Since ABOGJ was revived a little over a week ago, I have been careful to avoid an official stance on the GamerGate scandal. Not because I or the other authors don’t have stances on it – we all do – but because declaring one stance is both reckless and against the very reason this site was created. If we say we’re pro-GamerGate, then we risk being labelled a bunch of misogynists; if we’re anti-GamerGate, then we become associated with Social Justice and the “end of gamers.” So we have avoided taking a stance altogether, instead choosing to watch and analyze, allowing the chips to fall where they may, and holding the same standard of quality and ethics we’ve had even before this site came to be.
However, I feel that I can comment on recent events with relative safety, as the subject matter is far more cut-and-dry than the rest of GamerGate. Though before I continue, I must stress that the rest of this editorial does not reflect the opinions of the other ABOGJ authors. I have consulted with none of them during the writing of this editorial, and this admittedly very spur of the moment. That being said, let’s continue to the controversy du jour: IntelGate.
Yesterday, it was reported that Intel had pulled advertising from the video game publication Gamasutra. This change was in direct response to the very, very pro-GamerGate articles being published in the past few weeks. And immediately they were accused of “[buckling] to an anti-feminist campaign” and the hashtag “#MisogynyInside” was born. Which is a pretty wild theory, considering that this is a company whose president is, in fact, a woman. But feminism aside, this isn’t about GamerGate; this is about good business.
Politics is politics. Business is business. Business is not politics, nor is politics business. By advertising through a politically charged publication, you are inherently cutting everyone with a different opinion out of your consumer base. Just ask the advertisers who pulled ads from Rush Limbaugh’s radio show (and good on them, he’s an ass). It’s not smart to advertise with political radicals, on either side of the spectrum. Yet the same people who actively campaign to pull ads from Rush Limbaugh and applaud those who do are decrying Intel for making essentially the same decision. The only difference is that it’s to a publication whose views are in line with their own.
Only the foolish have but one opinion. Discussing, analyzing, and arguing are the ways we, as humans, grow. It’s what this website was founded on. And by only reading those who agree with you, you close yourself off to growth. And if we stop growing, we stop thinking. And if we stop thinking, we fail. So be open, be challenged. Be willing to let people choose for themselves. And for the love of everything, stop supporting websites that have only one stance on an issue.
Disclosure: The preceding comments are solely those of the author, and do not express the opinion of ABOGJ or it’s other authors. However, both ABOGJ and the author are: pro-equality, pro-logic, pro-discussion, pro-freedom-of-speech, and this author in particular is anti-Rush Limbaugh.
ABOGJ 
Who knew the guys who make prozessors can do math.
Thank you for your well reasoned article
>>Yet the same people who actively campaign to pull ads from Rush Limbaugh and applaud those who do are decrying Intel for making essentially the same decision. <<
This is pretty much what bothers me the most about it.
Its okay to disagree with Intel on their decision.
Its also completely valid to voice criticism of their decision, never-mind that it looks kinda weird when the company pres is a woman.
But saying that people are using a BOYCOTT to censor anything or anyone when the very same people were up in arms about Rush Limbaugh. Its like this whole weird Social Justice-Movement has no self-awareness at all. I consider myself a libertarian but this has clearly shown to me that Social Justice was never about equality. Never about Blacks or latinos or asians. Its just about control.
Its so disheartening to see that the very same people who say that we should have a dialogue about these issues are shouting down the opposition and calling them sexist, misogynist and whatnot.
Everything is about control. It always has been and always will be. We make up things grander then ourselves so SOMETHING is in control (Religion/Conspiracy Theories). We exert control on others to compensate for the lack of control we feel in regards to our own life (Prejudice/any kind of -ism).
We don’t have control, we never will have control. The sooner people realize this and start accepting things the sooner we’ll get over our biology and stop shunning and hating each other for arbitrary reasons.
Good to hear a stance on just staying neutral. And definitely good to hear someone just simplifying intel’s decision by just saying its just a smart move. Also GamerGate has influinced me to disable my adblocker for sites I want to support, so can consider abogj.com another site added to that list. Keep up the good articles!
A well written article. Even handed, and it doesn’t say that I’m a bigot for caring about journalistic ethics.. Thank you.
“Disclosure: The preceding comments are solely those of the author, and do not express the opinion of ABOGJ or it’s other authors. However, both ABOGJ and the author are: pro-equality, pro-logic, pro-discussion, pro-freedom-of-speech, and this author in particular is anti-Rush Limbaugh.” Respect for the disclosure.
As a pro-#GamerGater I completely respect your decision to remain neutral. But I have to say, the one thing these people who decry Intel keep forgetting, is that Intel haven’t made ANY official comment in support of #GamerGate (to my knowledge, as of this writing), merely stating that Gamasutra’s ads were pulled with a vague reason regarding content on the site. The campaign against Intel is effectively a knee-jerk reaction with very little research put into it, relying solely on feelings. And that is exactly the sort of media ethos that got me, personally, involved in #GamerGate
The jury has to remain out on whether or not it’s a smart decision, I would have thought, until it becomes clearer whether the decision was in Intel’s best interests or not.
Personally, I rather doubt that many serious gamers, as opposed to whatever the opposite may be of a “social justice warrior” (a “social injustice warrior,” perhaps?), will be swayed by anything other than technical and price considerations in their decisions about what hardware to buy for their gaming rigs.
“How well will this GPU perform when I’m playing whatever the new must-have game is?” will probably be a more important consideration in most gamers’ minds than “where did I see it advertised and what was their editorial line on #GamerGate?” but maybe I’m wrong.
Meanwhile, the decision seems — understandably enough — to be receiving a pretty bad press in most technical and non-technical media, and, rightly or wrongly, that may sway some people looking for a Christmas or birthday gift for a niece, or thinking of updating their home compute or small business computer, that “Intel Inside” isn’t a particular recommendation.
Time, and Intel’s sales figures, shall tell.
Good point, JSG. The word of mouth about the backlash, positive or negative, may in fact hurt Intel. I honestly never thought of that. Then again, Gamasutra’s audience, as well as the audience of most of the publications covering them, already know where they stand in terms of both GG and computing hardware, so it may be a small reaction. But, as you so aptly put, only time will tell. Thanks for reading and responding!
With regards to gaming, GPU is the bottleneck. No one would have any qualms with switching over to AMD for a boycott. And Intel understands this.
as a member of #gamergate, a fair appraisal of my grievances is all that i ask. The ‘us vs. them’ political attitude rapidly taking over gaming journalism shares responsibility for this situation. While I admit individuals on myside harbor the very same toxic attitude, too few voices have held journalism accountable for their share of the burden. Thank you for showcasing the gamasutra article for what it was.
I agree with your general point, Intel’s decision was just the most rational one any corporation could make, and the idea of anyone bullying them into supporting their site and their views is frankly ridiculous; it’s just a big red flag saying “You know how you pulled out because it was controversial? Well guess what, you’re right! it is controversial!”.
Yet I have to disagree with “Politics is politics. Business is business. Business is not politics, nor is politics business. ”
Politics is all pervasive and its a desire to appear politically correct; IE: don’t piss off anyone, that they pulled out. The only non-political decisions are those that don’t change anyone’s conception of themselves or others within the whole.
A non political decision would be Intel leaving Gamasutra because it they weren’t getting clicks on ads.