PixieJenni talks GamerGate with both 'sides'

GamerGate + You (part 11)

on October 16, 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?

Anon100: “The first time I heard about #gamergate was when a website that I have been loyally reading for years, and whose writers I have trusted to always put truth and facts first, published several articles decrying the “sexist” and “misogynistic” atmosphere of the gaming community. I was, of course, appalled that gamers would engage in such behavior, so I decided to look into it myself. What I found was not sexism or misogyny, though. It was a group of gamers tired of having their favorite news sites deride them, insult them, blame them for all the world’s problems, and try to speak for them on issues of political correctness. I was surprised at how negatively the situation had been portrayed in the media and at how no major news outlet had taken the time to get the story from the gamers’ side. Article after article came out about the toxicity of gaming culture, its negative impact on society, and how the gaming identity needed to die. I felt that I needed to not only defend myself against accusations of racism, sexism, and harassment, but also to stand in solidarity with others who felt the same way. As gamers, it’s in often in our nature to keep quiet about things that upset us, but this usually results in only a vocal minority of the loudest, most extroverted, and most unstable among us speaking out and misrepresenting us as a group. Here was a case where the average gamers, those who are usually too shy, nervous, or afraid of being targeted and harassed by others, were finally speaking their minds and trying to make themselves heard. After reading what others were saying for several days, I felt the need to add my voice as well. The more of us speak out, the more it becomes clear that those few are in fact a vocal minority, and they do not represent us.”


Anon101: “To defend from the media’s attack on anyone defining him- or herself as a gamer, and introducing basic ethical rules in an industry that shape the future’s games.”


Anon102: “I consider myself a gamer and i hated being told that “Gamers are dead”. It was a direct line to #GamerGate from there.”


Anon103: “The articles stating “gaming is dead”. I found them insulting and tasteless.”


Anon104: “I got interested in it from the Tumblrinaction subreddit.”


Anon105: “Because I care about ethics in journalism. I was originally anti-GG, but then I read about GG and changed my mind. Also, the blatant lack in journalist ethics and distasteful stereotyping of GG-supporters swayed me. “


Anon106: “I joined gamergate because of the “gamers are dead” articles. This was the last straw for me – I knew that the games press was not serving my interests as a consumer for a long time, but it felt to me like these articles showed outright hostility. ”


Anon107: “Basically for all the reasons I’ve stated so far. I feel like game sites have gone downhill in a considerable fashion, but I was spurred to join because I don’t take kindly to being told I’m a dead misogynist, and I take offense to someone calling my darling wife and kids (who are all also gamers) names too, ha.”


Anon108: “I’m actually not active within the tag, but I am watching it and keeping up with the news surrounding it. What made me start caring about the issue pre-GamerGate was when TotalBiscuit posted an opinion using TwitLonger on the Quinnspiracy that was very neutral and explicitly underlined that he wanted no part in the war between SJWs and MRAs because he found both sides horrifying. For his trouble, TotalBiscuit was torn to shreds by the social justice crowd on Twitter, as well as by indie developers whom he had supported in the past. A man who is suffering from colon cancer, told that he is a worthless misogynist thug and a Nazi for the mere crime of taking a neutral stance. That boiled my blood. I followed the issue in earnest after that when I saw the first salvo of articles labeling gamers concerned about corruption in game journalism as both entirely misogynist white males and as a dying breed. Combined with what happened to TotalBiscuit, I felt as if the gaming world had gone mad.”


Anon109: “Because I’m an amateur game developer and I don’t want to start working in an industry in which I can be accused of misogyny without having the possibility of defending myself. Also, I don’t want to work in an industry in where to get coverage on games you need to lick the gatekeepers’ boots.”


Anon110: “I watched the first Internet Aristocrat video, double checked the sources/ connections, than certain individuals, such as Jason Schreier and Daphny David confirmed that the suspicions were true. While they may not see it as a conflict of interest, because they know the personal relationship, the fact that they did not make this relationship known to the reader alone makes them untrustworthy to me.”


Anon111: “Since the start. I’ve been involved since the Zoe blog.”


Anon112: “I’m a 4chan /v/, /lit/ and /tv/ browser. I admit I was first interested because of Zoe Quinn, as a student games programmer I was very excited for the game jam tv show. It was closed because of her, and since she was in the center of an issue I wanted to see where it went. I wanted Pepsi and the organisers of the game jam to try again. I backed the fine young capitalists because I am excited about their idea. Game Jams should be documented, I’ve taken part in them and they are very exciting.”


Anon113: “The Day of the Dead Gamer articles. Before August 28th thing about what was going on. Seeing the barely concealed contempt these websites have had for their readerships on full display is what made me take a second look. 10 articles in a 24 hour period, all saying the same Gamers are bigots. Gamers are trash. Gamers are dead. As a lifelong gamer, this hurts a great deal. For the longest time I remember “gamer”, “nerd”, “geek” being used interchangeably with “dork” , “loser”, “pussy”, “faggot”, etc. Imagine my joy when I realized we are living in the Golden Age of the Nerd! Between Marvel and DC there are nearly twenty comic book movies coming out in the next decade!! I am so proud that my subculture has moved into the mainstream. I suspect you too might remember the days when being openly enthusiastic about anything “nerdy” was an invitation for bullying. Now, it’s an invitation to strike up a conversation with a complete stranger you see reading Game of Thrones on the bus, wearing a Legend of Zelda Shirt on a plane, or talking about the latest Steam Sale online. • I do my best to discourage vitriol and encourage cordiality. To see “gamer” go from a term of derision, to a term of pride, only to see these pontificators try to paint it with the ugly brush of bigotry really does upset me.”


Anon114: “When I read the articles stemming from Gamasutra viciously attacking and slurring gamers and gamer culture for a very micro-scale provocation, I was infuriated. All the distrust and resentment stemming back from years of watching the gaming press shill for companies and rage against us and the Japanese roots of our culture just made me think: Enough. We need a press that is for us and by us, not outsiders who call me a terrorist for loving 4X and jRPG games. I was scarcely aware of the whole Zoe Quinn and her emo ex-bf debacle, nor did I think it relevant or interesting at all. I still don’t find the “SJW” part relevant and I think it’s a red herring used by radical feminists and radical men-ists (or whatever they call themselves) who want to use this whole issue as a Trojan Horse to implement whatever social justice things they want to see done, but their wants are irrelevant to me. I am very sympathetic to feminist issues and do not understand the hostility towards Anita Sarkeesian whatsoever, but like I said, that is just a sideshow. We need a press that is for us and by us, and we can’t get distracted.”


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

Anon100: “I believe that the overarching goal of #gamergate is an overhaul of the games journalism industry to infuse it with some much needed transparency, objectivity, and diversity of opinion, and to disprove the hurtful and negative stereotype that has been thrust on the gaming community as a whole.”


Anon101: “Higher ethical standards in the gaming press.”


Anon102: “The major goal of #GamerGate seems to be mostly venting at this junction. Expecting anything else out a Twitter tag would be highly disingenious.
There are, however, some constructive elements to #GamerGate who have now figured out that game journalists who attack their own customers are no good and are working towards creating alternative media sources.”


Anon103: “I’m not sure sense it seems there are many. I just wish it was something positive other then what seems to be “fire everyone”.”


Anon104: “Reclaim journalism to the point where it is able to speak to the masses again instead of a cloistered set of Manhattan yuppies.”


Anon105: “Improved professional ethics in gaming media.”


Anon106: “Gamergate is too large for me to analyze but from my experience the goal is a tie between ending corruption in games journalism and doing something about a perceived ideological uniformity in the games press (namely, a certain approach to gender politics)”


Anon107: “Is there one? I feel like #GamerGate is more about a bunch of people that are unhappy with various parts of the industry voicing their concerns. So if I had to say what the goal is, I guess it’s to let news sites, devs, whoever, know what we’re unhappy about, and how unhappy we are.”


Anon108: “Instead of answering this directly, I’d instead like to point to the common theme present in the majority of responses I’ve seen from active GamerGate supporters: fighting corruption. Whether it’s demanding better ethics practices in games journalism in response to the “Gamers are Dead” articles (or earlier outrages like DoritoGate), outrage over nepotism having a major hand in the issues involving Zoe Quinn and Dina Abou Karam, or the suspicions that Phil Fish and the IGF are part of an elaborate scam.”


Anon109: “Creating alternative commercial news sources that are more community-driven and can compete with the majors such as IGN.”


Anon110: “To create reform in gaming journalism and have them acknowledge their mistakes. Others may have other agendas they want to push after the aforementioned is fulfilled, but it won’t be enough to continue the movement.”


Anon111: “The end of collusion, corruption and intimidation within the industry. Because of the heavy presence of social justice warriors feminism has forced itself into the discussion.”


Anon112: “I think its main goal is to get journalists to center on their audience again, instead of trying to validate themselves asan art form or to a wider audience. I think they and EA took gamers for granted, thinking that they would never leave them. This movement is showing them that gamers have been mistreated for far too long and something has to be done. I personally am indifferent to feminism, but anyone following GamerGate who condemns feminism is making a huge mistake. I think we should continue to support feminists as GG did at the start. It’s the reason many stopped seeing 4chan in such a bad way. I think people associate people not being interested in peoples personal lives to having a hatred for them, which is why people found anonymous message boards to be so offensive.”


Anon113: “Adherence to a decent standard of ethics in games journalism”


Anon114: “As I’ve alluded to before, #GamerGate has various goals, some of which are not able to be reconciled with each other. Think of it like the “unification of the bannermen” to oust an alien invader (this being a hostile gaming press.) My goal is to restore a gaming press written by people who actually love the games and the game companies and the gamers and the gamer culture, who get just as giddy and excited as me to see Smash Bros. reveals or League of Legend streams. I am sick of writers shilling for the big AAA companies and their indie developer friends, bashing Japan and Japanese gaming culture, etc. I’m sick of seeing crap companies like EA and Phil Fish get big pushes for little reasons other than quasi-corruption. If a house is built wrong, you have to rebuild it from the foundation, not from the roof.

I believe there are a small number of actual women-haters who really want to expel people like Anita Sarkeesian from the industry and are using the GamerGate as a Trojan Horse. The feminist aspect is a red herring to this whole movement, but it is undeniable it is a front in the war. I would prefer not to see calm feminist voices purged from this industry, but I view it as a case of “you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs.” A lot of the critics I want to see gone like Costikyan, Kuchera, etc. happen to be the people warring with the women-haters. This is an alliance of common interest.”


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

Anon100: “I share that same goal.”


Anon101: “Because of the importance of media, more transparency is always a goal, especially to prevent the elitism and group thinking that seems to be happening currently.”


Anon102: “My main goal regarding #GamerGate is to find like-minded people to do things we feel are worthwhile together. No more, no less.”


Anon103: “I’m not for Gamergate. I’m nuetral, but you said you wanted opinions of both sides. I’ll say that we should stop treating games so seriously on both sides. They’re video games, not real life and I think people have taken two extremes and made it seem like video games control your life and opinions. A female friend said something: “”It’s a work of fiction and I consider it just that.””


Anon104: “I’d like to see a sensible discussion of Sarkeesian’s points. I have not watched her videos but she almost certainly has valid points. I’m not calling for a blanket endorsement, rather a reason-based appraisal of the points.”


Anon105: “Do you understand that you are asking two contradictory yes/no questions at the same time? Yes to the fist question. No to the second.”


Anon106: “My main goal is to see the standards of reviews and reporting on games news improved so that I can find these websites useful again. I don’t care about gender politics as long as it doesn’t interfere with other news and reviews.”


Anon107: “Like I said, I take issue with clickbait and sites that manufacture controversy.”


Anon108: “Fighting corruption is my main interest, yes. From where I stand, most of the grievances that pro-GG people have stem in some way from cases of collusion, nepotism, and the like. The scandals which birthed GamerGate are above and beyond the sort of networking one is implicitly expected to do in order to land a job in a career, for instance. ”


Anon109: “I’d like the ethics problems with the press exposed and the people who actively


Anon110: “Overlaps quite well with what I have mentioned in section C.5 – [that was:] A policy of disclosing all serious bias, insured consequences for violating the ethics statement, and acknowledging all the ethical breaches that have been made. This is the minimum.”


Anon111: “I would like to see the following adressed: If sociological statements are made, like correlation (or even causation) between mysoginy or any other type of behavoir and playing games, peer reviewed papers should be mandatory. Both press and Joe average will either omit to read the papers or they will not understand what is written. Thus skipping straight to the conclusion. papers that have NOT been peer reviewed will create an echochamber for the people or organisations that have written them and are extremely prone to be used for confirmation bias rather than to be judged by their own merits.”


Anon112: “Pretty much. I am more than happy with games just being played by gamers. The number of gamers will grow on its own, as it has been doing for years. They shouldn’t force expansion. If someone else who hasn’t played them before wants to come in, I will welcome them and help them. However I think there has been far too much effort by the gaming press to reach out. I think this is why “games as art” and the fear of being labled misogynist came from. I think these journalists want to validate themselves and their career and the best way of doing this is to be seen as an art critic. However, they no longer represent the gamers because they are too detatched from them now. Personally, I don’t care if video games are labled as art or childrens toys, I love them and I have dedicated myself to working on them. (come to think of it I’d benefit a lot if they had their way but I don’t agree with it. I think it holds back gaming if they are told what they can and can’t do, or if they are dumbed down to get movie goers in, e.g Devil May Cry)”


Anon113: – Elimination of clickbait/sensationalist journalism
– Dropping the open disdain shown by some games websites directed at their own readers.
– Decoupling extreme social rhetoric from coverage of games, developers, and development. Doing away with hyperbole goes a long way.
– Intense Reflection on Double Standards: See the coverage of Max Temkin, Brad Wardwell, and WizardChan.”


Anon114: “I want to see a more gamer-centric tone that encompasses all of the sites. The list of journalists I dislike are also the ones prattling on and on about how we should accept the “mainstreaming” of gaming or how the rise of “social/mobile” games is a good thing or how we should embrace “facebook” games. This is complete and utter nonsense, and sounds like a death sentence to a true gamer. First, there is no doubt that the gaming industry has contracted severely since the 7th generation; it is almost like an extinction-level event. The Wii, PS3, and Xbox 360 combined for 250 million units sold, the DS and the PSP combined for 225 million units sold, and their successors sure as hell aren’t going to match these numbers.

Scores and scores of my favorite companies and franchises, ones I’ve cherished for decades, have died. Developers and publishers have become far more conservative in the titles they’d greenlight due to the contraction of the industry. Kuchera and his posse shilling for phone games just don’t get it. Is an indie developer going to make us a new Ogre Battle? Chrono Trigger? F-Zero? Panzer Dragoon? Alundra? Second, developer resources are finite. Every team Square Enix puts on crap like Final Fantasy 6 iOS is one that could have been used for a new Front Mission or FF6 HD Remake. Every team EA destroys was one that made cultural icons from our past like Command & Conquer or Sim City. A gamer-centered worldview would understand that advocating mass adoption of mobile/social games would lead to even LESS AA, A, niche, or experimental games being made or greenlighted. The fact that these sites advocate so strongly for the other side is, in my opinion, unforgivable and treasonous.”


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?

Anon100: “Although it happened before I heard about or got interested in #gamergate, I am aware that the tag was used by some in the gaming community who were engaged in a campaign of harassment, “slut-shaming,” “doxxing,” death threats, and other unacceptable and illegal activities. I fully condemn these actions and my heart goes out to those who have suffered as a result. It’s hard not to think that this has damaged #gamergate’s reputation, but what has to be kept in mind is that these people are a vocal minority. They do not represent #gamergate or the gamer community in any way. These kinds of people exist in every community, every subculture on any topic on the internet. It is a major problem, but it’s not a problem that’s specific to gaming culture or #gamergate in particular. To dismiss the entire group based on these few is unfair to the vast majority of us, and the problem has been exacerbated by the media who refuse to report on any other angle or perspective of the story. This sort of thing has been seen before in the past few decades, notably in the 2000’s when a prominent lawyer was claiming that all gamers are violent sociopaths one bad day away from going on a killing spree. That wasn’t true, obviously, and neither is the allegation that gamers as a whole or the #gamergate community in particular are sexist, misogynistic, or condoned or participated in the appalling behavior exhibited by the few.”


Anon101: “I feel that time and action wise, we have moved so far from it, that saying that harassment is what gamergate does is wrong. But I do think we should do a “gamers against harassment” on change.org or something like that to show that it is not something we condone, and something we try to actively combat.”


Anon102: “I am taking all the negative things in stride. There is no way to really police who tweets to #GamerGate, so it is a given that there be some extremely vocal minorities whose only goal is to get a rise out of people with provocative statements, as well as people who don’t really share #GamerGate goals and are instead looking to subvert them.”


Anon103: “They take away from the discussion. It’s far to much of people yelling at each other without listening to anyone.”


Anon104: “It’s tough. I didn’t want to get involved in the tag when Zoe Quinn was the main focus. I think that is utterly trivial. I still don’t tweet about it although I do follow it. However, the tag has now totally moved on from this. The opposition demonstrate incredible childishness and intellectual dishonesty by insisting on returning to
these aspects. It’s psychological warfare, rhetoric and guilt-by-association rather than honest engagement from the opposing side. It’s still very important for #gamergate supporters to call out harassment when it does occur from the GG side.”


Anon105: “Here you really need to define what you mean by the negative things. Otherwise this is just a meaningless question.”


Anon106: “Harassment of anyone is not OK. Gamergate has a clear problem with PR in that it is continually framed as a movement that either stems from or still is about harassment of women. Personally I think the trolls, harassers, doxxers and hackers are largely a third party, opportunistically targeting people from either ‘side’ in order to maximize impact and/or increase the drama. It would be foolish to think that these things don’t hamper GG’s public perception, particularly when a lot of mainstream outlets are reporting this. These claims appear to me to be largely uninformed and exaggerated though. If what they were saying seemed true to me, I would not post on the hashtag. There’s a lot of really terrible arguing going on, mostly because Twitter is an incredibly bad platform for reasonable discussion. This harms the capacity for the reasonable people on ‘both sides’ to discover that their views actually align 100%. I think everyone really agrees that certain ethical standards should be adhered to in journalism and that harassment of people is bad. Unfortunately Twitter is a difficult place for this discovery to happen.”


Anon107: “I think they’re important to take in to consideration, and like I said I personally extend my condolences to those that were hurt. There are going to be assholes in every pocket of the internet, I neither tolerate, nor condone them. But, due to the nature of anonymity, it’s a bit difficult to take action against them. However, I can take action against the press, who I’m also mad at for perpetuating and inflaming the issue, and completely disrespecting Quinn’s request for privacy.”


Anon108: “This sort of question, I feel, is more than a bit unfair. GamerGate is much like a public protest; as an open event, there are no barriers to entry. Just like anyone, regardless of personal convictions or opinions about the protest, can walk into the middle of the protest and become involved, ANYONE can post to the GamerGate hashtag. Just like a protest against, say, a nation going to war can suddenly find itself harboring groups who are using the demonstration to champion causes that have little or nothing at all to do with the purpose of the protest, the same thing has happened with GamerGate. Opponents also take advantage of open nature of protests to sabotage the protest with counter demonstrations that either distort the overall message, or are openly against it (Protest Warrior, a conservative group in the United States, used this tactic during the Bush administration). Critics, whether they are consciously aware of this factor or not, will gleefully seize upon the opportunity to decry the whole protest for the unsavory opinions held by that group of demonstrators. Both cases have counterparts in the ongoing GamerGate saga.

I have noticed exactly this sort of behavior personally from you, in fact. More than a few times, I’ve noted that you try to present yourself as a fair-minded, fairly neutral [PixieJenni note: I’m still confused why people think I’ve been trying to seem neutral on my twitter. I haven’t been.] individual, and yet many of your tweets concerning GamerGate tend to take a cavalier and condescending tone. You also have a tendency to retweet, point out, or only acknowledge responses and “highlights” which help you portray GamerGate negatively to your followers, who cheer you on for doing so. This is one reason why, though I’ve put a lot of thought and spent quite a bit of time writing these responses, I have the nagging feeling you will simply ignore them as they probably do not advance your personal convictions about GamerGate. You come off as someone who is not interested in hearing what the other side has to say so much as someone dead set in their opinions and only looking for excuses to ridicule. I would love for you to prove me wrong.”


Anon109: “There is nothing negative about #GamerGate. It’s been condemning harassment and promoting women in games from day 1 of the hashtag, and before. The actions of a few people don’t make the movement guilty. In a movement that is quickly approaching very big numbers, even 100 toxic people are not a relevant amount. It’s a thing that happens on the internet in any heated discussion. The trolls should be called out, for sure. The only negative thing I see about it is the emerging mob mentality of “us” vs “them”, but I think this is a very small phenomenon and way smaller than detractors would like to make it seem.”


Anon110: “Largely they are separate. I have done my best to keep others focused on the issue at hand when others under the hashtag begin to drift. I honestly have seen more hacking, doxxing, and slander done by those who oppose gamergate.”


Anon111: “Gamergate has the same demography as the total amount of people that use the internet. This means that Gamergate will have the same amount ‘bad people’ as our society does. Their anonimity makes it easier for them to go further than they would in real life. Having them associate with gamergate does not mean the gamergate approves of the behavoir. If a racist fought in the army against the Taliban, this would not mean that the army is racist. It just has the same demography as the country where it gets it’s people.”


Anon112: “They massively take away from it. I’m worried that if the idiots keep being idiots, then gamers will never be treated well and I can never trust a journalits because they will never cater to enthusiasts. Gamers are misogynerds so what’s the point”


Anon113: “How do you feel about negative connotations of ‘Social Justice Warriors’, ‘White Knights’, ‘Feminazi’, and ‘Tumblr Activist’.? How do you feel about the negative things that have happened to attached to the anti-GG movement? Doxxing, threats, harassment, journalists receiving syringes filled with mystery fluids at their homes, etc….GamerGaters feel that the biggest difference between “us and them” is that since we do not feel complicit in the acts of harassment and hate, we do not feel the need to hold “them” accountable for every awful thing directed at us. I chose the believe that most people are good people, and that a good portion of the hate and vitriol comes from people who just want to muddy the waters.”


Anon114: “Can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Weirdo extremists from both sides have done equally bad things to each other. While regrettable, that is just a mere sideshow. I want to see a specific goal happen, and getting distracted by irrelevant red herrings is not conducive to it.”


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

Anon100: “I feel that some in the #gamergate community are focusing too much on the so-called “SJW” group. This isn’t about any specific political or social agenda; it’s about making sure that no one specific agenda holds sway over the industry or has the power to suppress dissenting opinions.”


Anon101: “The witch hunt for SJW can be a bit over the top. But I do agree that the agendapushing from the newsmedia need to tone down. Or at the very least, be open about their agenda so that their bias is known. “


Anon102: “#GamerGate is addressing many things, but it does so more on emotion than on rationality. That is mostly because Twitter short-text format is not really conductive to rationality. Emotions are not something you can agree or disagree with. They simply are.”


Anon103: “”Fire Everyone” would be it.”


Anon104: “Excessive focus on Quinn and Sarkeesian”


Anon105: “IMO GamerGate is about addressing journalistic ethics. It does so in a very broad and sprawling way.”


Anon106: “Some people post some pretty terrible things on the hashtag. One of my pet hates is fallacy of composition (part of why I created my accounts for GG) and I see a significant amount of it coming from ‘both sides’. ”


Anon107: “Some of the anti-“SJW” crusaders get as zealous as their opponents sometimes, and that’s obnoxious, and I think it’s tertiary to the discussion at hand. “I’m going to fight your censorship by censoring -you-!” Kinda silly, in my opinion. Otherwise, it really depends on the person posting. #GamerGate is not any kind of organized movement. We’re just a bunch of people talking about stuff.”


Anon108: “As a movement, no. So long as GamerGate stresses that it encompasses people of all beliefs, religious and political, I don’t have an issue. This follows on from what I spoke of in #4: I know better than to think a smattering of rabid neo-Nazis or MRAs from TheRedPill speak for everyone involved in the movement. I am frustrated more by the fact that people such as yourself would rather listen to them and treat them as the mouthpiece of GamerGate than anything else.”


Anon109: “Not really.”


Anon110: “When they begin to make accusations of individuals that do not pertain to the issue at hand.”


Anon111: “A lot of replies are emotional more than rational, and the anti-gg’s try to cultivate and increase it in order to make the supporters look bad. It’s rare that gg-ers get baited, but it does happen.”


Anon112: “Too much focus on feminists, as I’m sure you experienced yourself on Sargon’s stream. It is a related issue, but it’s pointless focusing on it because it’s too broad and there are too many different types. However, I would describe taking issue with the portrayal of female form and sexuality is a right wing issue, not a left one, so I am confused when they used conservative as an insult”


Anon113: “The DIGRA connection seems a little bit of a stretch as far as accusations of deliberate malice are concerned.”


Anon114: “I’ve mentioned that while I understand the backlash against Gamasutra, Kotaku, etc., I am honestly baffled by the anger against Anita Sarkeesian. My opinion is that if she was an actual gamer, her views would be more digestible to the gamer culture. I watched one of her videos and it just seemed like a standard Feminism 101 breakdown of things she thought she noticed. Her tone was non-confrontational. However, I don’t care too much whether or not other GamerGaters want to bash her or debunk her. It has little to do with the goal I wish to see for this rotten gaming journalist press.”


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

Anon100: “N/A”


Anon101: No answer given.


Anon102: “#GamerGate’s primary focus has been journalistic malpractices and brute-forcing past the attempts at employing social notions that have nothing to do with journalistic malpractices for defense of individuals engaged in journalistic malpractices. There is much I want to talk about regarding games, but I appreciate #GamerGate’s inherently limited scope and don’t feel that it is ignoring anything worthwhile within its own scope.”


Anon103: “Yes. Why is there so many white male game journalists.”


Anon104: “Concrete examples of facile SJW idiocy in reviews would be nice. Some of the despicable (and frankly tedious) tactics of the anti-GG brigade need to be spread more widely, it seems they never reach the larger public, staying within the pro-GG circle.”


Anon105: Same as above.


Anon106: “Gamergate places significant emphasis on reducing bias and conflicts of interest in the games press, but I find it frustrating to see badly-researched clickbait being posted. It’s difficult to filter that crap out to find useful information. ”


Anon107: “Like I said, #GG’ers are trying to distance themselves from Zoe Quinn due to the negative association, but for the reasons I’ve stated, it’s an important topic to me regarding the press.”


Anon108: “In a sense. I think the people of #notyourshield ought to make a greater push to be visible to the mainstream media. I strongly feel that the non-white/male/American people of GamerGate, despite the ongoing use of #notyourshield, are still blown off as sockpuppets or barely extant, if at all. Just today, in fact, I watched lizzyf620 engage with a staunchly anti-gamer person on Twitter, who blatantly (and snidely) told her that all the other women of #notyourshield do not exist (and continued to insist she is “the exception that proves the rule”).”


Anon109: “Not really. I’d like to see less focus on exposing people’s bad behaviour and more positive focus on making an example out of ourselves by creating new gaming sites and new hubs for discourse.”


Anon110: “No.”


Anon111: “The statement that there is correlation between behavoir and playing games. If they could force the opposition to deliver sound and valid evidence, the anti-gger’s would have creationist level credibility.”


Anon112: “That this is all happening because journalists want games to be taken seriously as an art form. Because of this, they wanted the enthusiasts/nerds to be hidden and dissaproved of to other medias. This is why we ended up having a problem that journalists do not represent gamers anymore. No one’s really picked up on this, I plan on making a video about it and throwing it out there.”


Anon113: “Not at the moment.”


Anon114: “Previously to GamerGate, I was primarily a Japanese and Western-PC gamer and I was very hostile towards fans of EA, Activision, etc. games. Seeing everyone unify under one banner and tent has truly been inspiring, however, and while not omnipresent, it does make me happy when other GamerGaters express similar sentiments of realizing we are all in the same boat.”


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: