There are times when people are upset about things, and then comes along someone that puts their anger into words. The anger doesn't always match the words, I think it's called over reaction, or extremism, at that point. But either way I have a natural aversion to it.
This isn't claiming I haven't grown up with, or exist with bias. That's far from the case for everyone. But the way my parents raised me and the experiences and the responses I witnessed from my peers instilled in me a kind of ethic about confrontation. The idea is basically to not, if at all possible, unless absolutely necessary. Because often people get into things that do not concern them, and even when they stay out of it they'll often pass judgment, which is also none of their business, they have no right to do so. Because of their position they don't have the ability to accurately do so if there were able to in first place much less the right. And when something comes up, that is personal in nature, personal in the way that it isn't your business and you feel embarrassed for them. Something scandalous. With that I have an immediate response of treating it as if I haven't heard. If someone whispers something not knowing I'm in earshot. If someone comes to me with some rumor about a person I'm acquainted with. You get the feeling of embarrassment for that person to have a rumor about them spread. And as I would not want that rumor spread about myself I do my best to treat it as a rumor. Just a general rule to deal with people's business with as much discretion as possible.
So you understand as much as I have an aversion to the Zoe Quinn and Gamergate discussion, with a column that deals with deconstructing popular or interesting topics with the gaming sphere.. it's basically not a choice. It's a topic that had to be written about. Not just because it's about journalism and the site and column is a journalist/media site, or because the arguments fall under the philosophy topics of logic and ethics. But because I do not want to write about it, because it makes me uncomfortable and I would rather prefer to completely ignore it and shut myself off from any reference too it. For the reason that I would prefer to pretend to not give a damn, I assume it would be better for myself to follow through with it. I'm a volunteer writer, and I could even ask if the second column writer could step in and have his say about it, but as a writer I feel responsible.
My first piece on the #Gamergate movement will go up this week Wednesday. The following week will be on something different. (edit)
As much as it is a personal matter, there are things that should be discussed. For one this,
And secondly of course there must be discussion of both how the Gamergate and Journalist community is handling the debate. There is already plenty of material on either end of the spectrum that handles their side of the argument well, but there are others and when you're just entering the discussion or you've only seen one side it's hard to differentiate the two, and when you don't understand the argument you oppose, you make a faulty argument against it which only leads to misunderstandings and more arguing. In my experience this kind of arguing only comes from ignorance. Either people acting in or by ignorance.
As much as it is a personal matter, there are things that should be discussed. For one this,
And secondly of course there must be discussion of both how the Gamergate and Journalist community is handling the debate. There is already plenty of material on either end of the spectrum that handles their side of the argument well, but there are others and when you're just entering the discussion or you've only seen one side it's hard to differentiate the two, and when you don't understand the argument you oppose, you make a faulty argument against it which only leads to misunderstandings and more arguing. In my experience this kind of arguing only comes from ignorance. Either people acting in or by ignorance.
No comments:
Post a Comment