Support NeoGAF

[Watch Da Birdie]

I think anyone who willingly aligns themselves with GamerGate at this point should have "I Support GamerGate" as their tag.

You know, wear it with pride! If it's all about open-discourse and transparency, why not be transparent about your support for it?

 

[DICKS AHOY]

I was thinking about Jack Thompson today...

You know, he pointed out the violence in games = violence in real-life connection, and now I gotta wonder, he may have had a point under all that legitimate craziness that got him disbarred.

Point is, he was far more acerbic than anything Anita has ever said, yet I never recall him getting this level of venom directed at him. People disagreed with him, they mocked him, called him names, yet I never felt his life was threatened for his views. No one constantly threatened him, I never felt anyone truly wanted him dead.

And I think part of that was because he was a male.

ShockingAlberto made an excellent post I'm far too lazy to repost about how the gaming community reacted towards and treated Thompson is partially to blame for why we're still so overly defensive whenever we feel gaming is under attack. The difference now in the past few years with feminist critiques on gaming and journalism ethics is they're 'threats' within the community itself it can't band together over.

Plus I don't think it's that unlikely Jack Thompson got at least some death threats, even if they weren't taken seriously. It's a double-standard that we didn't take it more seriously then, not that we're taking it seriously now.

 

[Nuke Soda]

Remember when gaming united us? Now I can't beat some idiot at Left 4 Dead without him threatening to kill me (I'm a guy so I get a quick death I guess) and rape my mom (If she is hot he added). I lost a lot of my luster for online gaming.

 

[PairOfFilthySocks]

I mean I just went on 8chan, and I can't seem to find a single post talking about actual corruption in the industry? Mostly it's just about SJWs and apparently The Guardian is part of some conspiracy? But I'm sure somewhere out there you can find a gater talking about ethics.

I believe it's about this tweet, which seems to advocate bullying, got retweeted by a bunch of Gawker personnel, and is exactly the kind of stuck-up shit that only serves to rile up people "on the fence" in this discussion.

 

[Netherscourge]

Why would game companies say something? They're not really a part of the whole gamer gate thing.

Well, they make the games like GTA which pretty much fuels all the controversy in the first place.

Of course they are apart of it!

 

[Rubius]

Actually, that was youtubers that wanted to show footage prerelease, not reviewers.

On the internet, it's the same thing really. Any kid can start to write review and get codes for reviews. Look at Angry Joe or Total Biscuit. They do not have masters in Journalism. And the thing is, that we dont know if reviewers had the same thing or not. That's a part of the issue.

If you're for ethics in Journalism and also haven't used the hashtag at all, then you're not really a GGer, given that every "ethics" related action they've taken so far actively harms ethics in the industry.

Meh, just because I do not support Greenpeace and SPCA, do not mean I do not support not murdering cats for fun. I'm part of the spirit of the movement, but I suppose I'm not a active member.

What you're saying still seems vague, under the pretext of journalistic integrity or something. If all you care about is transparency though, then why attach yourself to such an extremely toxic movement?

And besides that, you've mentioned that gamergate has already gone towards achieving some of their aims. How? It seems like they're more focused on protests like boycotting blizzard based on the fact that they advertise on kotaku.

Gamergate is not the KKK. Same way Muslims and Christians are not terrorists who want to kill everybody. You seem to listen to the vocal minority more than the overall message. I attach myself to a side of the issue. The other side of the issue seem to want to keep stuff like they are and not change the politics. I'm for more transparency. If I'm against a tweet from somebody, I will respond to them. Does not matter if it's a girl, a boy, a gamer gate or a non gamer gate. I'm my own person and do not want to get associated to a binary code like that. I support Gamer Gate message of transparency, but that does not mean that everything everybody do in the group is something that I support.

 

[sciencerob]

There is no "either side"!

There are people who are okay with making death threats and bomb threats to further the status quo (the #Gamergaters), and then there's everyone else. If you're not a supporter of #Gamergate, congratulations, you're with the rest of rational humanity.

Not every situation has two sides.

I don't have a vested interest in gamergate and as of this moment this is the first time I think I've even responded to post regarding it but I just want to say this: I don't think that every person or even most people who support it are bad people are that they support the use of threats in their cause. I don't think that is a claim that can be supported.

 

[scytherage]

Uh man, this is utterly disgusting. As a gamer and a father I want nothing to do with this "movement" and I don't really understand why there are some who are dragging all gamers into this story. It's almost embarassing to be associated with misogynists or other evil people and I don't think games has anything to do with it. It's just bad upbringing + horrible environment and they just happen to play video games too.

This is a sad day, indeed.

 

[Gattsu25]

If that's what this shit was about, it would be focused on how big game publishers shape the conversation and hold some form of control of just about all game coverage sites by controlling access, advertising, and the preview-review cycle.

Not about the fact that indie developer X had a relationship of some sort with games writer Y, or that somebody writing about games decided that social issues or how gender is represented was something to talk about when discussing games.

You have GamerGate people spreading images that are literally trying to get game publishers to blacklist websites for saying bad things about their game.

The idea that this has ever been about transparency or journalism ethics is goddamned ridiculous.

Or big companies forcing a company to fire an employee due to a negative review of a game.

Or big companies blacklisting companies because they don't like the non-sycophantic questions in interviews.

Or big companies trying to buy positive coverage by paying for travel costs, housing costs, entertainment costs, and liqueur costs.

Or big companies trying to buy positive coverage by giving people free tablets or consoles.


If you want to go after the actual bad actors in gaming corruption you need to take a long and hard look at the big companies.

But no.

 

[Orayn]

Love how Rubius still hasn't made any attempt to give specific examples of ongoing bad stuff that needs to change.

 

[Slayven]

People listen to publishers like Ubisoft. EA. Activision. TakeTwo. And more importantly big game media like Polygon. IGN. Gamespot.

Are some in this thread seriously arguing that these companies and organizations would not have an influence on the culture they operate in? That denouncing a hate movement would not send any form of signal to anyone?

If you need EA or Actvision to tell you not to send death threats and stop being a shit bird, then you are already beyond all hope.

 

[Lime]

The moderates seem to be the people that do know but are actively avoiding getting involved because of how nasty it is. That won't change if game companies start talking about it simply because those people just don't want to have anything to do with it. Consider how many people are on this very forum and how many are choosing to click on threads about this to participate. They know it's out there but it's just not something that they want to be involved with.

You don't think that there are still people unaware and/or in denial about the hate movement they are associating themselves with? And you really think that the neutral/moderates are completely aware of what this movement is causing? It sends a strong signal if companies, personalities, and media denounce this hate campaign.

People are getting harmed, psychologically and physically. The chilling effect is in full effect - many women are afraid to speak up or even voice their opinion because of the misogyny in this culture. The future of the culture and industry are getting worsened the longer this goes on and it's worsening the less video game culture and industry want to take action that shows they want diversity and inclusion.

Meanwhile, non-invited people unfamiliar with video games see the news paper headlines and media coverage and think they don't ever want part of video games. Concurrently, video game media don't even say anything about this.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I'm part of the spirit of the movement

The spirit of the movement is hating women.

Plus now you're just contradicting yourself:

This is not a gender issue in my book.

How can you be "part of the spirit of the movement" if you yourself have admitted that you might kind of think it's not actually about what you are in it for?

 

[kick51]

must be true, it's posted on 4chan

next we'll see the same/similar copypasta with the photoshopped X1 dev console note.

 

[Lord_Balkan]

I was thinking about Jack Thompson today...

You know, he pointed out the violence in games = violence in real-life connection, and now I gotta wonder, he may have had a point under all that legitimate craziness that got him disbarred.

Point is, he was far more acerbic than anything Anita has ever said, yet I never recall him getting this level of venom directed at him. People disagreed with him, they mocked him, called him names, yet I never felt his life was threatened for his views. No one constantly threatened him, I never felt anyone truly wanted him dead.

And I think part of that was because he was a male.

Does it matter how you feel? Are you quantifying and comparing one person's death threats to another? It is hard to say either way. If people want to know, they should ask Jack Thompson.

The one interesting thing I've noticed is, Jack Thompson was universally crucified for saying violence in games = violence in real life. Anita, however, has a split effect when she says sexism in games = sexism in real life. After all the times I defended games on Jack Thompson's attack, it would be hypocritical of me if I didn't defend on the opposition on Anita's argument. The idea that games cause any behavior is something that has been tried to be proven and not even any correlating data has emerged from it.

Of course, death threats of any kind are horrible. Those people that participate in death threats are sociopaths, not just 'gamers'.

 

[Rubius]

Or big companies forcing a company to fire an employee due to a negative review of a game.

Or big companies blacklisting companies because they don't like the non-sycophantic questions in interviews.

Or big companies trying to buy positive coverage by posting for travel costs, housing costs, entertainment costs, and liqueur costs.

Or big companies trying to buy positive coverage by giving people free tablets or consoles.


But no.

That's a mainstream problem too. The whole movie industry have parties where they give away gifts, alchool and fun time before or after the reviewers see the movie. A lot of more serious reviewers condemn the whole idea of getting goodies at PAX when you are supposed to be there for work.

 

[jay]

The shrugging and saying well of course this is a few lone crazy people and has no relationship to any general position really reminds me of American politics. After the 100th guy holding an assault rifle at a rally suggests Muslims are a problem, or a representative asks why the military has yet to perform a coup, you begin to wonder if the mainstream elements of a side are partially responsible for what's going on in the fringe by continually stoking the fire.

 

[Buzzman]

must be true, it's posted on 4chan

next we'll see the same/similar copypasta with the photoshopped X1 dev console note.

I don't care if it's true or not, gaters see shit like that and actually believe that they're doing something good.

 

[Rubius]

The spirit of the movement is hating women.

Plus now you're just contradicting yourself:



How can you be "part of the spirit of the movement" if you yourself have admitted that you might kind of think it's not actually about what you are in it for?

The movement is not about hating women. It's about transparency. That's the spirit.

 

[DICKS AHOY]

After the XB1 fiasco last year with so many journalists telling people to shut up about their concerns over it's DRM and Microsoft's overall cockiness with it, how would having some MS devs supporting GG be a good image?

 

[Mman235]

Meh, just because I do not support Greenpeace and SPCA, do not mean I do not support not murdering cats for fun. I'm part of the spirit of the movement, but I suppose I'm not a active member.

That's the thing though, if you support ethical Journalism then you are opposed to the spirit of GamerGate so far, because all it's actions are against ethics: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/10/gamergate-is-an-attack-on-ethical-journalism/

The closest thing to a good journalistic ethics thing a GG supporter has done is TotalBiscuit apparently making the publisher of Shadows of Mordor rethink their deal, but that was basically him acting alone as far as I can tell.

 

[Steel]

The majority of the movement picked it up without actually educating themselves. These are mostly well-meaning people who haven't done anything wrong themselves. Continued support, however, is most certainly endorsement of actions associated with it, whether they are actually doing it or not. It's time for the reasonable people to distance themselves from the movement the best they can, because there is no way to salvage it now. I don't personally blame the well-meaning people who got caught up in it thinking it was something it isn't, but they need to drop it and run or they will most certainly risk being lumped in now. And hopefully, in the future, they will actually educate themselves before hitching their wagon to something like this.

If there is no mass of people to convince, then what's the point in even acknowledging gamergate exists. If it's nothing but a bunch of trolls on the internet, or worse, people who give out death threats, yelling them down doesn't help or change anything. Death threats get reported to the police, if the person who issues them can be caught they will(Unfortunately this is unlikely). Trolls are trolls. And people who latch on for one or two tweets are likely completely innocent.

There's nothing productive to be done here, the people who sent death threats aren't about to take it all back and see the light.

 

[faceless007]

The movement is not about hating women. It's about transparency. That's the spirit.

The actions of the people behind it indicate otherwise. Why should I take your word over their actions?

 

[Orayn]

The movement is not about hating women. It's about transparency. That's the spirit.

Why don't we judge the movement by the actions of people who identify with it rather than the opinions of someone who admits to not even being involved?

 

[Anton Sugar]

Gamers do not do that. People do. People threaten to murder people all the time because they are personalities. Just because a movie viewer threaten to murder George Lucas, that does not mean that all "Viewers" are a disease.

I'd honestly appreciate it if you can answer these questions.

Why, if #GamerGate is not about feminism/sexism/misogyny/etc., is the 8chan board still decrying "Social Justice Warriors" as if they're primary target #1? The number of posts on SJW/anti-feminism on 8chan is embarrassing.

Why do #GamerGate advocates claim that gender inequality is NOT an issue in the game industry? Note: you can check Twitter to see all the support that Jennie has received from GG.

Why does #GamerGate still treat Anita like an enemy? From this article published today:

If what you don’t like about gaming journalism is that it’s too cozy with the industry and therefore the writers are afraid to be critical, then your fucking hero should be Anita Sarkeesian. She funded herself with Kickstarter and not industry money. She is harshly critical of video games, even as she is a fan. She is the ideal of what a critical gaming journalist should be: Knowledgeable, critical, fair, thorough and utterly non-corrupt.

But instead of honoring her as the exemplar of the kind of clean journalism she is, #GamerGaters are attacking her and even forcing her to cancel appearances for fear of her life. Indeed, the reason she threatens #GamerGaters is because she is an ethical journalist, and #GamerGate is an attack on ethical journalism.

Why does #GamerGate willingly associate itself with nutjobs (Adam Baldwin), MRA sites (this one is on their list of sites to support as "Special Interest" journalism), and unethical supporters? From that same article:

One of the main leaders of #GamerGate works for Breitbart. Milo Yiannopoulos has been up front, rallying the troops of #GamerGate and even helping them select the inevitably young, female targets for harassment. He also works for Breitbart, an organization whose hostility towards ethical journalism is legendary.

Why does #GamerGate antagonize Gies for criticizing sexuality in the Bayonetta 2 review? Reviews are inherently NOT objective. The GG campaign to get Nintendo to ban Gies/Polygon from receiving review copies is unethical, at best.

I have yet to see any "good" done by #GamerGate, outside of what they perceive as victories over "Social Justice Warriors".

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

The movement is not about hating women. It's about transparency. That's the spirit.

Oh it's about transparency alright

as in being clearly fucking stupid

 

[SmokyDave]

Meanwhile, non-invited people unfamiliar with video games see the news paper headlines and media coverage and think they don't ever want part of video games. Concurrently, video game media don't even say anything about this.

...then they get back on with Candy Crush.

I don't think this issue is affecting the mainstream anywhere near as much as you think it is. I think it's reaching the mainstream, but I can't imagine that world views are being shaped around this stuff. Most gamers (or non-gamers / very casual gamers) will have forgotten all about it by lunch time.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

The movement is not about hating women. It's about transparency. That's the spirit.

Again:

How can you be in the spirit if you yourself have doubts about what its actual intent is?

Why don't we judge the movement by the actions of people who identify with it rather than the opinions of someone who admits to not even being involved?

He's involved "in spirit".

Which is the lamest "not all men" cop-out I've ever heard.

 

[watershed]

Does it matter how you feel? Are you quantifying and comparing one person's death threats to another? It is hard to say either way. If people want to know, they should ask Jack Thompson.

The one interesting thing I've noticed is, Jack Thompson was universally crucified for saying violence in games = violence in real life. Anita, however, has a split effect when she says sexism in games = sexism in real life. After all the times I defended games on Jack Thompson's attack, it would be hypocritical of me if I didn't defend on the opposition on Anita's argument. The idea that games cause any behavior is something that has been tried to be proven and not even any correlating data has emerged from it.

Of course, death threats of any kind are horrible. Those people that participate in death threats are sociopaths, not just 'gamers'.

What about objectification and sexism in videogames is in some ways a reflection of the attitudes of people who make such games and people who buy such games? Do you not think that media representation plays a role in how people see themselves or others?

 

[DICKS AHOY]

Does it matter how you feel? Are you quantifying and comparing one person's death threats to another? It is hard to say either way. If people want to know, they should ask Jack Thompson.

The one interesting thing I've noticed is, Jack Thompson was universally crucified for saying violence in games = violence in real life. Anita, however, has a split effect when she says sexism in games = sexism in real life. After all the times I defended games on Jack Thompson's attack, it would be hypocritical of me if I didn't defend on the opposition on Anita's argument. The idea that games cause any behavior is something that has been tried to be proven and not even any correlating data has emerged from it.

Of course, death threats of any kind are horrible. Those people that participate in death threats are sociopaths, not just 'gamers'.

This point is either rare from her or has been brought up far less often than Thompson's about violence, where the whole 'violence in games = violence in real life' aspect was the entire foundation of his crusade.

Not that if you oppose Anita's views on gaming you shouldn't oppose her arguments, but the two people aren't really all that comparable on how they were critiquing gaming.

...then they get back on with Candy Crush.

I don't think this issue is affecting the mainstream anywhere near as much as you think it is. I think it's reaching the mainstream, but I can't imagine that world views are being shaped around this stuff. Most gamers (or non-gamers / very casual gamers) will have forgotten all about it by lunch time.

I will admit I don't think, regardless of how GamingGate turns out (unless an actual shooting/attack does happen), the overall public will give much more of a shit about the gaming industry/community than it already did. The consequence is going to be in those working in the industry and engaging in the community via journalism/consumerism/gaming.

 

[kick51]

The movement is not about hating women. It's about transparency. That's the spirit.

What specific steps have been taken towards this aside from character assassination and attempts at sabotaging ad revenue

because people who have legit qualms about "transparency" can simply point out objective issues, make arguments which show them to be true, and others would actually listen and enter the conversation. you know, rather than all the dumb shit that's been happening.

 

[Lime]

Why would I make a career out of developing or writing about video games when the major figures and power holders won't even say something to help protect my identity? Why would I want to participate in a culture where the power holders and those with influence simply close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears while I am being harmed through harassment and threatened out of my house for simply existing and having an opinion?

If you need EA or Actvision to tell you not to send death threats and stop being a shit bird, then you are already beyond all hope.

Please read the thread. That's not what I'm saying.

 

[maneil99]

Taking a side in the GG issue is a bad idea for publishers. There are clearly alot of people behind it and there is no point losing sales or causing a boycott. Being against sexism for bother gender's and being against death threats to anyone is a common stance, there is no need from a PR standpoint to stick their neck out. Everyone knows EA doesn't tolerate sexism and death threats, why should they need to release a statement saying this? The #Gamersgate group might misconstrue this and cause a lack in sales.

 

[Firestorm]

Gamergate is not the KKK. Same way Muslims and Christians are not terrorists who want to kill everybody. You seem to listen to the vocal minority more than the overall message. I attach myself to a side of the issue. The other side of the issue seem to want to keep stuff like they are and not change the politics. I'm for more transparency. If I'm against a tweet from somebody, I will respond to them. Does not matter if it's a girl, a boy, a gamer gate or a non gamer gate. I'm my own person and do not want to get associated to a binary code like that. I support Gamer Gate message of transparency, but that does not mean that everything everybody do in the group is something that I support.

GamerGate is the Tea Party. Not every American is part of the Tea Party. But anyone who votes for the Tea Party supports the Tea Party. Not every Christian is part of the Westboro Baptist Church, but if you're a part of the group, you're a part of that group.

 

[akachan ningen]

Doesn't everyone in the public eye get death threats? And how often do they actually go through with it?

Even I have gotten a death threat just for posting on forums.

 

[jay]

The movement is not about hating women. It's about transparency. That's the spirit.

The number of much more obviously bullshit things that have happened in gaming journalism and resulted in very little blowback make this movement transparently about women.

Doesn't everyone in the public eye get death threats? And how often do they actually go through with it?

Even I have gotten a death threat just for posting on forums.

Good point. Time to lock the thread.

 

[Kinyou]

Why would I make a career out of developing or writing about video games when the major figures and power holders won't even say something to help protect my identity? Why would I want to participate in a culture where the power holders and those with influence simply close their eyes and put their fingers in their ears while I am being harmed through harassment and threatened out of my house for simply existing and having an opinion?

You're ignoring the ESA statement

 

[Shig]

If these "games journalists" and their respective websites didn't make this mess in the first place with their suspicious relationships with the publishers no one would have to jump in for anyone.

"If that barista had screwed up less orders, maybe she'd still be alive!"

Allegations of favoritism and improper relations are worrying, but torrents of hate speech and death threats are not exactly a fair and equivalent response. And considering these are hobbyists and freelance writers at the base of this thing, not friggin' senators and congressmen, the normal human response should hew much closer to "a shrug" than "a fevered and consuming thirst for vengeance."

 

[Buzzman]

B-B-BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY IN JOURNALISM GUYS COME ON

 

[hipbabboom]

People listen to publishers like Ubisoft. EA. Activision. TakeTwo. And more importantly big game media like Polygon. IGN. Gamespot.

Are some in this thread seriously arguing that these companies and organizations would not have an influence on the culture they operate in? That denouncing a hate movement would not send any form of signal to anyone?

I think its ridiculous to demand companies enter into an argument because of some tangential relation between insane people and the products they may or may not consume.

The involvement of game companies into the controversy would only muddle the distinction of people who play games and internet thugs. There's literally nothing linking the two and this whole gamergate thing has been a tumultuous experiment in attempting to establish a link between the two. Whether its borne of people who want to use gross generalizations to usurp a group they feel disenfranchised from or people who wish to usurp a group to wage war on a disenfranchised group, nothing can be gained from it.

Frankly, the media attempting to pull in game companies is no different than they do when a young male goes on a murder spree with a gun and a gaming console is found in his home. We cannot respect the rights of the medium to be evaluated apart from the actions of an individual in some cases and then randomly hold their feet to the fire when we feel it will advance something we think deserves attention.

 

[conman]

I have no faith in the big publishers to do anything other than serve their bottom line. And their continued silence only serves to uphold the (unacceptable) status quo. Worse, their continued silence only confirms to the mainstream media what the mainstream press has always thought about gaming and those who play games: that it's a business by, for, and about adolescent white boys.

Why is the industry leaving it to people like Anita, Leigh Alexander, etc. to speak up? Where is the visible and widespread industry support? Where is the industry's conscience?

 

[Atomski]

If game companies had balls they would condemn this behavior. But instead they are thinking about money and would hate to offend their feminist hating potential buyers.

 

[Lime]

...then they get back on with Candy Crush.

I don't think this issue is affecting the mainstream anywhere near as much as you think it is. I think it's reaching the mainstream, but I can't imagine that world views are being shaped around this stuff. Most gamers (or non-gamers / very casual gamers) will have forgotten all about it by lunch time.

You know how afraid I am off telling the girls I teach that they should get into video game development and culture? I feel like I am pushing them into the crosshairs. Or imagine being a parent and your daughter comes over and tells you that her ambition is to create her own video games and you recall reading that NYT headline about women in video games receiving rape threats for Youtube videos about video games. This has an effect. And that's not even talking about the chilling effect *within* the video games industry.

You're ignoring the ESA statement

Already elaborated on the ESA. It's a start, but it's not enough. And it doesn't address media like IGN, Gamespot, Polygon, etc. who I would argue are more important in taking a stand in terms of consumer perception.

 

[HighResTomato]

"If that barista had screwed up less orders, maybe she'd still be alive!"

Allegations of favoritism and improper relations are worrying, but torrents of hate speech and death threats are not exactly a fair and equivalent response. And considering these are hobbyists and freelance writers at the base of this thing, not friggin' senators and congressmen, the normal human response should hew much closer to "a shrug" than "a fevered and consuming thirst for vengeance."

Comparing a barista messing up orders to journalists being paid and bought, good game.

 

[Kinyou]

B-B-BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY IN JOURNALISM GUYS COME ON

That's certainly better than death threats.

 

[Shengar]

Social media is a disease and a public health crisis.

This
Most people usually have the short of the stick when its about posting on social media.

B-B-BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY IN JOURNALISM GUYS COME ON

It's not about transparency, nor it's about death threat either.

 

[maneil99]

GamerGate is the Tea Party. Not every American is part of the Tea Party. But anyone who votes for the Tea Party supports the Tea Party. Not every Christian is part of the Westboro Baptist Church, but if you're a part of the group, you're a part of that group.

Backwards logic if I've ever seen it. There can still be different views within a group.

 

[Rubius]

The actions of the people behind it indicate otherwise. Why should I take your word over their actions?

Feminists called bomb threats and tried to harm, or actually harmed males rights people. Should we judge the feminist movement on the action of those extremists? I do not think so. Same here. People will try to make everything something else to either attack or defend it. The thief was a black person, so that mean that all black people are like this. Or that mean that black people have problems and we need to help them. People will try to make everything into a bigger thing.

If we call a women out for something, that does not mean we hate women. It mean we dont like this thing that this person did. Same for everything. Just because I dont like that one specific black person, do not mean I dont like black peoples. And yet people will say "You dont like that guy because he's of color" and it change the whole debate.

B-B-BUT IT'S ALL ABOUT TRANSPARENCY IN JOURNALISM GUYS COME ON

"The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

It's on top of threads. All of those messages could be of a single person. It's all anonymous.

 

[TwEE-N-Toast]

I couldn't imaging devs would want to get involved one way or the other with these crazy people and their crazy "war".

 

[Steel]

What about objectification and sexism in videogames is in some ways a reflection of the attitudes of people who make such games and people who buy such games? Do you not think that media representation plays a role in how people see themselves or others?

What does the gamergate conversation have to do with objectification and sexism in videogames anymore? Why does gamergate even have to be part of the conversation when the majority of gamers don't even know it exists even if it made the front page of the New York times? At this point, what people are upset about is a small subset of people in a movement that are actively misogynist which is as relevant to the conversation of equality in gaming as the neonazis are relevant to civil rights.