Veteran game developer, Troy Leavitt, weighs in on GamerGate

Troy Leavitt, a developer with over twenty years of experience in the industry at recently published a video explaining his take on the GamerGate controversy. Leavitt had largely avoided weighing in on the movement over the past two years, but in his new video, he claims he is "generally supportive of GamerGate as [he] understands it." Leavitt described GamerGate as a "revolt against identity politics" and expressed the belief that the majority of people in GamerGate were falsely accused of engaging in harassment.

The video was generally well received by the GamerGate community, garnering Leavitt over 6000 views and just shy of two hundred upvotes on KotakuInAction. Games journalist William Usher also wrote an article on the topic shortly after the video was published. About a week later, popular GamerGate Twitter user, Eve Keneinan, wrote a blog post expanding upon Leavitt's description of the social justice community, comparing it to Original Sin. To the best of my knowledge, GamerGhazi and the anti-GamerGate community have largely ignored Leavitt's comments.

Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9DiVLJO-pA

Discussion Questions
* What are your thoughts on Leavitt's video and his description of the GamerGate controversy?

* Are you glad or disappointed that more game developers are publicly coming out in support of GamerGate?

* Do you believe that classifying GamerGate as a "revolt against identity politics" is accurate?

* Do you believe that Leavitt's assessment that in the social justice community, people are judged based on their physical attributes, rather than their individual character? Do you agree that this belief is "the exact opposite" of what Martin Luther King, Jr. advocated for?

* Do you think Leavitt accurately described the relationship between publishers and journalists? Do you believe there is a potential ethical issue with this relationship?

* Do you believe that publishers have restrained developers from speaking out on controversial issues, for fear of backlash?

* Do you believe that the "special priveleges" given to games journalists had insulated them from gamers and made them lose touch?

* Do you believe that the games press view themselves as "gatekeepers," where they feel they can harm games and devs they don't like?

* Do you believe that Leavitt's "cafeteria" analogy holds true? That GamerGate people were unfairly attacked over the actions of trolls?

* Do you agree with Leavitt that GamerGate was building up for a long time and that the Grayson-Quinn scandal itself wasn't necessarily important?

* Do you believe Leavitt's assessment that game journalists made a mistake by "virtue signaling" in the Gamers Are Dead articles and "insulting gamers"?

* Do you agree with Leavitt that the game journalists should have called out the people who were specifically engaging in harassment or tried to have an honest conversation, instead than "insulting gamers"?

* Do you agree with Leavitt that the Gamers Are Dead articles were akin to an attempt by the games journalists to portray themselves as "priests and priestess" and promote the "religion of social justice"?

I got a question

Would you have covered a video by a veteran game developer if they had spoken out against GG?

undeadsuitor:
I got a question

Would you have covered a video by a veteran game developer if they had spoken out against GG?

You and I both know the answer to that, I think.

And no, this man did not change my mind in the slightest on what I view GamerGate to be; something that had legitimate concerns to address for about two weeks before becoming bannermen for traditionalist right wing political goals.

undeadsuitor:
I got a question

Would you have covered a video by a veteran game developer if they had spoken out against GG?

Look up Netscape9 on reddit and every thread here for your answer. Bring lots of camping equipment. It'll take a while.

As follow-up questions for you, Netscape;

Do you genuinely believe that you are an objective reporter who doesn't at all select their stories and sources based on whether or not they agree with them?

Do you think that by adding a long list of leading questions that you are engendering a good, honest and deep conversation?

Do you ever stop?

Smithnikov:

undeadsuitor:
I got a question

Would you have covered a video by a veteran game developer if they had spoken out against GG?

You and I both know the answer to that, I think.

And no, this man did not change my mind in the slightest on what I view GamerGate to be; something that had legitimate concerns to address for about two weeks before becoming bannermen for traditionalist right wing political goals.

I was unaware GamerGate does security, https://www.bannerman.com/ . Oh I kid. I am going to assume that you mean GG is somehow beholden to traditionalist right wing political goals. I did not find ethics in game journalism among those goals. Which, given what you think of GG, is your point. I disagree with said point. But no matter.

Wow, a month and a half in and he's already got three Feminist Frequency reaction videos. With thumbnails he should really rethink. C'mon guy, it's you who's supposed to look calm and rational while the other person is freaking out. Although given how hard trying to get YouTube channels some traction is, I can't really blame him for trying for some cheap heat.

I mean "Anita's Pinhole: A veteran game designers responds to Feminist Frequency (finally!)" Apparently part one of three plus. What rock's this guy been under the last 4 years?

And he's one of the "identity politics" guys. So much for Ethics in Games Journalism.

...what a fucking joke. Best answer to all those questions, really.

Wait, since when's Identity Politics a part of Ethics in Games Journalism?

Also, love how a guy who obviously goes full "appeal to niche demographic" accuses others of doing the same by using full-on signaling. There's a word for that I think, starts with H, rhymes with leprosy.

proxyhostlawl:

Smithnikov:

undeadsuitor:
I got a question

Would you have covered a video by a veteran game developer if they had spoken out against GG?

You and I both know the answer to that, I think.

And no, this man did not change my mind in the slightest on what I view GamerGate to be; something that had legitimate concerns to address for about two weeks before becoming bannermen for traditionalist right wing political goals.

I was unaware GamerGate does security, https://www.bannerman.com/ . Oh I kid. I am going to assume that you mean GG is somehow beholden to traditionalist right wing political goals. I did not find ethics in game journalism among those goals. Which, given what you think of GG, is your point. I disagree with said point. But no matter.

All you have to do is bunker down in their nests and listen. Indeed, "You think it's just about games journalism" is a bit of running joke now over in the chans I think.

Smithnikov:

proxyhostlawl:

Smithnikov:

You and I both know the answer to that, I think.

And no, this man did not change my mind in the slightest on what I view GamerGate to be; something that had legitimate concerns to address for about two weeks before becoming bannermen for traditionalist right wing political goals.

I was unaware GamerGate does security, https://www.bannerman.com/ . Oh I kid. I am going to assume that you mean GG is somehow beholden to traditionalist right wing political goals. I did not find ethics in game journalism among those goals. Which, given what you think of GG, is your point. I disagree with said point. But no matter.

All you have to do is bunker down in their nests and listen. Indeed, "You think it's just about games journalism" is a bit of running joke now over in the chans I think.

Everything is a joke on the chans. And now I think you are talking about gamergate ants.

I thing gamergate was a revolt against specific people who were using gender politics to hide their fuck up, and after doubling down over and over on those gender politics and pulling in more people who were defending their use of said politics, the problem was quickly realized and the response was what one would expect. Sort of the idea of "Well, if all they keep doing is doubling down on identity politics and the political machinery in place defends and encouraged that bullshit, than in order to get the problem we want addressed, we have to pull at the weed til the root itself dies." After that, you certainly had political enemies of the political machine jump on and offer to help, and not being an ideologically pure exclusionary group, gamergate didn't reject them outright (which seems to have rubbed some people the wrong way, not kicking oth people with different political views and all that).

Still, I wouldn't say gamergate is against political correctness by design, rather by result of political correctness defending the bad journalism practices they are against. If they stopped defending the assholes hiding behind identity politics and deflecting with claims of sexism and racism, gamergate wouldn't need to view them as the arm's dealer in the conflict in the first place.

The main reason I got involved in Gamergate to begin with was Greg Tito's freely and flippantly admitting to not doing his job (his "agenda of kindness" being, presumably, much more important than such a comparative triviality), and then proceeding to act like the people upset with him about it were the ones in the wrong.

So yeah, if "Identity Politics" or "Political Correctness" or whatever you want to call it is involved in that particular conversation, I know which side of it I'm holding responsible for it.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked