#Gamergate is not one debate, but two. Plus, it's a culture war.

In my latest post linking to Sarkeesian's latest video, I talked about her and the other "Social Justice Warriors" winning the fight. One reader then asked me the following: 

Stefan, i'm wondering where you're getting your sources on GamerGate because i've seen lots of one sided pieces on each side of the aisle and as someone without a dog in this fight I have to say that a lot of the feminists sites like some of the posts you've linked to don't talk about any of the negative things there side are doing. There supporters have done plenty of doxxing, threatening and throwing there weight around as well. I'm not even a video game player anymore but i've found this whole saga interesting. Anyway, read this interview today with developer Brad Wardell and I think it's one of the few examples of someone able to talk about the plusses and minuses of each side.

I initially wrote a comment, but my argument grew longer, and so I'm making a blog post about it. Advantage if you're the owner of the damn thing, I know. ;) So, on to the argument.

I'm not saying that they are not throwing their weight around (what's doxxing?). They do. And that's ok, for both sides. What's not ok is the massive harassment that so far only extends to one side of the debate. But be that as it may.

The thing is, however, that there are two discussions. That's also the problem with the Wardell interview, which I don't see as an example of someone highlighting both sides at all. The #Gamergate community entirely succeeded in its branding of the core problem, a branding that is also aggressivley promoted by Escapist and Wardell (seriously, this is not a critical interview at all. Not that the other side would provide them, but still). This branding is saying that the discussion is about transparency and corruption, and they are conceding to their opponents that some people have gone too far and that the harassment is bad; in Wardell's case with the disclaimer that there is a lot of bias that also needs to be adressed.

But the debate that Sarkeesian and others are engaged in is not about the harassment. That's a subsection of the argument, but it's not at all what they are talking about. For them (and me), the issue is the representation of gender cliches in gaming and the political stance of the gamer community as a whole. And while the Gamergaters especially make numerous claims to being apolitical, they're anything but. They're pretty right-wing in their politics.

So, on the one hand, we have the fight for transparency and anti-corruption measures in the tech-industry as a whole. While undeniably a problem, the claim rings hollow, since the Gamergaters - as I wrote in my initial article - have no problem getting into bed with the industry and the review magazines as long as they are on their side. And make no mistake, these two are way too close to each other, and always have been. It's almost as bad as in the cars and fashion business. So claiming that you are "against corruption" when you attack Zoe Quinn is a little bit smacking of hypocrisy, without judging whether or not the charges against her are true (I don't know, and I don't want to know). 

What really irks me about the linked Wardell interview, though, aside from the fact that he doesn't adress the issue concerning the anti-Gamergate side of things at all, is the underlying assumptions that Wardell's argument makes. First, he claims that while the harassment of Zoe Quinn is bad, it's not newsworthy. That is wrong. He makes the assumption that "as soon as a woman is harrassed", everybody is reporting it, as opposed to him as a man. That is bullshit. Zoe Quinn is the first case of the tech world that has gained widespread attention, and it only did because the Gamergaters themselves blew it into the minds of everyone. The harassment against Quinn is exemplary for a widespread problem. 

Another thing is his claim of "no serious gamer is thinking about who else plays their games". This might be true for him and surely a redeeming quality. However, as described for example here, this is not true at all. Since this phenomen can be seen in other geek cultures that gather more widespread attention as well (I personaly witnessed it in LARPing, for example), I would at least be very cautious about that claim that solely rests on personal experiences. 

The main argument I am making is also made in the linked article above: Yes, this is a culture war. Yes, it is waged by the side of the anti-Gamergaters exactly as such and has been intended as one from the start. And in my view, the gamers walked right into it. The dual barrage of the attacks on Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian in August and September 2014 blew a fairly obscure developer and a modestly known YouTuber to such proportions that the debate reached mainstream media, even in places as locally remote from the struggle (which is by and large an American one) as Germany, where the news magazine Der Spiegel reported the issue and the gaming magazines of course picked up on it as well.

This culture war is and has always been firmly embedded in the rituals and arguments of other comparable culture wars, such as on universities, the movies, religion or the workplace. This means that, of course, the discussion is politicized and that issues not directly related to gaming are brought into the discussion as well, because people are people. This may sound banal, but it isn't. Nothing is apolitical. To get back to my point, the forces of progressivism who may or may not have fired the first shot in the #Gamergate, but they have so far won most battles they engaged in. Movies, for example, have changed their attitude towards women dramatically in the last 10 years, as have novels and other types of media. The only exempt group so far has been gaming, and now, with their hobby firmly entering mainstream, they are caught in the same tidal wave that has gripped so many other media. This is why I am convinced that the culture war will be lost by the right wing in gaming too.