Its not really that difficult. The ACLU explains censorship very well. If a boycott's goal is to remove art or its content, then that boycott is attempting censorship and when it succeeds, that boycott censored the art.

Boycotts are just one tool used by would-be censors...

Nobody that I've read wants gamers to disappear. Almost everyone involved is a gamer. Games journalists are gamers, etc. A lot of people, gamers and non-gamers, would like mouth-breathing troglodytes who think harassing people is funny to disappear. Some of those troglodytes are gamers, and have been using gaming circles and sites to commit crimes like sending death threats, posting private info, attempting to shut down critics, etc.

Look - people who care about games are gamers. Non-gamers don't care.

GG isn't about gamers vs parachuting Big Brother thoughtcontrol troops (or whatever other label you prefer). GG is about a subgroup of gamers realizing that they're not the only kind of gamers and making life miserable for everyone else because they can't abide by modern laws and can't refrain from spreading their medieval opinions like crazed evangelists.

Some people like brown-and-grey dudebro shooters. OK, whatever. I like crazy games about depression, and pushing the art form, and open world RPGs that don't make me sick to my stomach. Other people like Hotline Miami, or adventure games, or platformers, or dating sims. Having different preferences is fine.

But somehow my preference is 'oppressing gamers'. Apparently refusing to buy or recommend games I don't like is 'a boycott' and engaging in critical discussion of games is 'censorship'. But all the attacks, harassment and literal attempts to shut game critics down are completely OK? LOL

What happened to 'gamers' meaning 'people who love and play games'? Why do can't we stop having religious wars about what 'gamer' means? GGers are the ones who started this mess by hunting down a game developer over something completely unrelated to her work, and now all gamers have to wade through this crap to have fun with their hobby. It's crappy, and makes me ashamed of my hobby.

ETA: Well, that got a little ranty. Oops.

I've seen this crap in comics fandom before, and it's a big part of why I don't read comics any longer. I don't want the same kind of stuff to go down in gaming.

Maybe what is confusing Fever is the technical distinction between self-censorship and censorship. You are mostly focusing on ethical intent though...

That said, I notice you do imply the technical distinction on occasion. When person / group A convinces pers. / gr. B to stop selling / distributing, etc... speech or expression of C. Well, that is usually censorship of C. *

If there is no C there is only self censorship of B, by B, as no third party actually got censored. This assumes A applied only persuasion. Coercive force would change even the A to B scenario into censorship, obviously.

So from this prism, it might be Fever is looking at Polygon or Kotaku as group B and specific writers as group C. Whereas we see B and C as pretty much equivalent. He thinks we want to convince the media to censor the writers. We actually want to convince the writers and their media about XYZ. **

That said, I consider the ethical dimension more relevant. I think you and me share that. It's not censorship to demand someone stop misrepresenting, or that they act according to professional standards of conduct, etc... not all suppression of speech, even forceful, is censorship basically, as you've said repeatedly. ***

Of course, most on the antiGG side do not attribute any value to the ethical argument, going to the point to say it's illogical, which is a complete non sequitur. I think their ethical blinders are dogmatic enough to a priori exclude the disagreement from being legitimate: they don't consider the misrepresentations to be dishonest - rather they are presumed subjectively sincere, they don't consider opinions should be based on facts - rather feelings and perceptions are enough for an opinion to be valid.

Too big an ethical gulf to bridge I think, though I keep trying to point out how it's fundamentally all because of rejecting objectivity. What immense human hubris... Live and let live would be a great compromise... but then they don't want to leave others alone... their ethos is fundamentally based on activism and changing others... for their own good of course. Righteous crusaders... the warrior in SJW is crucial and why the moniker fits so well obviously, even if no one has started carrying swords and lopping off heads on the way to Jerusalem: their ethos is intolerant and missionary. Duh... And if you need to break a few eggs... well, it's going to be such a beautiful omelette... tasty ;)

I mean, any small introspection on why some folks are still posting here instead of tolerating the differences of opinion would suffice. It's not like we doxxed anyone, or organized any harrassment campaign against women. **** I don't go so far to say there is trolling, because the will to confront the others is sincere (IMO). They do believe what they are preaching and that we should agree with them.

* the intent is still relevant, otherwise it could be a normal business decision, due to economical considerations, etc...
** even this is oversimplified, and ignores the logistical disputes around reducing support / boycotting which are even subtler and a further axis to consider
*** and further also, not all censorship is unethical... I'm for censorship of depictions of dead people in the news for example, this is a better example IMO than child porn, because the later is actually an illegal act, and suppressing its depiction comes from that very naturally (it's not just that though), the other may not be illegal at all (consider victims of natural disasters instead of murder victims) and yet, there is hopefully enough humanity in all of us to understand why we censor such images. It's basic respect for others which lost all agency, to the point they aren't anymore - and I didn't miss any word there, they literally are not anymore
**** or have I just not been invited to the secret room?

Half-rant half reply; some of which is directed at you, and some to everyone ;D

Its not factually correct to say gamergate is harassing. It has been proved. Tweets were analyzed and less than 1% of all #GG tweets were ''harassment''. A subgroup of gamers not coping with the times? What exactly is different? What makes so many LGBTQ or whatever other ''minorities'' like everyone from Asia join in in 2013-15 when they weren't here before? This isn't a revolution. No radical change is going to advance the medium.

We have Anita Sarkeesian saying its good to see a female character in un-tight clothes. This is just setting up the dominos for a giant clusterfuck. Soon, we won't have any games with female characters in non-cold locations. Same with the final fantasy thing. Girls aren't allowed to dress like that? Then make a motherfucking game yourself and dress be an iron maiden so no one can objectify her.

The only gap there is is between people who want more and better mechanics in games and people who want more and better traditional immersion building elements like writing and character development. Creating games at the extreme absolutes of both won't be anything to call ''moving the medium forward''. The truth is most people don't outright hate writing and like mechanics or vice versa. So we have two sides debating and one side wants games to completely abandon mechanics. They want to turn gaming into a hipster freakshow shortfilm pool.

No one's choices are oppressing. Its when asparagus crunching purple haired hipsters say what games should be based on their cultist leftist ideals that people get mad. Which mfker can say the lack of mechanics is good in gone home? And yet there are idiots claiming pointing out this genuine flaw is hatespeech towards innovative games?

I referred to ''gamer'' in my post as referring to htown's opinion that the normal gamer is being chased out and something else is replacing her. If you don't care that a developer is trading sexual favor for positive coverage, why are you even talking about it then? To deny proof is one thing. To say its not true in public is another.

And all Sarkeesian wants to do is scrooge about in money stacks in her feminazi empire. Has antiGG no shame at all in considering people who consider one gender more trustworthy than another as credible? That crazy is milking the outrage and allowing SJ bitches to let off steam for sometime. But when she eventually goes off to prison or seeks asylum in North Korea, social justice in games will be lesser; and games will be more diverse thanks to a hypocritical vulture not floating around it.

Here's the list of people who fought for the greater good of $$$ and $ex and more $$$ : http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php
If anyone believes its ethical to claim gamers are entitled and ME3 ending was great when your site was doing an ME3 advertising stint, please jump off a fucking cliff.

Journalism as everything else has a code of ethics that will be followed like every other profession. Doctors can't be unethical, neither can lawyer, or clerks or insurance brokers. No hipster is exempt from it n no matter how much plastic he took up the ass for equality.

" We have Anita Sarkeesian saying its good to see a female character in un-tight clothes. This is just setting up the dominos for a giant clusterfuck. Soon, we won't have any games with female characters in non-cold locations. "

That's exactly the kind of problem I'm talking about. You can't seem to grasp that people can tolerate differences. The reason games are being criticized for their treatment of women is that it's very hard to find a game that treats women like people. If the number of fully-clothed characters was the same across genders, no one would care. The problem is that games are clearly made with women treated as sex objects. Not that there are some women with tight clothes, but all or most female characters have tight clothes.

You're acting based off some hypothetical future where everyone is as intolerant of differences as you are.

As for the GG tweet 'facts' - dude, get real.

The same people who conspired to harass people at the beginning are conspiring to harass people now. They're in GG. They're directing and amplifying harassment with the express purpose of silencing critics and harming others. Saying 'the public tweets labeled GG aren't harassing, this is absolute proof that GG is not harassing people' is like saying 'None of the people at this BBQ are punching black people right now, this is absolute proof that none of them are in the KKK.' It's complete nonsense.

For one thing, most harassment happens one on one. Intermediaries or sock puppets are often involved. This is so the creeps responsible can pretend they aren't creeps. Plausible deniability isn't only important to politicians.

Do the people being harassed have enough proof to start criminal cases? Mostly not, although for some people yes. Do we have enough evidence that the people leading and/or participating in GG are also leading and participating in criminal activity and complete lunacy? Yeah, that's undeniable.

GGer's are the only people have said that one gender is more trustworthy than another. People pushing for tolerance are pushing for tolerance of everybody (except for troglodytes, as previously noted).

Also, insulting and dehumanizing people who disagree with you is really not helping your case.

TL;DR That post is a pretty good encapsulation of the problems with GG. Refusing to believe that disagreement is OK and attacking people based on the assumption that everyone is just as determinedly intolerant as they are, rewriting history, shoddy 'facts', dehumanizing opponents and generally being unable to hold a civil conversation on the topic.

"I like something different" != "Everything you love must die in a fire." Failing to understand that distinction is a huge problem with GG.

How is encouraging a cultist who naturally approves of women only when they conform to her limited views increasing your ''diversity''?

If people at a BBQ can be a Klansman, then kill all people. Its better not to take the chance.

Denying evidence is cultist. You're the one with unrealistic ideas in your head. You're searching for a perfectly evil enemy to justify your crusader mentality. Take it somewhere else. Maybe look at Leigh Alexander who calls black guys ''hood men''.

You're the one who is disagreeing and then projecting your inadequacies onto others. If people hate gone home, let them hate it. But you hate mechanical games and you want them removed. That makes you the worse person.

De-humanizing? Sure. But that is offensive because all living beings are equal and you blatant specism that comes forth when you say being less human is worse is offensive and entitled. Go run PETA is you don't like animals.

Just for you to know, the "stereotypical" gamer is neither dead nor in its way out. If that was true then why games such as Fallout 4 and Final Fantasy VII remake and the new DOOM game were among the most popular things to be advertised this year. Not to mention that if by the "stereotypical" gamer you mean the kind of gamer that loves FPS games to death, COD is still very profittable. The notion that gamers are dead is absurd and based on dellusional ideas. The fact that the indie market is growing and more pretentious "artsy" hipster ghames are being released does not mean the gaming industry is suffering a revolution. Keep in mind that no mater how many "art" films are made, the hollywood blockbusters remain the mainstream, the same goes for gaming.

But surely the very act of posting here shows that we tolerate and respect the difference of opinion enough to engage you in debate rather than constantly hounding Judas to shut down the 'Hate Speech and Harassment thread' as your own stereotypes of us would have us doing.

Moreover your sentence seems to suggest a certain entitlement to this thread, like it's your side's thread (your side's FORUM?) and we wouldn't post here if we had 'respect'

Unless, unless, you're saying that you'd prefer it if we started an 'Anti-GG news' thread and circle-jerked over jezebel articles and Zoe's SG shoot and left you to your own Reaxxion circle jerk echo chamber? GOG forum GG segregation?

You are 100% free to post here, just remember that you are posting in a place where hive mentality and clique behavior are not welcome and expect your views to be completely torn down if mistaken or false (As with your views on The Witcher).

And remember than most posters here don't like the SJWish clique and will certainly respond to it and defy it. We are tired and disgusted by the antics of the radical left, and we are geting more and more support from devs as time passes.

Thanks to the idiocy of the aGG side, Mark Kern (A very importnat person in the gaming industry) for example just declared pro GG a few days ago.

We are not a hate group and certainly we do not profess hate speech. We fight for ethics, free speech, and artistic freedom. Once we achieve those three things we are done and this thread might get full of cobwebs.

But the aGG side is in fact a bunch of censors and sometimes go as far as to make credible threats and profess hate speech toward white "cisgender" (that word has a hughe "us vs them" feeling) straight men, feminists and LGBT people tend to discriminate the demographic previously mentioned a lot. Just remember that hag Bahar Mustafa who banned a whole demographic just because of their gender and sexual preference.

Fuck social justice activism and fuck modern mainstream feminism, they are a cancer to society.

A. You guys are just as much a hive minded clique as anyone else and
B. if it IS 'most' it's a pretty fine majority - I've counted an around equal amount of posters on each side recently
C. I bowed out of Witcher 3 discussion as I have to admit that I haven't played it yet but don't be thinking that I won't be coming back to it in 10-12 years when I HAVE - mark these words!

No wonder why others here hate you. You are certainly annoying as fuck.
And your count is wrong by the way, thee IS a majority of proGG posters here.

Dude, I'm not even GG and I know this outlook is full of crap. For me, it's about people who helped build the culture surrounding gaming, telling parasitic hipsters who contribute and have contributed nothing to the culture as whole, that they're not allowed to project their inadequacies on people they don't even know. Tone policing and PC culture don't have a place in art, and if people want to continue to make the claim that games can be art and expressions of art, then they also have to realize that not every single aspect of it is going to be for them, and the market will decide what's viable, not failed sociology degreed so called gamer journalists, who, I'm sorry, tend to be neither gamers nor journalists.

Collusion is not okay, false flagging is not okay, then getting mad because the false narratives they paint get caught on in the mainstream. Gamers had nothing to do with that shit, it was the self-anointed "mouthpieces" of the industry. So no, your preference isn't oppressing gamers. People like you insisting that ALL games need to be fake faux art pseudo intellectual "vignettes," walking simulators, etc, to be less "problematic" is where people need to draw the line. Do what you do, my friend, enjoy what you enjoy, feel free to even say you may not prefer my choices in what I find fun or entertaining, but don't ever character smear me, libel me, or cast elementary level dispersions at me and expect me to not tell you to go fuck yourself. I played and enjoyed Cat Lady. I played and enjoyed X-Blades with its titty ninja. A normal sane person can easily separate the two without ever walking away saying "OH MY GOD, THAT FICTIONAL PIXEL REPRESENTATION OF A WOMAN IS SO DEGRADING!"

1.Nope. You can clearly see disagreements between pro GGers here. Almost everyone here has their own reason for posting here. And to be hiveminded; there needs to be a queen. There are no leaders in GG. You yourself can easily distinguish Brasas's post from RW, or Elmonfongo's from mine. There is no cult leader, no cult ideology. And if GG was so similar, there wouldn't be troll patrol and trying to find doxxers. Read the last sentence of this page : http://deepfreeze.it/journo.php?j=adam_rosenberg
''Readers are encouraged to take entries critically, and form their opinion independently.'' Coming from a dedicated pro-GG site.

2.Did you count the smurfs as different people?

1 and you see diversity amongst the people who oppose GG here too, for example Keyvin isn't a 'leftie SJW' but a 'Christian values traditionalist' for example (yeah, this debate is making strange bed fellows on both sides)

2. looking back there ARE a couple of accounts with 1 or 2 rep that look a bit shady but I don't remember reading those names before, no
See, if you did, or at least thought "That campy, cheese-cake-'sploitation game was kinda fun for what it is" it wouldn't be such an issue, it these things being considered 'normal' that's worrying
Like, y'know, I have a lot of nostalgia and affection for 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show' but if anyone walked away from it thinking "That was a perfectly normal Sci-Fi / Horror / Musical" I would think that pretty odd and if people did in in large numbers I'd start to get a bit worried...