#GamerGate and The Fallacy of "Productive Discussion"

No one really wants a productive discussion, not the press, gamers, developers, or publishers this is not an issue limited to GamerGate. The Mass effect 3 controversy, Rab Florence incident, Gamespot, Driver 3, and the countless controversies that surround the game press. A forum to actually discuss such issues is beyond our reach.



But that doesn't stop the 'neutrals' to stand above the rabble and claim that they want a productive "adult" (a word used a lot) discussion. but usually in the same article (blogpost, whatever) no solution is provided beyond the moral grandstanding of the the pragmatic idea of a culture that does not exist simply because no can provide a way of it to exist. Believe it or not the closest people who have come to solution is Wil Wheaton and Blizzard who claim ending anonymity is the solution.



But as GamerGate has shown people who use there real names can and have been just as abusive as anyone who is anonymous. Honestly the idea that the internet is terrible because of anonymity was childish at best but it was an idea that was repeated to the point that people think that's the only problem.



But I am not hear to spout the virtues of a positive discussion its become increasingly apparent which each controversy it is a waste of time because there are certain beliefs held by both groups that neither side will compromise on. For the Anti-Gamer/Gamergate side it is the belief that the community misogynistic, that criticism on twitter is harassment (known by them as 'sealioning'), feminist critique rises above all others, that their leaders are qualified for such critique, and that "gassing gamers" akin to 3rd Reich is acceptable rhetoric.



In contrast gamergate does have some issues as well that, most notably left-wing libertarian ideology, with absolute faith in the free market and the catch 22 principle "Don't like it, Don't buy it". (I recognize that Gamergaters are of many political spectrum, but current stats say most are left wing libertarians)



You can't have a positive discussion with these to belief systems because the logic is inherently circular within both ideologies. Authoritarian vs Libertarian, Socialist vs Capitalist. An arbiter would be needed. For example the process in voting in political systems would break the cycle.



Perhaps the situation would not be so dire if both sides were represented in the community and not in positions of power, however the Anti-Gamer side has key locations in the press and while GamerGate has indeed sapped their power by creating toxic shadows over the personalities, no one can really take the mantle. However the point I am trying to make is without these positions of power no can create the idealistic Positive discussion that the moral grand standers so crave.



But there is a separate issue and it is of need/want. Does GamerGate really need a productive discussion? It has achieved more than by what it has done (what people say it has done) than any hope of a positive friendly discussion. Would friendly discussion just diffuse the movement? In contrast Anti-Gamer has seen any attempts in creating a discussion as validating those who oppose the ideology (David Pakman comes to mind). They have successfully radicalized certain members of their group and shot their personalities to the stratosphere with the media blitz. Do they really need a down to earth discussion when their power survives on outrage?



These questions are simply to much for anyone to answer while some one (some where) is sending death threats.



But lets say for argument. We had a positive discussion and it was every bit as nice and huggly as the neutrals want us to believe. Eventually the discussion must stop, a decision must be made...... yeah that is likely....



I think a suitable conclusion would be



Productive discussion? What would be the fucking point!

Reply · Report Post