Well, when you post in #ChampionsLeague and also link #ManchesterUnited, I can guess their affiliation....

Htown, I'd like to at least try to reach some firm ground before opening new topics. Ethics of action versus inaction goes into an area of deontology versus consequentialism or whatever those two are called which I'd rather not get into right now. The fact in other threads I insisted on neutrality being possible, and including assumption of neutrality as being part of objectivity should give you some clue to my beliefs however.

So, on the other ethics. The first thing is, those two separate meanings of bad are more intimate than you are letting on, or looking for. For one, I'd say it is apparent that you do consider GG to be mostly immoral, or amoral, rather than merely bad in a second rate sense. For another, bad morally is synonym to morally second rate, and since we are discussing moral agents, you would be objectifying, or the other word I used dehumanizing, if you insist that something GG folks do is strictly devoid of moral agency. But whatever, I don't think you were, at least intentionally, making such a point explicitly, so let's move on.

I appreciate your question here, and will be happy to point in summary the relations between feminism, SJW, journalism and ethics. These connections are exactly what I personally care about the most in this whole brouhaha, which is why the dismissive and often malicious attitudes, certainly hypocritical, present in the anti-GG side piss me off. I recently said I might not be GG, but I'll be happy to identify as anti-antiGG.

From the start:
Part 1: Zoe
Part 2: Anita
Part 3: Misogyny

Zoe is both a feminist and an SJW and the spark for GG. Her ethical failings are to me irrelevant, but the ethical failings of a large group of people in gaming media, forcefully preventing discussion, clearly guided by ideological alignment I consider relevant as example of typical behaviors I see in media in general. Do you think this is an invalid ethical concern? Am I bullshiting you?

Anita is both a feminist and an SJW and is the standard bearer and lightning rod for feminism in gaming, all merit to her (slow applause). Her opponents are demonized by most gaming media, clearly guided by ideological alignment (and personal acquaintance in the Californication/ London circles). This I consider relevant again in the context of broader media trends. Do you think this is an invalid ethical concern? Am I bullshiting you?

Misogyny is a loaded term, with meanings of immorality, used by a side in a broader cultural war, to demonize their opponents, and create emotional urgency in lieu of rational discussion. This I consider relevant in the context of broader societal trends, which I consider worrying. These rhetorical tricks in this case go farther than most politics. Do you think this is an invalid ethical concern? Am I bullshiting you?

Across a number of different topics; from Brad Wardell years ago when I first noticed it, to the recent Rolling Stone U.Va. story, through topics of welfare in connection to War on Women slogans, to shirtstorm and its aspects of tone policing and affirmative action - feminism and SJ are the nexus for a lot of shit slinging intended to improve society. That this caused a huge reaction in gaming, where even giveaways are argued as off topic and disruptive of some idyllic forum logic should surprise no one. The point is precisely that the SJW way of pushing feminism is the unethical root cause of all this shitstorm. Examples abound if you just listen with a minimum of respect.

What Gamergate is going to result in, is an intensified politicization and radicalisation of gaming communities. And then who knows... I would much prefer if gaming remained mostly apolitical, and GG may achieve something on that. But if forced to choose a side by the personal is political, march through the institutions crowd; which cannot conceive of neutrality, is intolerant of free speech, and takes offense to imply malice - well then, I know where I'll stand.


PS edit
reading caesarbear, I'm probably his jackpot on how GG is misogyny, rather than about ethics... if only I actually was GG, whereas half or more of GG insists in maintaining some kind of political neutrality on this stuff ;) and if I didn't just state that SJW and radfem are imo unethical 0_o ... what a mindfuck

To the first question, revenge? I think it's that simple, really. You say I'm dead, now you'll see how alive and kicking I am. As for the second, that's the whole point of an open movement I put in there. Each member will have an idea of what the movement stands for and will call out other voices. Just like they do with harassers. But that doesn't make it a closed group.

She is not a feminist. She is an anti-feminist. There are no scholars of feminist thought that have worked with her. She hasn't been relevant in years. Her "Who stole Feminism?" was her only notable influence.

And your characterization of feminism is bizarrely and untrue. All feminists are for equality, and objectification is always troubling whether it can be seen as empowering or not because the definition of objectification means someone is not a person. It's whether the objectifications override a message or not.

You may want to try some research yourself.
So then if someone posts in #gamergate and defends Zoe Quinn maybe I can guess whether they believe in the gamergate movement.

No, you need to do your research. Clueless you are. Christina Hoff Sommers has been a big name in feminism for what 20-30 years. Published many books, frequently published in named magazines such as Time. You don't know what you are speaking of.

I've met her and attended some of her lectures.

And that doesn't change the fact she deems herself a feminist nor the fact that she is considered as the headstone of the philosophy of equity feminism.

And not every "feminist" wants equality. Many want nothing offensive at all to a woman but can give a shit whether material might be offensive to men.

She uses the title in order to attract attention to herself.

No one in academia defends her. She didn't even debate other academics at her lectures. She isolates herself from criticism when lecturing.

Name a credible feminist that does that.

Revenge to what means? Isn't it silencing or getting those people fired?

But it means it's dominated and controlled by the majority then. Diverse or unpopular voices don't get to be heard.

I named a credible highly published feminist with a great deal of name recognition. But the fact that you call her an anti-feminist shows you are part of that radical branch.

This mirrors the current controversy perfectly.

Gamergate while some extreme members engage in harassment, the majority decries it.

But for the radical feminists, if a moderate feminist disagrees, they have become an "anti-feminist". They are the zealots, with us or you are a Gamergater.

When radical feminists cited a non-existent study claiming that more women are abused on Superbowl Sunday than any other day, Christina Hoff Sommers investigated and disproved it. Didn't stop that false claim from being repeated even today. The radicals don't want the truth to get in the way of a good story.

Such lies as "Women doing the same job as men make $.74 on every dollar." Continuously repeated, continuously wrong. Disproven over and over, but the radicals don't want to listen...

No. That is absolutely incorrect. You can be the baddest basketballer, in terms of cheating, playing unethically, etc, but also be a very good basketballer in terms of skills (especially if, like me, you don't get caught).

Likewise, you can be a very good basketballer in terms of following the rules, not cheating, etc, but be a very bad basketballer in terms of skills.

Bad ethics and bad in terms of worth/skill are two completely different things.

Firstly, do you think I think GG is mostly immoral or amoral? They are very different things.

Secondly, what aspect of GG do you think I think is immoral or amoral?

So you are saying that it is a valid ethical concern that some websites prevented discussions about a topic in their forums? I'll pause to note that you said earlier that GG is about "Ethics in journalism". Hosting a forum is not journalism. Secondly, as I have said previously, I don't see there is anything unethical about saying "this is my forum, I don't want you to discuss this here, go somewhere else". I appreciate people disagree with me on that topic.

Are you bullshitting me? As in lying? I don't know why you would think I think you are lying. You might be, there is no way I could know, and I don't really care.

So your point here is that it is unethical for a writer to "demonise" someone, notwithstanding that it is their honestly held belief that that person should be demonised? It would depend on what was involved in the "demonisation" but if it is what I have seen in the games media, I think that it is mostly ethical (although there are certainly some few examples of unethical behaviour). If it was not their honestly held belief, I would say it is unethical. I think it is important that writers say what they genuinely think, not pander to the requirements of others, be they advertisers or readers.

Again, do I think you are bullshitting/lying that you think that is a valid ethical concern? Weird question.

I have no idea what you are saying here. It is unethical to call someone a misogynist? If you genuinely hold that belief, then I don't think it is.

They are people who insulted their audience, getting backslash is not surprising. Add to that trying to pass their opinions as facts, and it's not hard to guess why people are pissed. I personally don't see much of a point on the letters though, I would simply stop visiting their site. It's good to have varied opinions.

Of course it's dominated by the majority. Isn't that how any decentralized group works? There's a common point ground, being pissed at games journalism, and things branch out from there. As for what is or isn't heard, it goes both for who screams loudest and who gets to hold a conversation. Some people scream bullshit, but there's tons of reasonable voices behind that. Problem is, if the "other side" only hears the screamers and reply only to them, the whole conversation goes stale. Isn't that what's happening here? Things would be much better if the bullshitters (which are condemned by the majority) were ignored and proper conversation had with reasonable people. Instead, screaming bullshiters are chosen to be representatives of the whole movement, not by the movement itself but by those who would have to adress them. And we get to where we are.

A feminist could reply in any number of ways. I know it might be hard for people who have argued with me in these forums to understand, but I disagree with other feminists about all manner of topics.

A feminist's reply could be "good point, the timing of the affair is off, there was nothing wrong" or a feminist's reply could be "I don't believe you, it is too close, I think there is something fishy going on and it should have been disclosed".

As a feminist, I find it a little offensive that you seem to think we are all one hive mind that cannot think independently or have arguments or disagreements with each other, or think irrationally or make bad arguments.

Can you name another feminist that supports her?

Trying to label me a radical should come with more weight then calling CHS an anti-feminist. Notice I did not originate that. Show me her work that isn't only about fighting against and criticizing feminism.

Lots of rumors die hard. Perpetuating a rumor, perhaps unwittingly, makes one a radical?

Oh, and depending on how you count it, there still is a wage gap.

Blunt, but probably true for many people (and I'd include myself in that group, though to a lesser extent than some). There's also a concerted effort to work against the big sites in order to pave the way for more consumer-friendly alternatives. These big sites have a bazillion backlinks owing in part to clickbait and almost always show up on page 1-2 of search results because of them. Anything past the first couple pages is basically a wasteland where no mortal dares tread, so potentially worthwhile sites that can't afford a stunt like Polygon's documentary or some kind of constant advertising are at a major disadvantage. I've had my own little site for two and half years and it's honestly a bit like trying to win a race with your legs having been cut off.

Worth noting: my site isn't on any GG "support" lists, so I'm almost certainly making things more difficult for myself in the long run by supporting the rise of competition that will no doubt come to outrank me in search results just like the current big sites do. Just a disclaimer in case anyone wondered about possible ulterior motives.

Read this and tell me diverse and unpopular voices don't get to be heard.

I've noticed that a lot, and on both sides. I find it specially strange when such generalizations come from people labeling themselves as feminists.

Honestly, one of the reasons I've stayed away of this whole debate (besides having just bought the new Wolfenstein, and nazis don't kill themselves) is that I keep hearing "progresive this", "feminst that" and "leftist whatnot" but I'm pretty sure they don't mean what I think they mean, probably due to cultural differences. And this comes from a well traveled pineapple.