How Gamers Hurt

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the gaming community lately, and with it, a subtle pattern of anti-communication becomes clearer.

Since this is an emotional subject, I think a lot of it comes down to the nuts and bolts of communication.

When someone criticizes the gaming community, there are three types of responses people tend to make: Let’s call them…

• Rejection (“Your criticism is wrong because X”)
• Productive Agreement (“Yes, let’s try to fix it by doing Y”)
• Hopeful Evidence (“Your criticism isn’t the whole story, because there’s also Z.”)

Most gamers tend to fall into the last category.

Hopeful Evidence is an argument from emotion: people are criticizing the gaming community because it has made them feel shitty, but the gaming community doesn’t make ME feel shitty, and it’s important to me, so I feel like I need to defend it.

However, Hopeful Evidence doesn’t move the conversation forward. It’s like this:

A: I love rainy weather.
B: Yeah, but I think it’s depressing.
A: Yeah, but I love it.
B: Yeah, but it bums me out.
A: Yeah, but that doesn’t mean it has to bum me out.
B: Yeah, but I still don’t like it.

On, and on, and on.

Honestly, I think this also partially explains the shape of the “Not All Men” debate. When guys feel like their gender as a whole is coming under criticism, it’s only natural that we want to respond with Hopeful Evidence.

And in fact, Hopeful Evidence IS a rejection of certain extremist views. If someone actually says “All gamers really are toxic children”, then that is a view worth rejecting.

But, most criticism of the gaming community is far more nuanced than that. If it were as easy as “all gamers are toxic” or “some gamers are toxic”, the debate would be over already.

I think that’s why we see these debates rage on endlessly. Members of the criticized group feel emotionally wounded, and Hopeful Evidence is how you push back against that feeling. But once you get there, the conversation has shifted… you’re talking past the other person, because in all likelihood, they didn’t make any claims that contradict what you’re saying. So in response, they will usually try to re-state their original claims in a different way.

It’s so important to move the conversation forward and respond with Productive Agreement instead of Hopeful Evidence. To say, “This debate makes me feel uncomfortable, BUT, I acknowledge that there’s a problem—even if it’s not directly caused by me—and I want to help.”

In other words, it’s counterproductive to enter every one of these debates with the preconception that we must have something to say. Sometimes all you really need to say is, “Yeah, that sucks.”

It’s not that there’s no room for Hopeful Evidence. But the way people respond to it is on a conversation-by-conversation basis. For example, if Ryan had messaged me or posted on his own wall and said “Man, all of this judgment of the gaming community is really bumming me out,” that’s starting a new conversation, and I think that it really changes the way people respond to it. Of course there will still be some people who are overzealous, but my main point is that it really matters what kind of conversation each person is individually trying to have.

If you want to vent to a friend, Hopeful Evidence is A-OK. But when someone wants to talk about fixing problems, it’s always going to come off as semi-relevant at best.

We can have both kinds of conversations in parallel. Just make sure everyone is on the same page about which one you’re having.