PixieJenni talks GamerGate with both 'sides'

GamerGate + You (part 5)

on September 14, 2014

No answers have been changed/merged for this one.

Some answers may not be included if they misunderstood the question – they may instead have moved to ‘bonus’ as a section. Will highlight if that is the case.

People are anon if they didn’t explictly say “call me x”. Email me again if you want to change that 🙂 Anon referencing consistent within this topic, but not with others.

1. Why did you personally get involved with the #GamerGate tag?

nomuru2d: “I got involved because I have had a lifelong love of the game industry. I grew up wanting to get involved with the world of video games in some form, as I’m sure a lot of us have at some point. I went to school to learn this craft, I embraced the internet as a way to connect to others who felt as passionate about the industry as I did, and I enjoyed myself. I grew up identifying as a gamer throughout the years of mental abuse and bullying I endured, and that never swayed. What did sway, however, was my view of the journalism scene. It started with loads of examples listed in the Eight Point Eight section on TV Tropes, most notably reviews by IGN for games such as Nier (guy can’t follow a BIG RED X on the mini-map, therefore game is ruined) and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword (guy can’t be bothered to learn combat mechanics to get through a game deliberately designed to make sure you know them, therefore game is ruined). When Gerstmann lost his job for slamming into Kane & Lynch, that was a major show of unprofessional behavior that only served to show the start of how bad things would get. When Doritogate happened, that was the straw that made me truly apathetic towards gaming ‘journalism’. When the Zoe Post hit, I was utterly disappointed. When the ensuing immature “gamers are dead” reaction happened, and Anita hopped onto the bandwagon with another round of controversy, I knew something HAD to change.”


Anon36: “Carolyn Petit’s review for Grand Theft Auto V for Gamespot. I do not play nor have ever played a Grand Theft Auto game but it was the first time I witnessed a problem with gaming journalism. Since that review I never went to Gamespot for a trustworthy review again. Carolyn Petit is a prime example of what is wrong with bias in video game journalism. He is transgendered [PixieJenni note: Carolyn’s pronouns are “she”. However, I am leaving in the misgendering for context in the original answer to this question] so he rates a simple 2 hour game Gone Home with a 9.5 because it is about a lesbian. When Zoe Quinn 5 guys scandal surfaced and launched GamerGate… It exposed how games like Depression Quest and Gone Home were rated highly not because of the standards other games were held to, length, graphics, story, etc.but because there is an inside “this is my friend’s game”. Prior to that review Carolyn had an entry on Gamespot promoting Anita Sarkeesian. At the time I scratched my head thinking, “there is no logic or data that supports what Anita Sarkeesian is saying.” Assuming the world was logical and would see through this bullshit (for lack of a better word) I shrugged it off and went about my days.

Then I saw videos by Thunderf00t exposing Anita Sarkeesian as a fraud. Thunderf00t specifically this video Why ‘feminism’ poisons EVERYTHING. He cites REAL damning evidence of her cause. He points to her hypocrisy and exposes her. Then afterwards I saw InternetAristocrat‘s videos on Zoe Quinn and 5 guys conspiracy.  Specifically his video Quinnspiracy Theory: The Five Guys Saga. There are several other videos. One interesting one is about corrupt practices of the Independent Gaming Festival. The original video was set to “private” allegedly “because the uploader was getting threatened by various people. Luckily someone mirrored the original video… Indie-fensible! The Maya “Legobutts” Kramer Story!(Mirror).

So seeing gaming at the hands of people that are corrupt is upsetting. I often visited gaming sites and read about up coming releases. I based purchases by weighing the pros and cons of a game review. I started noticing social commentary and thought…”Irrelevant…why is that even in here?” It turned me off of Gamespot completely. So after seeing all of these videos about social commentary in gaming “journalism,” I see that atheism and comic books were effected by this social justice agenda. I starting seeing the aftermath in those communities and do not want a repeat in the gaming world. I do not describe myself as atheist but again that is irrelevant to the point. My personal views of a God or gods or the non existence of a deity has no place in standing up against Social Justice Warriors. The atheist community was divided by the SJW agenda and I believe that agenda is attempting to spread their same ideology into the gaming world.And for what? To make the world a better place? After viewing how Anita Sarkeesian profits monetarily from this all the while being a shill and pretend gamer using “research” that is not backed or cited by ANY ACTUAL research. Everything she presents is her PERSONAL reaction to seeing images or sexual content in a videogame. She speaks as if what she is saying is a fact. When Anita states, “But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.” It SOUNDS right. It SOUNDS like proof, but it is in fact neither. There is NO correlation between violent crimes against women and video games. There is no more proof that women are looked at by the male gaming community as objects than when jack Thompson claimed video games caused murder. There is no proof, there is no study with a high confidence level, that proves her statements. She uses key phrases and statements as if EVERYONE knows these “facts” and in reality…They are not facts.

So I stand up against her on the internet just like I stood up to and for my own mother when she would tell me how Benny Hinn was such a good preacher. Snake oil salesmen like Anita Sarkeesian and Benny Hinn are not out there to better the world. They are out there to line their pockets. They do so by finding an audience through key words, Feminism, Jesus, Healing, Equality, etc etc etc. Exposing con men should be a priority for everyone. Real feminists like Christina Sommers are to be respected. Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Legobutts, Leigh Alexander, Adria Richards….They are a cancer. Just like Benny Hinn, Jim and Tammy Faye Baker are a cancer to Christians, Rebecca Watson is a cancer to Atheism…


Anon37: “I know some got involved with other recent events. And for others, this has been building for years, and the opportunity broke to confront those frustrations. I came in after the 10 articles dropped. I thought that kind of coordinated attack against a group based on a faulty perception was so incredibly offensive to me as a consumer for many years. As a person who despises the power of the press being used to influence opinion that much and understands the destruction it has done when used in that matter throughout history, I had to throw out a tweet. Lost a few friends after that first one. So I figured, why not? Might as well go all in with my feelings on the matter. Besides, my daughter calls herself a gamer, and I don’t want that ruined for her. ”


Anon38: “It was a long time coming, but I used to be very firmly in what would now be called the ‘social justice warrior’ camp. Over time, I came to realize just exactly what sort of effect the social justice rhetoric had on free speech. I believe this process is called being ‘redpilled’, after a scene from The Matrix, where Morpheus offers Neo the trace program. The debacle between Zoe Quinn and Wizardchan helped. I’d known about #GamerGate for a few days, being a 4channer (mainly on /d/ – never go there unless you can handle it!), but it was never really important to me until I saw all the articles about how ‘gamers are over’ and how gamers are all raging white virgin males – that’s when I really saw how far they would take things in order to advance their narrative, and I decided I’d had enough of third wave feminism, and started tweeting #GamerGate.”


Anon39: “Sensationalist Journalism in Video Game media has been something I’ve disliked for some time now. I’ve believed that there was corruption in it for a long time. What happened is that we got a small view of what is there. People started to get angry and curious as what else might be hidden, myself included.”


Anon40: “I just got tired of a journalism filled with agendas, of corrupted ideals. A journalism that supports what its best for them instead of supporting what is right for the gamers and the industry. I’m tired of a industry that picks sides when a scandal like Gamergate exists. I’m tired of seeing myself and other people that are gamers being persecuted and harassed by journalists just because we dare to oppose and question their integrity. I saw awful, disturbing things in this past 3 weeks. How the journalists acted so bias towards this issues. how they ignored our calls, how they attacked us and refused to address or respect our position. “


Anon41: “I got involved, because I hated seeing all these people drag gamers through the mud, just because of this minority of assholes. I hated seeing how people said gamers were the bad guys, how we were the ones who were being absolutely appalling, whilst that was not the case. I hated seeing how people got shunned, insulted, and pushed away from a community they had been part of, just for saying “hey guys, I kind of agree with them”. I hated seeing how so many people were coming out with stories about the corruption, but were afraid to speak up because they didn’t want to lose their jobs. I hated seeing ZQ , and Anita, and others, getting harassed by this small amount of people. I might not agree with ZQ, and anita, and others, but I will not stand for them getting harassment. Nobody deserves that. I wanted to show the world that we are not all like them. I wanted them to see that we’re not all bad, not at all. I also wanted them to see our side, that it’s not just their side that is getting all this harassment. That critique, doesn’t mean misogyny, sexism or harassment.

I also got involved because I felt quite angry that the people who were supposed to tell me how games are, which new ones have come out/are coming out, what’s being worked on, the latest gameplay videos for certain games, actually didn’t much care for their audience. To me it seemed like they didn’t much care if the reviewer / whoever wrote an op-ed actually believed what they were saying, or if they only said it because of relationships with someone, or because they were getting paid. I hated that, it made me felt played, cheated. How am I supposed to trust an article about a game now, if the publishers don’t care?

I also hated how devs changed their games because of critique that they were given in terms of sexism. I hated that. I feel like devs should make their games however they want. Does that involve female armour that isn’t really protective at all? So be it. It’s their game. Their art. They can do whatever they want. I hate how people are claiming that videogames are causing sexism. To me, that is like saying videogames are causing violence. (and thus, imo, not true). Do I agree that there should be more diversity? Yes! Hell yes! More diversity = more games! But I do not think that existing games should change. More people should just make more games, with their views. What I wouldn’t mind though, is existing games putting different options in. Don’t want boobplate armour? Here’s an option! Don’t want too much revealing things? Here’s an option! I saw a few #gamergate supporters who seemed to have the same view on this as I did, so I just felt like this was an extra reason for supporting them.”


2. What do you think the major goal of #GamerGate is?

nomuru2d: “actually trust what a writer had to say about a subject without any sort of involvement bias. When old-school journalists like Dan Hsu claim that they won’t review a game because they had a hand in making it, that is a show of respect and refreshing honesty to the reader. When stuff like Doritogate, trading sex for exposure, and declaring “gamers are dead” happens, it’s a giant fucking slap in the face. Another goal equally as important is to break down the entitlement scene that exists in the indie developer section of games as a result of what ‘journalism’ has become. When you have developer friends blacklisting you because you decided to make a stand against something blatantly wrong and broken, it’s as much a slap in the face to you as it is to your audience and your friends’ audience.”


Anon36: “I’d like to believe that the goal is to expose and stamp out corrupt practices in the gaming industry.To allow game developers to make and sell their games by the merit of game versus who you know and sleep with. To be able to have your independent game reviewed by a standard that is uniform and free of personal ideology and free of who you know at the publication.”


Anon37: “I think it’s doing a good job with trying to keep the focus on journalistic ethics. But with anything like this, there are going to be different individual goals involved. You can’t avoid that. You just hope for some level of consensus. ”


Anon38: “There are several, and they include ending harrassment (essentially nerd-shaming) of gamers, as well as promoting transparency, accountability and honesty, all within video game journalism”


Anon39: “Exactly what the majority have been saying since day one: Transparency in gaming journalism, ending corruption, and helping indie devs that have been shut out of “the loop” of friendships that Game Journalists have with Devs. If a game is good, it deserves press, and we have had devs come out saying that they were afraid to go against these Journos in case they said the wrong thing, leading to their game getting no publicity and being a complete failure.”


Anon40: “To end everything I mentioned above. To end agendas, to minimize corruption. To force journalists to see their own flaws and allow we, the consumer to talk and question what we see wrong in this industry. #GamerGate is trying to change jouranlism bias behavior. #GamerGate is trying to spread neutrality and fairness to all. #GamerGate is against corruption and the harassment of the gamers from people that have an agenda to impose”


Anon41: “I think the biggest goal is to get open journalism (is your review going to be biased? say so! Do you know the devs? Let us know!)
All though at this poitn I think a lot of us want to have people acknowledge that gamers aren’t sexist and misogynists, that there is a huge diversity within this group, and that you can’t just group all of us together. There’s just too many of us to do so.”


3. Is this your main goal, or do you have something else you’d like to see addressed too?

nomuru2d: “There’s really nothing else that hasn’t already been addressed by the campaign so far. Sexism in games has been a popular distraction target due to Anita Sarkeesian’s involvement sparking controversy, but so far the masses of #GamerGate have been handling her involvement with really good levels of dissection (especially recent confirmation that she never even contacted police for her “harassment”). [PixieJenni note: this is still under discussion and info currently suggests it was FBI, not police.] Attention grabbers have also been another focus of distraction, what with Zoe Quinn trying desperately to stay in the center of attention for the movement, but thankfully it hasn’t worked.”


Anon36: “My goal…is to keep people talking about it so it doesn’t just go away like so many other issues. I would love to see the real gamers that use Gamespot, Rock Paper Shotgun, Destructoid, Gamasutra, and Kotaku just stop giving them traffic. Stop using them so that when the revenue slows down…People will start taking notice and the SJW parasites move on to some other cause or Pop culture community and leave the gaming industry alone. “


Anon37: “Ethics are definitely a huge goal for me, but also pushing back at the idea that a group of people with a louder voice can fully dictate the perception of reality. ”


Anon38: “My main issue would be the the first issue in my answer to question 2. Specifically in the way they paint us all with the broad brush of being misogynistic white virgin males, and how they label us all as either having deliberately started this movement with the intent to harass and threaten women in the games industry (we didn’t) or being played like fiddles by those who are (we aren’t.) I have been personally told that my misogyny is internalized in an attempt to marginalize my argument – that’s gaslighting, pure and simple. Something they themselves would say is a horrible thing to do.”


Anon39: “The main goal is ending the corruption where we can and where it is clear to us. I would like to go after bigger names and bigger companies, but they have covered their tracks fairly well. But it is something most of us would love to see addressed.”


Anon40: “This is primarily our main goal. End of journalism corruption. We want journalists to be neutral and treat every issue with an unbias behavior.”


Anon41: “This is also my main goal. Whatever comes next, I’ll see then.”


4. How do you feel about the negative things that have happened attached to this tag? Do you think they take away from it, or that they’re separate?

nomuru2d: “I’ve had discussions with three people who have been exposed to the negativity generated from tag abusers taking advantage of the movement’s disorganization, and one person who got involved solely because of Anita Sarkeesian’s generation of drama. These four people had ALL been distracted into thinking that #GamerGate is all about sexist harassment without even bothering to do further research, and these four conversations were easily the most draining I’d ever had online. It is NOT a pleasant feeling to have to deal with someone stonewalled into misinterpreting what the movement is all about, so I DO think that the negative things that have happened attached to #GamerGate take away from it. However, in spite of all of that, the campaign has had amazing progress with actual real-world ramifications (Kotaku and Polygon actually losing sponsors due to their actions is a big game-changer), all serving as steps in the right direction.”


Anon36: “I think people on both sides react poorly. People are snarky and smug when they passionately feel they are right. “


Anon37: “To be honest, I got got in after the articles dropped. I know there was stuff going on before and I can’t stand harassment of any kind. While I feel that it’s fair for people to call out unprofessional relationships that affect the integrity of field, I think the public mocking of events went way to far for me to get involved at that point, even though I truly think most people were just interested in discussing the ethic implications. And sense talking to so many people in this, I stand by the idea that most were not for that level of vitriol. ”


Anon38: “I think they’re separate issues. I’m well aware of the Quinnspiracy, as it is called, but I think that the opposition to #GamerGate is trying to use those specific instances of hacking, harassing, and threatening to steer the course of the conversation back towards their own victimization and personal gain from it. I’m not saying that receiving threats isn’t horrible, but when you do, you don’t publicize it. You take it to the authorities and let them deal with it. Zoe and Anita (and to far larger effect, their supporters) tweeting about it, making it public and making it known, are setting themselves up as victims to try and demonize the supporters of #GamerGate. I stand by the notion that #GamerGate condemns and disavows any and all harassment and personal threats. Unfortunately, this is the internet, where anyone can say they are X, attack person Y, and people will believe X attacked Y. To play the complete devil’s advocate, Y can say they are X and attack Y. That is a possibility, not an insinuation, and should only be examined as such.”


Anon39: “Sadly with most movements, there are extremists. I have no doubts that there have been attacks made by certain members in #GamerGate. I believe it hurts our overall goal. While it is true that harassment is happening on both “sides”, neither one excuses the other. However I don’t think the actions of few should negatively impact the views of many. Lots of positive things have come out of this as well, yet nobody talks about it. Nobody talks about how people of different race, class, and creed have all come together simply for their love of games. I myself have made a few new friends with this movement. In my opinion, and the opinion of many, the good done so far outweighs the bad.”


Anon40: “If you are talking about the harassment that some people that are against #Gamergate suffered all I can say is that #GamerGate doesn’t support such behavior. We are a multicultural movement. Women, men, bi, trans, hetero, homosexual, black, white, hispanic, asian, from every creed and every religion support #Gamergate. We have a noble and transparent cause. We can’t control what other people do outside our movement. It isn’t fair for our movement to be blamed for the acts of anonymous people. They don’t represent our cause.”


Anon41: “I think the negative things definitely take away from the tag. It’s hard to be taken seriously, when everyone just things you’re an asshole who’ll harass anyone who doesn’t agree. People seem to refuse to want to go into a discussion with you, simply because they assume you’re a misogynist. It seems like I’m more busy defending myself , someone who supports gamergate as a girl, rather than actually discussing all the things that have happened with people who don’t agree with me. They just instantly think I am an idiot for supporting the tag.”


5. Are there any things #GamerGate seems to be addressing that you disagree with?

nomuru2d: No answer given.


Anon36: “Like what specifically? I am all for exposing these people for the corrupt hypocrites that they are.”


Anon37: “Of course. There are bound to be with any movement like this. It’s a hashtag without a clear leader or mission statement. Personally, I cringe with the politics that sometimes appear by a few just coming in. Most of us are really supportive of a very diverse base. But sometimes you’ll hear someone bringing people into the conversation that are not what we are for. Or making broad generalizations about an ideology that really just hurt the idea of a broad base movement. But, and this is vital, I have never seen so much self policing and productive, positive conversation than I have with #gamergate. Whre, online, do you see conservatives and liberals getting along and working together. It’s pretty amazing really. People are constantly making sure it’s as respectful as it can be, which has proven amazingly so. I would be proud to show the hashtag feed to anyone with concerns about that. ”


Anon38: “There are a few. Notably, any time someone uses the #GamerGate tag in direct criticism of Zoe or Anita, I feel they are not using it for its correct purpose. It’s not a discussion that we shouldn’t be having, but it shouldn’t be part of #GamerGate.”


Anon39: “Yes, a few of the “rabbit hole” theories I find to be a bit… odd. Some of them are borderline fanatical conspiracies. I’ve heard some crazy theories that I don’t subscribe to. Some people press leads that many feel shouldn’t be touched as we lack proof.”


Anon40: “Yes. Sometimes I see people persecuting some indie devs that have nothing to do with the subject just because they chose to not support #Gamergate. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Some people don’t understand our views and decide to stay neutral or against. That is fine. There are however, some indie games that were targeted by #GamerGate and those indie devs deserve being targeted by us since they helped the propagation of corruption on this industry with bribes for personal gain.”


Anon41: “No. Those who use the #gamergate tag to harass and trolling, imo, aren’t part of the movement. They are hurting the movement. ”


6. Are there any things #GamerGate is ignoring that you want it to talk about?

nomuru2d: No answer given.


Anon36: “Not so far.”


Anon37: “No, I think the focus is becoming pretty clear at this point. ”


Anon38: “Personally, I find #NotYourShield to be of equal value to #GamerGate, but it receives less than 25% of the tweets.”


Anon39: “Big name corruption. Outing companies like EA and their shoddy practices. However while we have had a few things in the past happen, most of those attempts were squashed. I hope it will be talked about someday soon.”


Anon40: “I think that #Gamergate is dismissing AAA devs, big corporations that are also affecting this industry from a negative perspective. I think that in the future, if #Gamergate survives that long, we should start question big corporations behavior in this industry.”


Anon41: “No, not really.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: