I had high hopes for the upcoming (in August) discussion being arranged by the Society of Professional Journalists to hear both sides of GamerGate. I was actually naive enough to believe that finally, GamerGate supporters would receive an impartial hearing and dispel all of the hateful rhetoric that’s been written and spoken about what GamerGate is all about. I have to say I’m disappointed.
I’m of course referring to Michael Koretsky’s latest post. I read that post with nothing but incredulity. It seems that what this supposed impartial event is actually going to be is an attack on GamerGate supporters. My evidence is in the first paragraphs where Koretsky had attempted to get “GamerGate’s biggest critics” to attend. My question was, what do Chu, Sarkeesian, and Wu have to do with GamerGate?
The answer to that is simple: nothing. What these people did, during the inception of the online gamer movement was to insert themselves into the discussion and try and make a revolt of corruption in gaming journalism, into a manifesto about the evils of misogyny and threats toward women in gaming.
No evidence was ever presented. In fact, the personal threats claimed by both Sarkeesian and Wu could not be corroborated by any law enforcement agency. All they wanted to do was claim a new platform to advance their professional victim agency.
What could any of these 3 critique? Of course, Chu told Koretsky to go away and he never heard anything from the others. I wonder why? I wonder if it’s because they actually had to defend their positions face-to-face, they’d fail miserably.
Hell, if you recall, Milo Yianoppolus challenged Sarkeesian to a one-one-one, offering to donate $10,000 to a charity of her choice if she’d just show up and debate. What was her response? Crickets. That alone should have told Koretsky something, if he had been paying attention at all in the last couple of months.
Of course, he can read their minds as to why he received no response, or so he indicated by publishing 2 tweets from Sarah Nyberg. Yeah, that said a lot to me about the intent of the upcoming event. It was now going to be about online harassment of women with GamerGate supporters on the defensive even though if Koretsky had done just a little research over the past several months, he would have seen that the harassment, death threats, bomb threats, came from those that were opposed to GamerGate.
So, it turns out there was an agenda after all. That’s why I said above that I was naieve about this; it appears there never was going to be an attempt to listen to both sides.
Don’t believe me? Well, he basically inserts his ideology here:(bolding mine)
1. A debate about about journalism ethics doesn’t legitimize harassment. It can do the opposite if the harassment is quickly confronted and condemned, and then we move on.
So he’s swallowed the entire pitcher of kool aid in believing that harassment is from GamerGate. Again, no proof of this exists.
I don’t believe that there is any benefit for anyone from GamerGate to participate in what looks to be a farce. It’s a cheap publicity stunt for Koretsky and his impartial panel.