I don’t enjoy writing about events
in the game industry. Typically, they amount to little more than the collective
geek contingent of the Internet reacting with overwhelming excitement or excessive
anger at something so insignificant to the industry at large, that no one outside
of enthusiast websites and forums are even aware that an uproar is occurring.
As a largely unknown and un-invested observer, I generally feel that it’s best
to weather these hyperbolic storms in a shelter of dignified silence. However,
after observing the internet’s reaction to the latest drama surrounding Anita
Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn, I fear that this storm is actually like the red eye
of Jupiter and requires a little more than patience and eye-rolling to deal
with.
Let’s start with
the specific catalyst for this blog post. Yesterday, John “TotalBiscuit” Bain
published a blog post advocating that we change the rhetoric of online
discussions surrounding controversial issues from a caustic “us versus them”
war, to a nuanced discussion with the shades of opinions between the two extreme
ends of the spectrum. He goes off topic a few times, but it’s definitely worth reading.
However, I have one major qualm with the content of this post and it’s
perfectly encapsulated by one paragraph within it.
“This discussion that's going on right now and don't worry,
there is one, you might not be able to hear it for all the yelling but it does
exist and I'm going to do my utmost to make sure you hear it, is multi-faceted.
It involves a discussion of journalistic ethics, it involves a discussion of
the treatment and/or exclusion of women in gaming, it involves a discussion
about videogame writing and the portrayal of minorities, it involves a
discussion about the role of games media in our industry, it involves a
discussion about hiring practices, it involves a discussion about behavior
online and the effect of anonymity, it involves a discussion about critique, it
involves a discussion about the influence or lack thereof of media in our daily
lives. It involves far more than even all of those things, it's a very complex
discussion and one we can't have on twitter or by yelling at each other, which
are often one and the same.”
I don’t see these discussions (they are connected, but most
assuredly not one discussion) occurring on #gamergate; not in the quantity that one would
expect. I see people hoping these discussions will emerge, but collectively
forgetting about them in order to verbally fight in partisan wars over whether
certain people are “guilty or not guilty;” Debating whether mud should or
should not be flung in someone’s general direction,
whether someone should or shouldn’t be digitally crucified,
whether people are with us or against us.
This discussion is not productive.
Make no mistake, the sentiment of TotalBiscuit's paragraph is absolutely correct; we need to stop engaging in caustic discussions
on Twitter as the platform does not facilitate complete or nuanced ideas.
However, the paragraph, and blog post as a whole, is not providing an answer or
chartering a path. It is merely more shouting (non-inflammatory shouting mind
you, but shouting nonetheless).
As it stands, the larger issue with
the majority of the arguments surrounding Anita Sarkeesian,
the “Quinnspiracy,” SJWs,
MRAs,
and online “culture” as a whole is that they center around the actions and
content created by individuals, not the climate from whence they proliferated; As
opposed to discussing the herd of elephants in the room, we are too busy
arguing over whether last night’s tea was acceptable. And while I sincerely appreciate
the numerous
calls for civility from well-intentioned industry members, it doesn’t matter how civil a
discussion about tomatoes is if at the end of the day we are still talking
about fruit (vegetables?).
Perhaps
this is naïve of me to suggest, but maybe we the players, writers, and
developers of the gaming industry have questions that we are struggling to both
articulate and answer. Maybe the reason saying Anita Sarkeesian’s name is still
the Internet equivalent to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater (two goddamn
years after her series started, I might add), is because there is still a
significant vocal number of us who haven’t yet articulated what aspect(s) of
her content disquiets them. Maybe (part of) the reason many were quick to
demonize Zoe Quinn (as opposed to the journalists whose careers should have
been at stake) was because they were still uncomfortable with social advocacy in
an entertainment industry. Maybe. I can’t read and analyze every forum on the
Internet. I’m not Batman or am I. But, there are clearly some unresolved
tensions cloaked within the rage and accusations driving the “discussions,” and
it is well passed the time that we started discussing them directly.
What ethical standards do we expect
journalists to uphold? Do we need to change the way women are treated in video games?
Is that even the heart of people’s issues with the subject? Do we need to be
more inclusive towards women in the industry? What kinds of characters would we
like to see (more of) in our games? What kind of content do we expect and want
from video game journalists? What kinds of relationships are acceptable between
the press and developers? Players and press? Developers and players?
Yes, most of these questions are derived from the discussions listed in the paragraph I cited, however this highlights two important points: 1.) John Bain and other intelligent industry members are aware of these questions and 2.) they understand their significance. So, ostensibly, the only thing holding back this discourse is the idea that, to quote John Bain, Patrick Klepek, Bob “Movie Bob” Chipman, and many other journalists and critics, “we can’t have this discussion.” And to that, I say bullshit.
People with far less social capital
are already talking about these issues in smaller avenues.
I’ll be joining them and beginning discussions wherever I can (following the
completion of this post, of course). It can be done. We have the tools (NOT
Twitter) to do so. But, our voices lack the volume to change the paradigm of the
current series of caustic discourse. Yours, on the other hand, do. I don’t make videos watched by hundreds of
thousands of people, but John Bain does. I don’t write for a well-respected
publication, but Leigh Alexander does. I can’t publicly speak with members of
the industry press, but Patrick Klepek can. You are the voices and faces of
this industry, and if you want change to happen, then all you have to do is
speak up.
P.S. - There will undoubtedly be resistance from various
kinds of extremists, and it’s likely that trolls and childish folk in your
audiences will attempt to drag the discourse back to the current dysfunction.
We must not let them. What’s more, neither us nor the communities we engage
with must fight or demonize them either. If we are going to collectively
elevate the discussion, then we must first elevate ourselves.
Additional Content Worth Consuming:
Leigh Alexander engaging with the current idea of what it means to be a gamer and inside member of this industry. The article itself is a tad inflammatory, but the ideas step beyond the rhetoric I decry in this blog post and also sparked several excellent discussions in the comments section.
Total Biscuit, JonTron, Jesse Cox, and Dodger, discuss the difficulty of holding a discussion using the Twitter medium, among other things. This is essentially an example of the kind of civil discussion we need regarding the issues in this blog post
A podcast in which Alex Shaw, Daniel Floyd, MovieBob, and Lee Lee Scaldeferri discuss extreme online community responses to changes and online phenomena, as well as possible causes and solutions to the behavior. The podcast is almost a year old, illustrating how little the communities have changed and simultaneously exemplifying the kind of discourses we need to have going forward.
This image details the creation of a character by the users on the infamous internet forum 4chan who was specifically created to spite feminists and SJWs. It's more for academic information on the degree to which partisanship has gripped online communities and discussions.
http://i.imgur.com/FdqKFwu.jpg
Jim Sterling summarizes and proposes civil ways of thinking about the issues discussed in this blog post, both from the perspective of a journalist and a standard consumer.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/9711-On-Game-Journalism-Corruption?utm_source=latest&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all
If you have any other supplementary materials you think are worth sharing, let me know! I'll post them and we can discuss them here or elsewhere.
Originally Written: August 29, 2014
Initially Posted: August 29, 2014
Last Edited: August 29, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment