Home / Tech News / Announcements / Name calling makes #gamergate divide impossible to fix

Name calling makes #gamergate divide impossible to fix

Update: I didn't want to provide too much context as it's such a big, lengthy story with lots of sides to it, so I'll just link to this. It doesn't necessarily represent mine or KitGuru's take on the whole thing, but it is at least fairly comprehensive. 

Original Story: I must admit, I came a little late to the whole #GamerGate controversy. Since I caught the tail end of the furore though, I've been reading a lot about it, because a lot of people have a lot to say. Some of what I've read has been opinion pieces by other journalists, some of it has been blog posts from developers and I've also read a lot of comments from gamers, lengthy and short. Ultimately, after all that's been said, all that's been done and supposedly done, you know what's been the most shocking, the most shameful? All the name calling.

I'm not even talking about anything specific, as nearly everyone that's dipped their fingertips into this argument is guilty of it. Whether they're railing against the “cis males” that are prejudice against their particular group, or the “social justice warriors” (SJW) for tearing up someone's favourite hobby, or just people being generally mean and occasionally threatening, it seems like the one constant has been that they're right, and that everyone else is wrong and can be easily pigeon holed into a negative category, which they've got a great, insulting name for.

I'm going to do my best to not discuss any of the controversy surrounding this overblown argument, as it's been covered extensively elsewhere. I'm also going to try not to interject myself into this piece, as really none of this is about me. It's not about my opinions, or my sexuality, or my gaming history or interests or anything. It's about all of us, because this; this name calling; this mud slinging, it's only making it so that we can't figure it out.

gamergate

You see this sort of thing from politicians and their supporters all the time. People take what was traditionally a way of describing one's political leanings and throw it out as if it's an insult. Those “damn liberals,” “‘ruddy conservatives,” they'll say. This is something that helps those people maintain their individual power base because in an us vs them scenario, it makes it much less likely for people to go over to the other side of thinking. If they can just drown out what the other party says by branding them with a disparaging nickname, no one is ever going to consider the other person's opinion.

Just think war propaganda and you've got the extreme version of what we're talking about here.

Whether it's a journalist who's branded all “gamers,” as misogynists, or a commenter that's called anyone who's voiced an opinion on women in games as a “feminazi,” by labeling all people that think differently than them, they make it nigh on impossible for their view point to change, because all this does is exacerbate confirmation bias.

It should tell us something that there are two conflicting petitions doing the rounds at the moment, one from the press and developers suggesting that gamers need to change their behaviour and are at fault for the recent furore and one from the gamers that suggests the press is actually the antagonist in this tale. Everyone is coming from a position of superiority and moral righteousness, where everyone else is it at fault. Wouldn't it be much healthier to encourage discourse between both sides, instead of just calling on the other to change?

Think about it. Even the person who you think has been the biggest dick, is doing it because they think they're right and you're wrong. You may indeed be in the right, but just as you want them to give you the time of day, you need to be enough of an adult to do the same for them.

In an ideal world, everyone would be ready and willing to do a 180 degree turn on any idea they have, if presented with enough evidence to sway the argument. That's very hard to do in reality as nobody is 100 per cent without bias, but it's something we should aspire too, because evidence based debating is so much more fruitful than finger pointing and name calling. It allows for change and growth instead of perpetuating a status quo where people just think they're the greatest and everyone else is a bunch of assholes.

uturn
Don't go so far as to thinking this was actually a good movie though

Unfortunately it's a trap even those that are fighting for recognition for a marginalised group have fallen into. The people that may have had honourable intentions by championing minority groups in gaming often seem to end up taking part in the very activities they decry. Terms like “cis male,” while perhaps technically correct in that of course, if one group of people has a label, surely others should have one too, are completely counter productive. The point of it all is to tar everyone with the same brush and remove the need for groups entirely. The end game here is that sexuality becomes so androgynous in our collective mindset that it doesn't matter where on the spectrum you lie. Being entirely masculine is ok, likewise with female or anywhere in between. Insisting that everyone needs to be characterised makes this impossible.

There comes a time when you have to stop championing the rights of one group and just push for general inclusvity, without standing up and telling everyone that's what you're doing. That does mean calling out deliberate, malicious and intentional prejudice when you see it, but it also means listening to people you don't agree with. Because like it not, those people deserve as much time to be right as you.

SJW, misogynist, white knight, as apt as these names may be in some situations, all they do is perpetuate the divide rather than helping us bridge it. Yes there are differences in people and it isn't an ‘ism' to point those out, but if you define a person by one characteristic, you alienate them from those that don't identify with that and therefore make it very easy to just write off their argument instead of countering it with logic and intellect. That's not how debates are solved.

This is why you see Tweets and Facebook statuses from people that have been trying to make things better – in their eyes alone perhaps – saying horrific things to people. It's also why some of those branded as idiots, SJWs, assholes or any number of other names, have said some of the most poignant stuff during this whole debate. They get lost in the crowd, because if you don't drink the coolaid de jour then you're not worth listening too.

Also though, discounting what someone says by tying them to an agenda, makes it harder to discredit their ideas properly and allows them to be marginalised and martyred. A lot of the arguments put out by some of the most despicable of people in the past couple of weeks are getting buried by people calling them names. That's not the way to deal with it. Give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves, if you shout them down before they've even started, then it allows them to become victims and makes their position ever stronger.

Just look at the Westboro Baptist Church. Chances are you, like a lot of people, find them despicable. Their actions are truly repugnant, but thanks to freedom of speech they have the ability to say what they want. Over the years there's been some wonderfully inventive ways to shout them down, like counter protests, aggravated love and simply making loud noises in their faces. But do you know what's really highlighted how shoddy the church is overall? Themselves. Their awful parody songs, endlessly defecting members and showboating have made them a laughing stock.

westboro
Tell me this isn't a much better way to counter bigotry?

That's how people with horrible ideas should be treated. Not in kind with more hatred, but with openness and frank discussion, because it's in those environments that bigotry and prejudice cannot thrive. What can, are real ideas from real people. When you talk openly and honestly without fear of being shouted down for your ideas, it gives you the chance to be humanised which are least gives your thoughts some basis and helps people to empathise with your position, even if they don't agree with it.

The women feeling marginalised by the industry are people, with genuine complaints from their perspective. Whether those thoughts are something that just needs to be vented or can allow for industry tweaks is up for those that work in it to decide, but that can't happen in either sense if they're written off as feminazis or SJWs. Developers are people too, who just want to make games that make people happy and earn a bit of money while they do it. That's why sometimes they opt to go back and change things in a game because they hurt someone's feelings. It's debateable whether they should do that, but for some people, the idea of hurting someone is abhorrent.

For others, that's not the case, and those game developers that choose to ignore the minority in favour of their artistic vision shouldn't be decried any more than the one that appeases a select group. It's their art. Their choice. Again, don't write them off just because you disagree with them.

Similarly, there might be some journalists that have questionable morals and are willing to let that filter into their work. There may also be some that like to grandstand a bit too much, but to brand the entire profession as such does the majority a disservice.

And the fans are allowed to be pissed too. They're allowed to complain about games and games journalism if they feel like they're being talked down to. They don't deserve to be called racists just because they enjoy games with white protagonists. They aren't automatically sexist if they don't like Gone Home, and suggesting as such drowns any interesting points they might have had on the topic of gameplay.

jesus
I'm not saying turn the other cheek, but maybe lend your other ear

Do you see? Bundling people into some schoolyard clique is what's causing this divide. Branding all gamers as misogynists is where half of this problem stems from. There's always going to be a minority of assholes in every group, especially online, but letting that jade you to the point where you only listen to the opinions of people that agree with you is helping the gaps between people grow ever wider.

I don't pretend to know the answer to this situation, but I do know that it's never going to be sorted out if we spend our time mud slinging instead of actually discussing it like adults.

We're all fans of games, whether we play them, make them or write about them, it's time we remembered that and stopped trying to break into separate camps so that we can validate our own position.

We're all gamers. We're all humans. Let's start acting like it.

Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.

[Thanks to Matthew Wilson for his help editing and sourcing.]

Image sources: Burstein, James Shepherd, Blizzard, Tristar

Become a Patron!

Check Also

Until Dawn Remake cutscene hints at sequel

There may be a future for the Until Dawn series following the remake. A new cutscene heavily hints at plans for a sequel.

19 comments

  1. James Stephen Edge

    Does anybody know what gamergate is or even what this article is supposed to be about? I read 6-8 paragraphs and still have no idea what the subject matter even is :S an outline of it in the first or second paragraph would have been useful.

  2. GamerGate, is a call for journalistic ethics, transparancy. Its a call against corruption that has stemmed from the lack of said transparancy, people writing favourable news about the people they have sexual and financial relationships with. http://youtu.be/TgW5NRUfs44 This video sums up most of it.

  3. So because John doesn’t have a reply Button, ill just leave this here: Thanks!

    Also, according to Discus, you post this 2 hours from now 😉

  4. Just by avoiding the issue the author swiftly takes the ground as someone who’d rather go hsh-hush about it as well.

    Gamergate is about the reveal of nepotism and corruption within game journalism and particularly the indie scene. The mounting evidence started with the blog of an Ex-BF of Zoe Quinn (creator of Depression Quest), who describes Zoe’s sexual relationships (and consequent cheating on him) that were actually with employees and connections to sites like Kotaku and Polygon.

    These relationships apparently aided Zoe in both suppressing negative press about her (She /had her followers Doxxed a project called The Fine Young Capitalists over SJW-crap, which was suppressed on game journalist websites even though TFYC was reaching out to them to publish it) and used same sexual favors to promote her games, mainly on Kotaku, where she got favorable reviews from a reviewer she had a romantic relationship with.

    Then the same kind of connections rose, such as Patricia Hernandez’s relationships with two indie devs whose products she promoted and reviewed. The whole issue is that they never, ever disclosed their relationships, how these journalists literally funded Zoe through Patreon, and how this network is apparently extremely far-reaching and, by default, destroys any integrity these game journalists and their sites have.

    Fuel to the fire that this scandal’s being shot down, ridiculed and the news outlets are going rabid about suppressing it.

  5. I should start with making a propper account so people can reply to me lol

  6. It feels like i just read an article generated by http://www.pakin.org/complaint/

  7. “……..sexual favors to promote her games, mainly on Kotaku, where she got favorable reviews from a reviewer she had a romantic relationship with.”

    That statement is incorrect, the journalist she is involved with has never reviewed her game or indeed written anything about it. Kotaku have posted a response to all the claims about their member of staff.

    However if you have a link to the piece that was supposedly written by Nathan Grayson I would love to see it as Stephen Totilo has made a public announcement denying any such articles. The statement can be read here : http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346

    This is the biggest problem with the internet, Chinese whispers and rumour mongering (I’m not accusing anyone on here). Someone somewhere has gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick and made two and two equal five somehow. We will never likely know exactly what happened or didn’t happen.

  8. Statement is actually correct, though not explicitly a review, a favourable post is worth more than a review. And you dare trust Totilo?

    Person whom she had sexual relationships with, has written article about her. that is a problem

  9. he never wrote about her game,he wrote about a shitty show she was on, and at the time they weren’t even together….. if you have proof that Nathan wrote about her whilst they were together then please post the link because I can’t find one.

  10. Whether he actually wrote an article isn’t actually that important. He’s in a position of power – unless you’re going to claim that the only way he has of influencing the industry is through writing reviews?

  11. It all started with death treats to Zoe Quinn and snowballed from there.

  12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Km3DZQp0StE&list=UUWB0dvorHvkQlgfGGJR2yxQ&index=1: this person makes a couple of videos aout all that is happaning.

  13. Thales Oak Carvalho

    Good to see a well-balanced article. Unfortunately that’s not being the rule by game journalists nowadays. At first, they despised the issue. After, they despised (and keep despising) their readers, keep saying that “herr derr, they are behaving like bullied children”. The truth is: I don’t wanna see any political agenda in gaming, regardless where do they come from, but some people do, and some journalists unfortunately bought this. They sided instead of being truly inclusive. They kept the fire of polemics high, but they don’t know that their worst enemy are not “white cis male gamers”, but the disinterest. See what happened with traditional media: it will happen the very same now with those gaming sites. It’s a pity.

    PS: Dan Bunten did more for inclusion on games only trying to make the best game he/she could than any of those social activists would EVER do.

  14. you do know that this bloke (Nathan) is only a FREELANCE writer for Kotaku and not a member of staff or anyone who has any power within the games industry (it’s fair to say that he has less influence than an editor or even a contracted journalist etc.). He never wrote about Depression Quest or what ever it was called so I can’t see what the issue is and to be perfectly honest who cares anyway? Is a games journalist not allowed to sleep with a games developer ? I could understand the trouble if he gave the game a glowing review and it was a complete pile of poopy but he NEVER WROTE ABOUT IT ever. His only article concerning Zoe was about a TV show she AND OTHERS were on that was crap.

    so again I ask where is the scandal here ?

  15. I don’t think it’s really as easy as that. I can say I’ve heard vague undergraduates talking about things that have then spread, and eventually ended up causing significant changes in opinion, even my own. It’s very difficult to assess someone’s true influence in a field. This is an excellent example of why – because sleeping with a lot of ‘little people’ can make a big difference. I’m not necessarily saying it did, but it can, and people will always jump to the conclusion (reasonably) that it has, because these sorts of things are common. That’s why the advice in most fields is to avoid sleeping with people who might cause these sorts of problems. It’s not illegal, but it is unethical, and most importantly it’s stupid. Even if nothing has been influenced by this (which looks doubtful at this point), it was extremely unwise. In my own field, for instance, we’re told that sleeping with any of your students is a bad idea. It’s not banned, but it’s heavily frowned upon (let’s just say I know of a particularly raunchy professor who ended up having his office door replaced with a glass one). What we do know is that she slept with a lot of people who probably shouldn’t have slept with her, and these people have some influence on the industry, and some interest and influence on the success of her product. That’s a worrying picture.

  16. The writer of this piece has no idea what he’s talking about. GamerGate isn’t “schoolyard clique”. They are consumers and they are hucking angry. GamerGate will not stop, will not disappear or concede. Fight to the end, my brothers!

  17. Nathan is listed on the credits for depression quest.

  18. Sarkeesian was getting daily threats for two years prior to Gamergate. She is not even related to Gamergate. She knows who her harassers are yet she is desperate to claim it’s suddenly Gamergate who is harassing her.

  19. but he still never wrote about the game, ever……. are you saying that game developers and game journalists can’t have relationships ? that is like saying Doctors and Pharmacists can’t have relationships because the doctor might make people go and get their prescriptions from that certain pharmacy.