Defusing Gamergate: From one Soapbox to another

isten, I honestly want to save a lot about what I have to say about #Gamergate in our upcoming podcast, but for now; I'd like to shoot on one particular video, and use it as a launching point for some of my opinions.

I don’t want to say too much as to not take away from our upcoming show, but I’ll spoil this much; I’m not advocate of Gamergate, in the slightest. So far, all I’ve I’ve seen is a poorly veiled push to justify harassment of my colleagues and peers of whom I respect, and aspire towards in the field of games journalism.

I'm going to try really hard not to get mean, and this piece is meant to support one side of an argument, so yeah, it is meant to be defensive, but that doesn’t mean that I’m blind to any of the good points from Gamergate.

I just hate that they’re being used as nothing more than strawmen to substantiate bull shit harassment.

To be honest though, all of it is just the march of straw men; crass and nebulous, semantics that Gamergate wants to supply in order to validate the existence of their campaign.

So without further ado, here's the video, watch it, soak it in, and then get ready for a whole bunch of words and shit, because I’ll be coming to this party stocked.

First off, I’m not here to flame the dude, or belittle him, and you know, the video admittedly raises a few good points (I have to give it that) but the overall message of the argument just, fell flat.

Delivering a hot mess of theatrics and garbage in your presentation doesn't exactly lend any more insight, let alone conviction to what you have to say; it just makes you look pandering (especially with the quote unquote "sources" he used for his video.)

So here’s the skinny on journalistic integrity, or at least the way I see it and adhere by, There's no need to recuse oneself when it comes to the sanctity of objectivity and impartiality if there was nothing going on during/prior to the questionably corrupt coverage.

Furthermore, while I would also like to have an option of exchanging ethical discourse with Sarkeesian regarding some of her points that I disagree with, I understand that I can't because hostile shitbags who didn't agree with her-took it upon themselves to bully and harass her to an unfathomably inhumane degree.

Getting death threats on the reg from the very same demographic and lifestyle you're trying to critique puts a pretty big damper on objective practice of ethnology don't you think?

What sickens me the most is whenever Anita or Quinn are accused of being "Professional Victims."

What the fuck does that honestly even mean?

Is that some sort of jab to discredit the justification behind their consistent their pleas for peace because the volume of horseshit flung at them doesn't meet some sort of metric or criteria necessary to extol such a claim like victim hood?

Give me a fucking break...

Do other game journalists communicate with each other through private networks? Yes, and there's nothing wrong with that either as far as integrity goes. The thread example used in his argument wasn't concrete at all, simple conjecture at best, nothing more.

The idea that games writers get together to hold these "Legion of Doom" styled meetings where they plot their own agendas and platforms at the expense of the very readers they work to voice and inform is plain stupid.

Does this mean that video game journalism isn't flawed? No, not at all, there's plenty room for improvement. In fact, here's a summarized criticism of the medium from yours truly, because the last thing I want to do is discourage any debate that's aimed towards improvement.

The video game community is a culture of people who engage one another over nearly, every aspect of the subject matter, in a forum that's constantly filled with opinions and rebuttals over what's what.

When the argument of entitlement and perspective become an issue, it clouds rapport, and then before you know it, you lose touch with your readership, and lose some perspective over normalcy of the reader base you cater to, like consumership, and accessibility.

To me that's the biggest issue with video game journalism in a nutshell; the sin of letting a misguided prerogative of you title and responsibility affect your work and relationship with the reader.

Basically, conducting your shit like you're in some secret club or clique where your final say is gospel.

The results generally leading to the dismissal of potential interaction with the people who actually are all of your words, because hey, who are they to serve anything back to the chef anyway right?

That's not the way it should ever go down, and while it's physically impossible to address every voice in the crowd, it's still important that people hold on to the right that they can express what they have to say, even if it isn't something groundbreaking or constructive.

This is still important, what readers need to learn is how to distinguish the fine line between hard-hitting criticism, and inflammatory harassment.

Has mainstream video game coverage lost sight of what's really important when it comes to reporting  the news and growth of the medium; yeah, I think that's a fair statement.

Is that to say that I then dismiss the importance of addressing the various social injustices that are still undoubtedly plaguing the development and distribution of video games?

No, not at all, to belabor the acknowledgement of the very real existence of these problems unequivocally childish when it comes to brass tacks...

Some battles are a matter of opinion, and some are draconian, or hell, even nebulous for that matter, but we should still have most of those battle; just not all of them.

Quit looking at these foreign views as agendas that aimed at destroying shaking the values and principals of video games; fuck, man—just digest whatever's reasonable and move on. This quote unquote "war" is very much pointless as it is exhausting.

See, here's the beauty of video game journalism; it's a giant spectrum of content that's more diversified than most contemporary enthusiast media; possibly even rivaling the sub-categorized monster of designation and alignment that is music.

There are literal hundreds, hell, I could possibly get away with pushing the claim that there are a couple hundred of outlets, both big and small, that will hold at least one brand with a voice that best resonates with your outlook and approach on video games—at least one.

Just to add to that, they may completely disagree with the pints or focus of those publications like you do, the difference being as long as they grasp the boundaries of professional difference or disillusion against slander and calumny; any individual or group otherwise doesn’t deserve a second of your attention.

I’m not trying to shut down the tide of change, to the contrary, please, always question and challenge anything that doesn’t sit well with you, just come to the table with something meaningful, a cause or change that’s significant to fight for.

Gamergate isn’t one of those things, or at least, not a banner that’s worth representing—the color it spins has been nothing more than a transparent that hides a slew of unreasonable vendettas against a few outspoken individuals who don’t align with their underlying perspectives on the state of modern games.

I’ll have more to say on the show but that’s all I have to say, have something to say, send it to mailbag@presspauseradio.com , and if I may politely add, I please request that you try to not to be an asshole or a bitch if plan on refuting this little piece of mine.

After all, it would just be bad form after making it through all the way to the end right?