely loaded with ideology.

(Which is completely fine by the way. By all means make your point and I'll be happy to read it. I actually suspect we agree on most aspects of this.)

In addition to what I've said above I also think it's important to say that when people criticise a game for its content, they're not saying "This game shouldn't exist", what they are they are saying is "I don't like what I see". Criticism is absolutely necessary for any medium if it wants to grow and improve.

Change your statement to "I don't want politics in my literature" or "I don't think politics belongs in film" and see how nonsensical it sounds. Everything humans create can be read politically, and if we don't like what we read when then we have the right (and perhaps a duty) to make our viewpoints known.

moc-moc-a-moc

4/3/2015 03:01:16 am

Well, yes - not getting involved seems like the best/only option at this point. Initially, I only spoke about the situation because I hated seeing women being attacked.

Unfortunately and ironically, and much as it pains me to admit... it was a handful of anti-GGers who then somewhat turned on me (even today, off the back of this stupid not-really-saying-anything piece!), when I tried to advocate a solution - basic human empathy - that might work better than the sort of mutually assured destruction hatefest we'd been seeing to date.

So, in the interests of conceding that I'm never going to get my point over, and that such an approach - however well-meaning - might just come across as insipid and naive, or (worse) make me look like some sort of Nazi sympathiser... fuck it, basically...

4/3/2015 03:12:32 am

I see Brianna Wu courageously met with Brad Wardell to settle their differences in a mature and professional way and was promptly attacked by women on her own "side".

She was described as "not a real woman" and "not a real feminist"... By "progressive" women of all people.

I've seen infighting amongst the GG mob too.

What you have are two sides that have shifted to extremes and just want to fight.

As I say is best to stay out and let the battle be settled at the tills.

Mr Smith

4/3/2015 03:40:09 am

SB37 has made some good points, which I agree with. (Apologies if this is a double post - browser went wonky during the last attempt)

Everyone seems hellbent on preventing one or another section of the world's creative sphere from making stuff. People should disengage with what they don't like, and instead engage with what they do like or - better yet - actually create something, and fill any perceived gap they see.

Instead we have an army of Twitter militia who feel that by destroying what they don't like, it will result in the creation of what they do like (Leigh Alexander does this a lot, attacking everyone and everything she doesn't like - including threatening to end careers).

Creative types should be left alone to make what they want without interference from society's plebeians.

I've always liked Oscar Wilde's comments on this, which I'll paraphrase, because I'm too lazy to come up with my own:
"If someone approaches a creative work with any desire to exercise authority over it and the creator, they approach it in such a spirit that they cannot receive any impression from it at all. Creative work is to dominate the spectator: the spectator is not to dominate the creative work. The spectator is to be receptive. They are to be the violin on which the master is to play. And the more completely they can suppress their own silly views, their own foolish prejudices, their own absurd ideas of what Creativity should be, or should not be, the more likely they are to understand and appreciate the work in question."

4/3/2015 02:43:29 am

My issue with prevaricating over this situation is that it gives GG way too much credit.

Whilst I've no doubt that there are angry, noisy people on both sides now, that have no interest in conciliation or understanding, that belies the fact that GG was spawned via a whole heap of misunderstandings and sulky tantrums. Leigh Alexander is not anti-gamer. Anita Sarkeesian is not labelling all games as sexist, or saying that playing games makes you sexist, and doesn't have to "show all sides of gaming". Zoe Quinn did not sleep with a journalist to gain favourable reviews. Yet those three people are the main reason GG has come into existence.

For the most part, I've tried to be civil when engaging with GGers, but there's only so many times that I can repeat myself with the same three points above until I begin to feel like they're being wilfully ignorant, and are actually just out to cause trouble. When it comes right down to it, what they really seem to be against is people asking for a better representation of women in games, and in so doing, horribly conflating criticism with censorship (or, to quote above "forcing their own idealogical preferences on products").

To say that GG and anti-GG are as bad as one another is to ignore the large proportion of people who are very much against what GG stand for, but haven't descended to the mud-slinging level.

4/3/2015 03:05:25 am

Genetic fallacy.

Also we have seen attempts at censoring a number of games.

GTA pulled from shelves, Hated removed from Greenlight (albeit restored).

We also saw misguided (it doesn't work that way) attempts at trying to prevent Wu's game from being green lit.

Both sides trying to deny the self determination of consumers.

To say it isn't about censorship is ridiculous which ever side you support.

Also it is not for you determine how many non participants support each side.

Keep it rational...

4/3/2015 06:46:24 am

See, you're doing it too. Being against GG does not make me responsible for everything people on this "side" do. Being against GG is not a side!

I am specifically addressing what I see as the major reasons behind GG, and have found them horribly wanting, every time. So all I can do is decide that's it's very much not a good thing, and move on.

4/3/2015 03:26:49 am

I appreciate your comments, but I think you've slightly missed my point, Bo. I'm not remotely saying that they're as bad as one another. At all.

Certainly, there are things I'm self-censoring here, because - taking my emotional response out of it - I don't think a blanket condemnation/tarring-with-the-same-brush of any one huge swathe of humanity gets us anywhere.

Admittedly, I don't know why anyone would identify themselves as a GGer, given the associations around it, but I lump that sort of blanket labelling in with racism and homophobia... however wrong and disgusting the actions of some in that community. And I am sorry if that makes me irritatingly weak or insipid or stupid in your eyes.

As I've said before, I totally get, and side with, the anger and injustice that anti-GGers feel. I am anti-GGer. I mean, of course I bloody am. I hate any sort of mob justice.

Nevertheless, it just seems to me that - by not overtly condemning GamerGate, because I don't want to add just more hate to the fire, and continue to maintain that an empathic approach is the only solution - some people on the other side seem to fill in the blanks with their own interpretation. And that happens on both sides, because people can't see beyond their own skewed perspective.

I think I made it pretty clear that I got grief from just "a handful" of anti-GGers, and didn't remotely label an entire cross-section of our society and community as any one thing.

But that handful was enough to make me decide the topic just wasn't worth the hassle anymore for me (I'm just some guy, writing on some tiny, mostly-ignored corner of the Internet; I've got bills to pay, problems to deal with... things that actually matter more to me day to day)... but it still wasn't enough grief to make me change my overall opinion of the situation, or feelings around why I initially decided to comment on it.

Y'know, while I was away from games writing, I spent two years training to be a psychotherapist. Now... I ultimately decided not to pursue it as a career (but that's another story). One of the dilemmas we had to wrestle with was "What would you do if one of your clients was a paedophile?".

Basically, just because it's possible to have empathy for others, it doesn't mean you can't also find their actions and responses and how they live their life utterly repugnant.

There are enough people online condemning GG. I wanted to try something different. Didn't work. Moving on.

4/3/2015 07:11:56 am

Thanks for the reply Mr B. I apologise if I gave you the impression that I thought you were condoning GG, or "weak" in any way by not piling in on the condemnation. That wasn't my intention at all, and I don't think that. I absolutely cannot judge you for vocally condemning it, when that's basically what I do on Twitter myself - I have absolutely no desire to bring the inferno down around me by joining in the shouting, either.

It's just that, it's all well and good to wish that everybody got along (and on similar lines to you, just because someone agrees with GG, I would never deny them the rights of other people, because that's just silly), but I feel we eventually all have a point when we end up saying "no, that's not right at all." It's like people trying to push for teaching creationism in schools - wishing everyone got along is all well and good, but it won't stop them trying to push it. You either debate the issues (*comedy drummer falls off stage*) or you get bored of that and you reject/ignore/mock (delete according to personality complex).

4/3/2015 04:05:29 am

@ wicked Eric

When I say I don't want politics in games I don't mean that games shouldn't have political themes.

I was referring to low level political ideologies hijacking the industry and artistic freedom.

Yes I want my own free market economic ideology to run the market but that is effectively politically neutral given that the laissez-faire approach doesnt discriminate in terms of the political content of games.

It is a pure meritocracy. If it's good it sells. If it sells, more products like it are produced.

There is no way to buck the free market for games in the digital age. If western devs/pubs are coopted or bullied into creating games that consumers do not want, they will simply be produced in (and downloaded from) other regions with the resulting job/tax losses in the original location.

Twitter bickering won't change a thing in the face of free market forces. It just makes all gamers and all progressives look like jerks - including non combatants.

4/3/2015 04:15:46 am

Sorry Mr Beast 37, I'm afraid you're never going to convince a dirty communist like me of your free-market idea. It'll never catch on.

(I agree with everything else though).

4/3/2015 04:46:51 am

Or you could just do a Man's Daddy GamerGate joke page?

Why did Adam Woodyatt bring alphabeticised keys for his characters car to the Eastenders Set?

A neater Car-Keys Ian (Anita Sarkeesian)

4/3/2015 04:50:02 am

Even the Russians and Chinese bailed out!

I don't think Tumblr will succeed where they failed!

:) :D

4/3/2015 04:43:18 am

Thing is, the whole bloody situation is one of the few things out of which absolutely no good has come whatsoever - somewhere in amongst everything, there probably is an interesting discussion to be had, but to anyone who doesn't already have a strong attachment to either side, the whole thing is so poisonous that I don't think it's possible to come up with a progressive way out of it in which people from either side are willing to concede certain aspects, and back down.
It'd probably be better if the whole thing did just die down, and then maybe the issues that actually are issues could eventually be raised separately without being based almost entirely on individuals

4/3/2015 07:01:37 am

Bo - re: your latest comment. Sorry if I appear to have misunderstood what you were saying. I wasn't intending to bring it down to any sort of level of labelling, or lumping you with a "side". I actually think we're entirely on the same page when it comes to the stated reasons why GG kicked off in the first place, but it's an impassioned and bewilderingly complicated topic that is clearly open to misinterpretation.

I'm evidently not succeeding at making my position clear, and for that I can only apologise again. It feels like any attempt I make at clarity seems to "incriminate" me or is "the wrong thing to say", so I'm just going to keep my gob shut on this one from now on. Until the next time anyway, gobshite that I am.

4/3/2015 07:51:10 am

Biffo - I don't know much about how to avoid grief from the GG side (just block I guess) but in the case of the progressives the golden rule is NEVER apologise or try to "clarify".

Apologising or clarifying (which they consider the same thing -I.e. back peddling) is seen as an acknowledgement/confession that you were in the wrong and validates their feelings of being victims/righteous crusaders for justice.

Rather than placating them they will just come after you even harder as they are now the heroes and you are the villain.

Often you didn't need to clarify anything as you will have been perfectly clear to start with. Rather these people are professional strawman attackers and will twist anything you say.

Any abuse from either side and the solution is to block. Any use of fallacies or hyperbole from either side and you should block too. Just restrict yourself to talking to those people who want to sit down for a moderate, rational, evidence based debate.

Anyone else isn't worth the time of day. You can get bogged down in an endless futile grind talking to such people. You can't have a rational discussion with extremists, you will just make yourself stressed.

4/3/2015 07:59:08 am

I'm not sure that generalisations such as that are particularly helpful, superbeast. I'd probably count as a "progressive", and I thnk I've posted here in a fairly open minded respectful way. Your post feels a bit inflammatory

4/3/2015 07:52:38 am

Oh, we definitely seem to be on the same page, and I'm glad you've clarified that. I think you're right to point out that I'm in close to fallacy with my "no true anti-GGer" speech, but at the same time, I don't know how else to point out that I oppose GG without agreeing with people who are fighting dirty against them too.

It's just that every time I read somebody say something like "both sides are as bad as each other" (which certainly isn't isolated to you, but also many others in these comments), then I can't help but disagree. If we really want to boil this thing down into two sides, then there is GG, who are Wrong and are doing Bad Things. And there is absolutely everybody else in the entire world, which unfortunately also happens to include Bad People.

I do understand your position, I think you've made it pretty clear - it's just that I disagree with it slightly. That's it really. No earth-shattering fallout or trench warfare needed here - I still think you're clearly a decent bloke with an enjoyable blog that I'll continue to read - I think we'd all rather every online disagreement went as civilly as this. Carry on the gobshiteing (new verb ahoy), it's why I visit this place!

4/3/2015 07:57:07 am

Bo and Super Beast 47: I will always love you both. AWKWARD.

Whatever the views, I honestly think Digi2000 has some of the best regular commenters of any site. Even when I don't have time to wade in (unlike today) they're always worth reading.

4/3/2015 09:58:32 am

@Keith - with the greatest respect (I say this in a totally calm and passive manner) you perhaps inadvertently just provided a textbook example of the type of strawman fallacy I was highlighting.

I refer to your accusation that I used "generalisations" and then how you highlighted the fact that you are progressive to make it look like I personally attacked you - therefore making you a "victim" and me a "harasser".

If you re-read what I said, I was explaining how Mr Biffo should deal *specifically* with the extremist types who attack him for his considered moderate position rather than engaging in a mature rational debate.

You misrepresented that statement to imply that I was referring to *all* progressives.

I was not generalising about *all* progressives or *all* GG'ers. Just the more aggressive militant types - you know, the ones who are so certain that their "side" is right that if you take a fair and moderate approach they attack you for it. The "you are either with us or against us" types.

I have no issue with progressives as a group in general. In fact I have more in common with moderate progressives than I do the GG brigade.

If you looked at my Steam library you would call me an "SJW"!!! :)

I am fully paid up member of the Gone Home fan club (it was my favourite game of 2013 amongst a very strong field) and have faced plenty of abuse in Youtube comments sections for defending it!

The first time I heard the phrase "SJW" was to the best of my knowledge when someone called me one!!!! :D

That being said I want to buy Gone Home of my own free will and not have the decision forced upon me by authoritarian groups who self-appoint themselves as my moral guardian and wish to control what I should and should not see in games. That puts in conflict with the extreme progressives...

4/3/2015 10:56:31 am

@superbeast. Fair enough, my mistake. Bit of a minefield discussing it, I reckon. I guess everyone not only wants to articulate their opinion, they want to do so without either being pigeon holed or dismissed as being just part of a tide, or an easily labelled faction.

Like many discussions online, I reckon similar conversations in person would stay so much more civil as people try to find common ground rather than differences.

4/3/2015 12:37:31 pm

I think what happens in these online discussions is that we get so used to dealing with a hostile mob that when we speed read posts we start to fill in the blanks with what we are used to seeing. We just see the same words and the same inflection that we expect to be there.

I am guilty myself. You can't help but always be on the defensive against attacks when you are constantly under attack. Eventually someone approaching for a civil discussion will just appear as the prelude to an attack.

One thing I forgot to add as well in response to Bo's focus on the origins of movements is that this leads to the same thing we see in hotspots around the world (whether it was Northern Ireland in the 80's or Israel/Palestine now).

We see people still spilling blood over events that happened 10, 20, 30 or 40 years prior. They just can't seem to move on from that and look solely at what the issues (and solutions) are in the present day.

It even reaches the point where you have a generation that had nothing to do with those past events but each bear a grudge over what happened and expect reparations from the other group!

I am sure in this particular conflict 90% or more of participants didn't join in until the infamous "10 articles". Most were not involved and had no idea about the spark that triggered it especially given all the thread deletions at the time.

You will find no solution to the rift if you walk up to those people and tell them that everything they stand for is wrong because of something that happened before they were involved. This will predictably and understandably lead to a hostile reaction.

I never understand why people can't put themselves in the shoes of others and imagine how it looks and how they would react in similar circumstances. If you walk up to someone, start aggressively poking them in the chest and say "I don't want to hear anything you have to say, you are scum and your opinion is worthless because x, y and z happened a couple of months before you were involved".........well guess what happens next!

Mr Jonny T

4/3/2015 10:41:32 am

Wow... haven't read in a couple of days... intense... looks like I missed quite a bit. I'm not even gonna try and give an opinion as I've mostly ignored gamer gate since the beginning (I know the gist). Nice to read reasoned opinions on the Internet for a change though. One of the many reasons I love Digi.

Dr Kank

4/3/2015 02:41:06 pm

As a Gamergate deserter it was those infamous articles that got first me involved. I don't agree with harrassing women online though. I only indulge in that sort of behaviour in bus stops.

Nick the Gent link

4/3/2015 05:00:03 pm

Video games are a $25 billion industry, and there is, you might think, room enough for big-budget blockbuster military shooters, introspective indie thought-provokers, and everything in between.

If we could all just, to Mr. Biffo's point, be excellent to one another (a wonderful philosophy) then gamers in general might have avoided the embarrassment of being pulled into this controversy.

Reviewer 2457F

5/3/2015 06:00:30 pm

It’s a toughie. There are extremists both pro and anti-GG who want moderates ousted from the discourse. On one side, you have GGer’s who can’t see that their movement is compromised by it’s very origin as a #banner for abuse. When you call them on threats and questionable tactics they always claim those people aren’t true GG members (the no true Scotsman defence). So you get to a certain point with these peeps where the conversation can’t go any further.
They’re civil if you agree that there are ethical problems with games journalism (I do, a bit). Where they go all tin foil hatty is when you suggest that maybe an amorphous, leaderless blob that emerged primarily as a means to harass someone isn’t the best strategic response. And some seem genuinely surprised that the ill will between the gaming press and gamers has actually been around for decades. A few are willing to engage, but then -
Cue the reductive language, name calling and general abuse flung my way.. That’s when I mosey on out of town. Better things to do.
On the other you have a bunch of people charged with equal zeal, who equate all criticism of the ‘progressive’ gaming spokespeople (Sarkeesian, Quin, Wu etc) as heretic behaviour. It is as if their works are immaculate conceptions. Try making a reasoned critique of Feminist Frequency and you will often receive the same old reductive insults. There seems even LESS room for conversation! I despair of most of them really.
I think it is telling that many choose Social Justice Warrior rather than Social Justice Worker, and that they talk in terms of allies and enemies. Revolutionary groups often co-opt the language of war. This can be useful for a while, but in the endgame this becomes a hindrance.
Because if we ever want to make true, lasting progress we have to put down our weapons and SEE THE OTHER ‘SIDE’ AS HUMAN. We have to stop equating the admission of flaws In our argument as an admission of weakness, rather than a sign of openness and clear thinking. We have to abandon political tactics and rhetoric and yes, ADMIT THAT THE OTHER SIDE MIGHT HAVE A POINT.
I have no problem calling out people for sending death threats and abuse. I have no problem defending those who receive it. What I won’t do is uncritically support their work, especially if I feel it is not very good (hello Anita).
Where I also have a problem Is when people tell me that this is a case of elephants stamping on mice and that the mice will not thank you for your neutrality. I see the power imbalance but I think there are people on BOTH SIDES exploiting this for their own gain. So that was a lot of words to state that basically, I’m weary but I’m not going to stop thinking critically about these issues and I won‘t be forced into accepting wholesale the pov of either side.

THE SARKEESIAN EFFECT DECLARED INEFFECTUAL

Leave a Reply.

Archives