I think if people want this discussion to go forward, and many people may not which is fine it would be good to take a look at the things that GamerGate is specifically for and what they are against, beyond personal vendettas and claims and counter claims of bad behavior. There is a video called We are Gamers which provides a good summary
here]http://knowyourmeme.com/videos/98055-gamergate]here. A summary is included below.
If any GamerGaters feel that this is not representative of their beliefs please let me know.
Now, some of these things I'm well and good with but there are others I find somewhat contradictory and problematic. I'll go through them one by one.
We believe that games are an art form that should be allowed to flourish and evolve naturally and freely; and should thus be protected from the dogmatic rhetoric of a clique of totalitarian ideologues who seek only to reign over an intellectually monolithic empire
The problem I have with this is that it appears to ask that games be free from ideologically based criticism. I fail to see how games as an art form can evolve freely if you insist on them being free from certain types of criticism. Also, I frankly can't see a good reason why art shouldn't be allowed to be critiqued in an ideological way.
We believe that the free flow of ideas and information is necessary for an informed, free democratic society to function;
and condemn all attempts to use disinformation, censorship and bullying to disrupt free discussion.
Which is noble, but if you are asking for an art form to be free from ideological critiques then you are asking for a flow of ideas to be constrained within a narrowly defined set of parameters, at least with respect to video games. The first statement contradicts the second.
We believe that a Fifth Estate worthy of that name needs to be ethical, transparent, free from conflicts of interests and aiming to inform rather than preach; to merit the trust of the public, the real and only source of it's legitimacy.
Again this is noble, but it's dashed difficult to find mainstream media outlets which consistently do this in any area of journalism. There's also no reason why someone can have an agenda and not be informative-David Attenborough is a well known environmentalist who makes world renowned documentaries with a clear agenda that doesn't detract from the educational or journalistic value of his pieces.
In the case of Gaming journalism there will always be conflicts of interests because games are a product of a billion dollar industry and that industry will always try to curry the favor of opinion makers in the same way that car manufacturers do with reviewers who pen their works in the motoring page of the newspaper rather than gaming websites. It's not going to go away, the best you can do is to highlight the worst excesses of it.
That said, of all the issues raised here-this one is the most valid with the most evidence to suggest it's a real problem. I just don't know what the solutions are but I'd appreciate suggestions.
We denounce the mercantilization of debased social justice, and thus believe it's our responsibility to inform sponsors and partners, of the moral corruption they implicitly endorse through their advertisements.
You really need some sort of magnifying glass to read between the lines on this one, it's honestly not clear from this statement what the authors mean by debased social justice or what sort of moral corruption they are talking about. That said if it's an issue of importance then informing people what you think is perfectly valid.
We refuse to forego our legitimate right to think for ourselves, and resist those who wants us to serve as a passive, obedient, subservient audience whose only function is to "listen and believe" the propaganda of culture war profiteers and patented gurus who prey on the gullibles.
The only intersection between games and war profiteers that I'm aware of is
product placement by arms manufacturers in certain video games. But even then I don't see any evidence that anybody in that case is trying to undermine anyone's ability to think for themselves.
Is there any evidence that anybody is actually trying to force gamers to think in a certain way? Note that presenting controversial or unpopular points of view is not of itself evidence of brainwashing.
We reject harassment, threats, abuse; and the use of those terms to mislabel questions, dissent and criticism; which are all essential parts of in any rational, logical, respectful social discussion.
And so do I, but the accusations of harassment, threats and abuse by both pro and anti GamerGaters haven't all been made to stifle discussion. In most cases they have simply been calling bad behavior by its name.
We reject the Industry of Outrage and it's guilt-based economic model, which parades fabricated martyrs and calculated victim hood to distract from it's own sins, while panhandling for the sympathy of the morally manipulated masses.
We reject the ideological megaphones who perpetually parrot their prejudiced hate,which they attempt to masquerade as progressive political preferences, to disguise their own ethically bankrupt behavior.
I think it would be a good idea to establish that said industry exists first. Also sometimes outrage is just outrage and people who disagree with you are just telling you what they think. Not every criticism, based on ideology or not, is put up to obscure a shady agenda.
We reject the meticulous and deliberate manufacturing of self-fulfilling prophecies, by self-aggrandizing and recognition-starved academics, who have neither knowledge nor care for games, devs and garners.
I suppose some academics are self aggrandizing and attention starved, also plenty of academics probably know sod all about games but which academics are we talking about and which academics cooked up these manufactured self fulfilling prophecies? Did this actually happen?
We believe that misogyny exists, is toxic, and that trivializing it's true gravity by throwing the term around as a ready-made decoy to stonewall any constructive dialogue; is intellectually dishonest and immoral.
Well, it's good that they acknowledge that but, again the assumption here is that people are using the term in bad faith as a means to an end-it's assuming bad faith from the get go.
We believe that we are humans first; and that the use of our gender, sexual orientation, religious or ethnic identities
as mere commodities, to be traded on the mediatic market, in return for ideological brownie points; is pure objectification and dehumanizing to us all.
What mediatic market? Again, it's ok to oppose this but I don't see any reason to assume that it's happened.
We are of all genders, skin colors, sexual orientations, cultures, creeds, ages, education levels and social classes.
To you, those things should divide us. Yet here we stand, united. Because we are not divided by those identities we didn't choose.
We are united by the one identity we did choose. We are Garners. We are alive.
Ok.
My biggest problem with this is that the laudable desire for a free gaming press is contradicted with the call to expell ideological criticism from the conversation. I'm also not entirely sure if the bad things it claims to reject actually exist or, at the very least, are as serious and endemic as the authors of this document make them out to be.
This obviously isn't representative of all of GamerGate, as with any leaderless broad based movement like say, Occupy, there is no central party committee, no board of directors and no CEO to nail down precisely what the movement does and doesn't represent. If any GamerGater's feel that this manifesto doesn't represent them I heartily accept that criticism. If however this mission statement, manifesto, call it what you will from the We are Gamers video does broadly represent your position I'd like to invite you to address my criticism of it's mission statement.
Note: I'm not trying to make an unbiased critique here, I have clear, strong bias against things GamerGate as I've already stated previously in this thread! Nevertheless I'd appreciate it if some GamerGater's addressed my concerns here. It might help steer this discussion back to the actual issues and away from interpersonal conflicts surrounding them.
Or the mods could just lock the thread, wouldn't be fussed either way.
