Post 12

What an image, right? #GamerGate continues on into its well earned third month. There's been too many happenings to chronicle here. I saw this image and wanted to get into the core issues which divide the pro- and anti-GamerGate folks.

Because misogyny is not even remotely attractive.

Why does this need to be said? The most active people I've been in communication with or have followed have flat out denounced such behaviour. GamerGate is, despite efforts to paint us otherwise, a rational movement. That rationality leads us to many places. One in particular is our view on other human beings: we're all equal. And we all deserve to be treated equally! Take #NotYourShield: it's not only about calling out SJWs who attempt to use someone's race/gender/orientation/ethnicity/disability/whatever else as their own personal soap box, but about asking people to just treat people like goddamn humans. In a wheelchair like Hotwheels? You deserve to be treated like a human who has the ability to ask for help when you need it.

So, we all already agree on this. Why make a point about it? Should we talk about the sky being blue? Or that "coloured people" should not have to eat in different restaurants? 

Because I believe games should be made in variety, not just for one demographic.
Again, there is no dispute here. No one wants only Call of Duty, or Halo, or Grand Theft Auto. We want variety. That's good! Nothing bad comes from that. This is another falsity that's being spun.

Look, when games topped out on graphics, devs relied on stories to set games apart. Xenogears, Final Fantasy III, Star Ocean, just a few examples of brilliant stories. Games want more stories where writers are free to put what they want in it. Don't police those stories. When you police the stories for their content, you destroy the story, thus destroying the game.

Because I recognize that a true fight against corruption in journalism does not involve the oppression or harassment of women and minorities.
Agreed. Another point we share. We encourage everyone to use their voice. Sometimes being loud brings negative attention. That needs to be ignored. Both sides would benefit from this. GamerGate wants more voices and gains nothing from silencing people. GamerGate believes its message is stronger, thus it doesn't need to silence others with poor tactics.

Because I believe in equality.
So do we. I'm noticing a trend here. We aren't that different, after all.

Because I done my research to locate verifiable, reliable, information on the topic.
Which, I assume, has brought you to GamerGate's side? Unless it's a personal belief that ethics in the second largest entertainment industry in North America doesn't matter. How does this position stand up to the verified evidence brought forth by GamerGate? I bet it doesn't last.

Because the individual is the smallest minority.
But when those individuals see a problem and band together to solve it, they become greater than the sum of their parts. They are fighting for something more than just ethics. They are fighting for their identity.

This is asswipe propaganda, meant only to feed those who already "believe". GamerGate created Vivian James as a face because she cannot shill, go on live television and speak, be doxxed, be harassed, or be strawmanned. Vivian signifies resilience against the faces of unethical practices, those who go onto television to absorb the media, not fight for something.

You can "listen and believe" when it comes to these topics. That's fine. It's easier to do that. To become the "good" so you can rail against the "evil" or "bad" them. Instead of "listen and believe", let's "trust and verify": take what people say and question it for its veracity. Ask questions. It only makes you a better person.

In the end, we're not too different, anti and pro. We do want the same things. We just see different paths to get there. Maybe we should do more working together to show this is possible without slandering the consumers of the material.

This was an unedited rant. @nrokchi