Article: "Why I Think GamerGate Won"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

runic knight:

Not sure if that is paving the way for pushback, more so gamergate just happened to occur at the right time where gamer dissatisfaction with the media biases and anti-consumer behavior beforehand finally had evidence and valid reason to call out their bullshit. That the media was so entrenched in their corruption and manipulation of outrage that they doubled down is what turned it into gamergate in the first place. Can't say if that paved the way though, as I have yet to see any similar sort of backlash against mainstream media. Best is Trump and the "fake news" people though that being motivated so completely by politics alone makes it less a protest about the journalists and media failing to do their jobs right and more just handwave away of the media's open hostility towards trump. I mean, it is still a valid point, the media shouldn't be pushing a political perspective against a politician like they are and the majority of the news stories they push now are either intentionally misleading or entirely outright manufactured at this point, but the message being pushed by those calling it out lacks the uniformity against the specific unethical and unprofessional behavior that the gamergate response somehow managed.

I've noticed similarities between Trump and Gamergate that explains a few things. Trump getting pummeled by the media seems grossly unfair until you actually listen to what Trump is saying. It can't be "fake news" if Trump has actually said it. Trump's words and actions validate what the media is saying about him and yet his supporters are all up in arms about how he is not treated right. The media does not really have to invent stuff about him because he makes sure to regularly provide them with plenty material

Gamergate had a lots of the same issues. On one hand it tried to address valid concerns about the integrity of games journalism. However, the narrative would then switch to some pet conspiracy theory or a witch hunt and Gamergate woudl lose its credibility. They would then say that the "movement" does not actually support those things but refuse to denounce them. They would try for a moral high ground and then turn around and do something that made their detractors appear to be correct. In the end gamergate just ended up looking as another pro-censorship bunch of SJWs.

Smithnikov:

Do you seriously think it was left wing progressives behind that fustercluck or the book that inspired it?

No, I don't ; hence my later comment about their spiritual predecessors on the other side of the political spectrum (though if one can be bothered looking into the Comics Code itself, 1950s conservatives and 2010s "progressives" have some remarkably similar views as to what constitutes non-harmful art).

/pol/? Not specifically concentration camps, but they do hollar about "Day of the Rope" and "Free Helicopter Rides"(referring to the execution method Augusto Pinochet enjoyed), and the result is the same as concentration camps. Dead Jews, non whites, degenerates, ect...

I'd probably be more inclined to take them seriously if they we more than, again, random idiots on a chan board who are definitely never going to be in any position to enact any of the policies they may or may not defend online simply for the lulz.

ENTIRE media? So Fox News, the talk radio cabals, also joined in?

Fine, the entire not explicitly right wing-aligned media.

An understandable worry. I share it.

But unlike you, I'm not throwing my lot in with those other people on the said other side of the political spectrum just because they put on the Dad Jeans and claim they're now pro-gamer. I'm in this fight to defend gaming, not advance a right wing agenda, not to fight teh Joos and degenerates, not to stick it to feminists, ect. and because of that, I'm persona non grata.

I'm not throwing my lot with anyone, not that it would make a whole lot of difference if I did because, once again - not American.

And to try and somewhat tie this whole tangent back to the subject we were supposed to be discussing here... neither is Kukuruyo, for that matter; dude's Spanish. But that never seems to get in the way of all non-Fox News media branding us both as Trump-supporting "alt-Rightists"

Ogoid:

No, I don't ; hence my later comment about their spiritual predecessors on the other side of the political spectrum (though if one can be bothered looking into the Comics Code itself, 1950s conservatives and 2010s "progressives" have some remarkably similar views as to what constitutes non-harmful art).

I know.

BUt once again, it's not enough reason to actually get in bed with the conservatives. For a lot of people, it seems to be.

I'd probably be more inclined to take them seriously if they we more than, again, random idiots on a chan board who are definitely never going to be in any position to enact any of the policies they may or may not defend online simply for the lulz.

Again, do you apply the same policy to tumblrina leftists?

Fine, the entire not explicitly right wing-aligned media.

Hey, you admit there is such a thing! More than a lot of Gatekeepers do, I salute you.

I'm not throwing my lot with anyone, not that it would make a whole lot of difference if I did because, once again - not American.

And to try and somewhat tie this whole tangent back to the subject we were supposed to be discussing here... neither is Kukuruyo, for that matter; dude's Spanish. But that never seems to get in the way of all non-Fox News media branding us both as Trump-supporting "alt-Rightists"

Nothing stopped Gatekeepers from branding me a Hillary supporting ess jay dubya. Welcome to the new paradigm.

Nielas:

runic knight:

Not sure if that is paving the way for pushback, more so gamergate just happened to occur at the right time where gamer dissatisfaction with the media biases and anti-consumer behavior beforehand finally had evidence and valid reason to call out their bullshit. That the media was so entrenched in their corruption and manipulation of outrage that they doubled down is what turned it into gamergate in the first place. Can't say if that paved the way though, as I have yet to see any similar sort of backlash against mainstream media. Best is Trump and the "fake news" people though that being motivated so completely by politics alone makes it less a protest about the journalists and media failing to do their jobs right and more just handwave away of the media's open hostility towards trump. I mean, it is still a valid point, the media shouldn't be pushing a political perspective against a politician like they are and the majority of the news stories they push now are either intentionally misleading or entirely outright manufactured at this point, but the message being pushed by those calling it out lacks the uniformity against the specific unethical and unprofessional behavior that the gamergate response somehow managed.

I've noticed similarities between Trump and Gamergate that explains a few things. Trump getting pummeled by the media seems grossly unfair until you actually listen to what Trump is saying. It can't be "fake news" if Trump has actually said it. Trump's words and actions validate what the media is saying about him and yet his supporters are all up in arms about how he is not treated right. The media does not really have to invent stuff about him because he makes sure to regularly provide them with plenty material

Gamergate had a lots of the same issues. On one hand it tried to address valid concerns about the integrity of games journalism. However, the narrative would then switch to some pet conspiracy theory or a witch hunt and Gamergate woudl lose its credibility. They would then say that the "movement" does not actually support those things but refuse to denounce them. They would try for a moral high ground and then turn around and do something that made their detractors appear to be correct. In the end gamergate just ended up looking as another pro-censorship bunch of SJWs.

Well, I know issues like the much accused "gamergate is harassment" has loads of gamergate supporters openly rejecting and denouncing harassment ,even going so far as to police their own, create a harassment patrol to report it when seen, and even tracking down some more notorious trolls and report them to the police. So I really have to fight my initial doubts whenever I hear lines like "refuse to denounce" because of how often it is tied in with claims like the above.

Still, i don't think that was an example you were specifically referring to, so I am curious what ones you were. I am not entirely sure what examples you are trying to cite on this one, as the "another pro-censorship bunch of SJWs" has me trying to think back on topics where gamergate tried to censor things and I come back pretty empty handed. A lot of examples where a lot of supporters responded to censorship, but none where gamergate itself was trying to censor something. At best I have the argument that the mailing campaign was censorship, but that never was censoring the media outlets, that was a response to the media's open attacks on them for calling out their unethical and unprofessional behavior by sharing what they had said with the advertisers who were paying those sites in order to attract gamers. While certainly done to encourage change, it was ironically enough making sure those advertisers knew exactly what the site said and where they stood in relation to those advertiser's customers.

IceForce:

ex951753:

Johnlives:

I've always found game reviews very useful, maybe I'm a dying brreed. But the Kunkels should be out in a week or so, maybe they'll give an example or two of the stuff you're looking for.

Who cares what the gameplay of Witcher 3 is like? Why are all the characters WHITE?! Are CD Project Red a bunch of racists? That's where REAL journalism is.

Hyperbole aside, if you don't like the content of someone's article, just don't read it.

Attempting to muzzle people who write the 'wrong' kinds of videogaming articles, would seem to be at odds with a movement / group / hashtag / watchdog / yellow submarine that purports to be "anti-censorship".

You are free to write your article and the rest of us are free to laugh at you and point out how ridiculous your argument is.

Netscape:

IceForce:

ex951753:

Who cares what the gameplay of Witcher 3 is like? Why are all the characters WHITE?! Are CD Project Red a bunch of racists? That's where REAL journalism is.

Hyperbole aside, if you don't like the content of someone's article, just don't read it.

Attempting to muzzle people who write the 'wrong' kinds of videogaming articles, would seem to be at odds with a movement / group / hashtag / watchdog / yellow submarine that purports to be "anti-censorship".

You are free to write your article and the rest of us are free to laugh at you and point out how ridiculous your argument is.

I thought that was what deepfreeze was for

Censoring wrongthink by starving writers of ad revenue in an attempt to shut down those who don't toe your line

Netscape:

IceForce:

Hyperbole aside, if you don't like the content of someone's article, just don't read it.

Attempting to muzzle people who write the 'wrong' kinds of videogaming articles, would seem to be at odds with a movement / group / hashtag / watchdog / yellow submarine that purports to be "anti-censorship".

You are free to write your article and the rest of us are free to laugh at you and point out how ridiculous your argument is.

Demanding apologies be issued, wanting people to lose their jobs, and wanting revenue streams to be negatively impacted, goes a wee bit further than mere "pointing and laughing", don't you think?

Yes, they did win, and you just need a quick read on threads like this to realize that.

Achelexus:
Yes, they did win, and you just need a quick read on threads like this to realize that.

If they won, why do they need people dragging up threads that haven't been touched in almost a month to brag about it

undeadsuitor:

Achelexus:
Yes, they did win, and you just need a quick read on threads like this to realize that.

If they won, why do they need people dragging up threads that haven't been touched in almost a month to brag about it

Because a nagging part of their mind keeps reminding them that the rest of the world either never cared or moved on laughing months ago. This is how they try to validate their beliefs against reality.

Avnger:

Because a nagging part of their mind keeps reminding them that the rest of the world either never cared or moved on laughing months ago.

Oh right, "never cared". That's the barrel of laughs I required just now, thanks. Obviously, "not caring" was why "the rest of the world" went foaming-at-the-mouth hysterical about that time when regular people finally dared object to the excesses of the entrenched cronyism the clique of mean, silly kids masquerading as "journalists" was routinely inflicting on their hobby.

Discussion of the entire subject from even a neutral point of view summarily banned from most of corporate Internet? Intel pressured into pouring hundreds of millions into an ill-conceived "Muh Diversitee!" initiative for responding to customer complaints? A freaking delegation to the United Nations, in the midst of the usual wars and crises? The senior figures from developer exploitation association IGDA plotting blacklists? Seemingly the entire apparatus of "academic" game studies turned into an agit-prop press against the uncouth rabble enjoying games "non-academically"? The hundreds upon hundreds of screeching articles, including the ones crediting these gamers for electing the US President? No doubt just a bit of a giggle for all involved!

Even here at The Escapist, we've had an ample share of such non-caring, what with secret "anti-GamerGate" groups dedicated to keeping the forums embattled and what not. But I suppose you wouldn't have seen most of the dramatics, seeing as you only joined last year. Nevertheless, we see a lot of exaggerated eye rolling from people who should definitely know much better round these parts, insisting they were always just too cool to care about that awful Gamer Menace. It's hard to keep track of people who sound a lot alike, so maybe the most riled-up now confine their Internet browsing to... eh, Ghazi, The Mary Sue, and is that Mammoth blog still going? But most certainly, some people even here really did care quite a lot. Or at least blew with the prevailing winds, as it were. But now those have shifted, from overweening hubris to "retrospective" belittlement. And yet it is not over by any means.

StatusNil:

Avnger:

Because a nagging part of their mind keeps reminding them that the rest of the world either never cared or moved on laughing months ago.

Oh right, "never cared". That's the barrel of laughs I required just now, thanks. Obviously, "not caring" was why "the rest of the world" went foaming-at-the-mouth hysterical about that time when regular people finally dared object to the excesses of the entrenched cronyism the clique of mean, silly kids masquerading as "journalists" was routinely inflicting on their hobby.

Discussion of the entire subject from even a neutral point of view summarily banned from most of corporate Internet? Intel pressured into pouring hundreds of millions into an ill-conceived "Muh Diversitee!" initiative for responding to customer complaints? A freaking delegation to the United Nations, in the midst of the usual wars and crises? The senior figures from developer exploitation association IGDA plotting blacklists? Seemingly the entire apparatus of "academic" game studies turned into an agit-prop press against the uncouth rabble enjoying games "non-academically"? The hundreds upon hundreds of screeching articles, including the ones crediting these gamers for electing the US President? No doubt just a bit of a giggle for all involved!

Even here at The Escapist, we've had an ample share of such non-caring, what with secret "anti-GamerGate" groups dedicated to keeping the forums embattled and what not. But I suppose you wouldn't have seen the most of the dramatics, seeing as you only joined last year. Nevertheless, we see a lot of exaggerated eye rolling from people who should definitely know much better round these parts, insisting they were always just too cool to care about that awful Gamer Menace. It's hard to keep track of people who sound a lot alike, so maybe the most riled-up now confine their Internet browsing to... eh, Ghazi, The Mary Sue, and is that Mammoth blog still going? But most certainly, some people even here really did care quite a lot. Or at least blew with the prevailing winds, as it were. But now those have shifted, from overweening hubris to "retrospective" belittlement. And yet it is not over by any means.

"What do you mean? I never cared about Gamergate! I only spent 3 years of my life crying about it JUST to show how much I don't care."

Something also funny about a couple of these sites you mentioned.

http://alexa.com/siteinfo/themarysue.com
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wehuntedthemammoth.com

...yeah, turns out that people will try to convince themselves that they weren't really on the wrong side of history until the day they hit their graves. Can't bother much, thugh, since most people just move on and leave them behind.

StatusNil:
Oh right, "never cared". That's the barrel of laughs I required just now, thanks. Obviously, "not caring" was why "the rest of the world" went foaming-at-the-mouth hysterical about that time when regular people finally dared object to the excesses of the entrenched cronyism the clique of mean, silly kids masquerading as "journalists" was routinely inflicting on their hobby.

Hate to break it to you, but the insular gaming community and enthusiast press is only a small percentage of the world.

BeetleManiac:

StatusNil:
Oh right, "never cared". That's the barrel of laughs I required just now, thanks. Obviously, "not caring" was why "the rest of the world" went foaming-at-the-mouth hysterical about that time when regular people finally dared object to the excesses of the entrenched cronyism the clique of mean, silly kids masquerading as "journalists" was routinely inflicting on their hobby.

Hate to break it to you, but the insular gaming community and enthusiast press is only a small percentage of the world.

I made an experiment. I turned towards my colleague at work while he was browsing the latest games catalogue and asked him a question.

"Did you care about GamerGate?", I asked. He turned, looked at me and then said: "What is GamerGate?"

CaitSeith:
I made an experiment. I turned towards my colleague at work while he was browsing the latest games catalogue and asked him a question.

"Did you care about GamerGate?", I asked. He turned, looked at me and then said: "What is GamerGate?"

My experience as well. While GG was in full rage mode, I asked all my hardcore gamer buddies what they thought about it and 99% of them were like "What's GamerGate?" The other 1% said that anti-GG should stop feeding the trolls and let them fade into desperate obscurity. Come to think of it, had it not been for GG invading this site and sucking the life right out of it, I probably wouldn't have heard about it either. Huh.

So I guess, in that sense, GG did win. I mean, they didn't stop the dreaded SJ-Dubbs and they didn't stop game journos from writing about games however the fuck they feel like it and they didn't stop Tim Schafer from making games but they did attempt to ruin a few lives and they did turn this once vibrant community into a wasteland so "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" I guess. Congrats guys, don't get too drunk at your victory party.

StatusNil:

Oh right, "never cared". That's the barrel of laughs I required just now, thanks. Obviously, "not caring" was why "the rest of the world" went foaming-at-the-mouth hysterical about that time when regular people finally dared object to the excesses of the entrenched cronyism the clique of mean, silly kids masquerading as "journalists" was routinely inflicting on their hobby.

Yeah, no non-gamer I've ever talked to in real life has ever heard of gamergate and most actual people I know who play video games haven't either. Those that have, only remember that women were harassed online (since that is the only part of the story that I and most people actually care about).

Same, the only non-gamer I know that's even heard of gamergate is one of those people who's heard of everything; none of the others have the faintest clue. I've tried to explain it to someone and they just boggled at me, like I was explaining the difference between red and green to a blind person.

Chewster:

CaitSeith:
I made an experiment. I turned towards my colleague at work while he was browsing the latest games catalogue and asked him a question.

"Did you care about GamerGate?", I asked. He turned, looked at me and then said: "What is GamerGate?"

My experience as well. While GG was in full rage mode, I asked all my hardcore gamer buddies what they thought about it and 99% of them were like "What's GamerGate?" The other 1% said that anti-GG should stop feeding the trolls and let them fade into desperate obscurity. Come to think of it, had it not been for GG invading this site and sucking the life right out of it, I probably wouldn't have heard about it either. Huh.

So I guess, in that sense, GG did win. I mean, they didn't stop the dreaded SJ-Dubbs and they didn't stop game journos from writing about games however the fuck they feel like it and they didn't stop Tim Schafer from making games but they did attempt to ruin a few lives and they did turn this once vibrant community into a wasteland so "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" I guess. Congrats guys, don't get too drunk at your victory party.

Funnily, they probably do consider 'claiming' or 'winning' this site as a victory. The fact that they pretty much killed it and only the long term loyalists who won't give the site up actually want anything to do with it now passes right over their heads.

Netscape:

Discussion Questions
* Do you agree with Kukuruyo that GamerGate won?

Won what? Against whom?

* If you believe that GG has won, do you believe the battle is over, or that there is still work to be done?

Yes, it's over, it's been three years, find something else to think about.

* Do you agree with Kukuruyo's characterization of GG "as a pushback against unethical journalism in videogames, and the censorship, corruption, and political correctness that was taking a grip on the medium"?

When I think of the millions and millions of people who play video games and the, at most, few thousand people who participated in GamerGate, I don't see a pushback, a rebellion, a backlash, whatever, so much as I see a few people whining on the internet about something that made them unhappy this week.

* Do you agree that GamerGate "paved the way" for the wider societal pushback against censorship and dishonest journalism?

What wider societal pushback would that be?

* Do you believe that criticism of social justice extremism and the media has become mainstream?

Criticism? No. Complaining? Have you read Trump's Twitter feed, by any chance? Certainly a lot of complaining, but there's a difference between whining and criticizing.

* Do you agree with Kukuruyo that GamerGate supporters are mostly left-leaning?

Strange, I thought that the whole schtick of GamerGate was that it was decentralized and therefore anyone trying to make broad generalizations about the ideals or behaviors of its members was arguing with a strawman.

But given that the movement as a whole was immediately co-opted as a neoreactionary sockpuppet, it doesn't matter what the actual beliefs or philosophies of its individual members are. What matters is the effect that it had, and that effect was to push thousands of teenage boys who were having their first moment of engagement with politics and society towards Breitbart.

Well, considering how the germans still aren't the protagonists of the upcoming cod, no

I don't think there ever was anything to win. Some battles, maybe, such as having games outlets take more ethical approaches to articles, but those things were relatively minor.

It was never a movement with specific goals. There was nothing to win, or lose. It was a wound that needed mending, and it hasn't really mended.

And to everyone saying gamergate was "alt-right" or "right-wing" or "nazis": you are both super wrong and super ignorant.

Dalsyne:
I don't think there ever was anything to win. Some battles, maybe, such as having games outlets take more ethical approaches to articles, but those things were relatively minor.

It was never a movement with specific goals. There was nothing to win, or lose. It was a wound that needed mending, and it hasn't really mended.

And to everyone saying gamergate was "alt-right" or "right-wing" or "nazis": you are both super wrong and super ignorant.

Yea, I totally imagined GamerGate saying nothing about the NRA's anti gaming rhetoric while lambasting everytime some left wing talking head or journalist said something idiotic about the medium.

I TOTALLY missed Reaxxion and it getting a seal of approval from GG.

I TOTALLY missed Matt Forney and Milo getting invited to the official GamerGate pub parties.

Yup, was totes in my head.

Dalsyne:
I don't think there ever was anything to win. Some battles, maybe, such as having games outlets take more ethical approaches to articles, but those things were relatively minor.

It was never a movement with specific goals. There was nothing to win, or lose. It was a wound that needed mending, and it hasn't really mended.

And to everyone saying gamergate was "alt-right" or "right-wing" or "nazis": you are both super wrong and super ignorant.

No? They just use alt-right-speak, hold up Brietbart as a paragon of journalistic integrity (for pandering to them), imply that none of the harassment any of the 12+ LWs received happened and that they doxxed themselves to win sympathy (because "professional victims") and refer to anyone who even suggests that there might be problems with the gaming community WRT women as an "SJW."

So exactly how super-ignorant am I?

jademunky:

Dalsyne:
I don't think there ever was anything to win. Some battles, maybe, such as having games outlets take more ethical approaches to articles, but those things were relatively minor.

It was never a movement with specific goals. There was nothing to win, or lose. It was a wound that needed mending, and it hasn't really mended.

And to everyone saying gamergate was "alt-right" or "right-wing" or "nazis": you are both super wrong and super ignorant.

No? They just use alt-right-speak, hold up Brietbart as a paragon of journalistic integrity (for pandering to them), imply that none of the harassment any of the 12+ LWs received happened and that they doxxed themselves to win sympathy (because "professional victims") and refer to anyone who even suggests that there might be problems with the gaming community WRT women as an "SJW."

So exactly how super-ignorant am I?

Very. Very super-ignorant.

Breitbart has been criticized multiple times and Milo has stopped being involved in GG for about a year and a half due to not agreeing with the criticism he got. GG has no loyalty to Breitbart or any other right-wing outlet. They just don't hold them taboo.

Smithnikov:

Yea, I totally imagined GamerGate saying nothing about the NRA's anti gaming rhetoric while lambasting everytime some left wing talking head or journalist said something idiotic about the medium.

I TOTALLY missed Reaxxion and it getting a seal of approval from GG.

I TOTALLY missed Matt Forney and Milo getting invited to the official GamerGate pub parties.

Yup, was totes in my head.

Cherry-picking will get you nowhere and will only serve as further proof of ignorance. And you are blatantly, heavily cherry-picking.

There have been plenty of incidents in the last years that have happened with GG giving a "seal of approval" to many things and inviting many people to their meet-ups, of both sides of the political spectrum. You are treating tolerance of the right as if it was a crime. No. It is the right thing to do.

More to the point, the majority of GG adherents on both reddit and 4/8chan have completed political alignment tests. They are overwhelmingly left-wing.

If there is one thing GG is against it's regressive leftism. You don't have to be right-wing to carry that stance. You can even be moderate left, like I am. Stop seeing the world in black and white and things will become a lot clearer.

Dalsyne:
More to the point, the majority of GG adherents on both reddit and 4/8chan have completed political alignment tests. They are overwhelmingly left-wing.

There are currently 80,000 subscribers on KiA. I presume from what you said that this means over 40,000 have completed the political alignment test. This is an impressive response rate.

Dalsyne:

Very. Very super-ignorant.

Breitbart has been criticized multiple times and Milo has stopped being involved in GG for about a year and a half due to not agreeing with the criticism he got. GG has no loyalty to Breitbart or any other right-wing outlet. They just don't hold them taboo.

A year and as half? But gamergate started nearly 3 years ago and ceased to be talked about by anyone save it's hardcore members only a few months into it's existence.

Gamergate has turned out to be so small and insignificant that whatever they might have won or lost is pretty moot. I know I never would have heard of it if I hadn't been an active member of this site when it happened, and I have never run across the subject anywhere else without deliberately searching for it.

If we let all of you GG people say you "won" can the rest of us get back to talking about and playing video games without hearing about it (and its' ridiculous 3-ring circus of "grudges" and "enemies") ever again?

For all the super-seriousness this place has for the subject, I haven't encountered it anywhere else unless I went out of my way. My reading is everyone here was so intensely invested in it that a reaction in the real world, no matter how minuscule, was seen as the fall of Mordor or the defence of Gondor.

Parrikle:

There are currently 80,000 subscribers on KiA. I presume from what you said that this means over 40,000 have completed the political alignment test. This is an impressive response rate.

Alright, maybe I misused that word. Still, to imply that whatever subset of responders filled the tests was not representative of most people there is an extraordinary claim that requires evidence beyond "let's be serious now, we all know it".

jademunky:

A year and as half? But gamergate started nearly 3 years ago and ceased to be talked about by anyone save it's hardcore members only a few months into it's existence.

I can't help but notice the irony of you saying that given that you're on a forum section with lots of gamergate posts and neither you or I are hardcore members of gamergate yet we're talking about it right now.

Or maybe that's not irony. I don't know.

Anyway, yeah Milo was on friendly terms with GG for a while because believe it or not no matter how conservative and outrageous he is he was right about a bunch of things. And I find it frustrating that people like you expect everyone to just dismiss what a person says due to their political alignment, political views and demeanor. It's just thinly disguised hatred to me.

Dalsyne:

I can't help but notice the irony of you saying that given that you're on a forum section with lots of gamergate posts and neither you or I are hardcore members of gamergate yet we're talking about it right now.

Or maybe that's not irony. I don't know.

Yeah, I think irony is the right word, me saying nobody talks about it while talking about it.

I am hardly a good baseline for the average person on such things though, hell there was a short time where I argued on a Bigfoot subforum. Even I would not have heard much of Gamergate if not for the two megathreads here.

Anyway, yeah Milo was on friendly terms with GG for a while because believe it or not no matter how conservative and outrageous he is he was right about a bunch of things. And I find it frustrating that people like you expect everyone to just dismiss what a person says due to their political alignment, political views and demeanor. It's just thinly disguised hatred to me.

In the case of that Milo guy, it comes down to how it makes you look when you have an online personality that has become strongly associated with the harassment of women take your side. Particularly when the name of the group itself exists in order to disassociate itself from the quinnspiracy. To try to say "No, this is not a right-wing culture-war issue to us and this is not about the targeting of non-journalist women to hold up for public shaming."

Achelexus:
Yes, they did win, and you just need a quick read on threads like this to realize that.

We calling wasting everyone's time winning now?

jademunky:

In the case of that Milo guy, it comes down to how it makes you look when you have an online personality that has become strongly associated with the harassment of women take your side. Particularly when the name of the group itself exists in order to disassociate itself from the quinnspiracy. To try to say "No, this is not a right-wing culture-war issue to us and this is not about the targeting of non-journalist women to hold up for public shaming."

This is a bit silly though. Let me give a counter example: Andrea Dworkin is considered by all to have been a prominent feminist. She wrote books on the topic that some feminists take to heart nowadays. Andrea Dworkin was also a complete lunatic that considered all sex to be rape against the woman.

Yet you don't see people saying feminism is ruined forever and needs to become obsolete, or is otherwise full of lunatics, simply because Andrea Dworkin was one of them. It's called guilt by association, and it's been one of the favorite strategies of gamergate critics to undermine the movement's arguments, stances and reasoning. The idea that "gamergate likes right-winger X, therefore gamergate is right-wing (and thus, through the lens of cognitive bias, evil)" should not be part of any rational commentary or discussion. Yet it is. This is in part why I said what i said about being very wrong and very ignorant.

GG is pretty tied to "the quinnspiracy" in that if that wouldn't have happened, then it would have required another conflict of interest scandal to get GG off the ground. So there's a chance it wouldn't have happened at all. But the "targeting women" part is incredibly... should I say Kafka-esque, in that the mere presence of the female sex among the people GG dislikes invites an instant knee-jerk reaction of "they hate them just because they're women", implying none of the other reasons are remotely valid. In this case, gamergate critics have mob judgement on their side and GG supporters are forced to take a defensive position in which they're forced to prove that they're not guilty of something that has not been proven as a positive. This is, in part, why the "GG is a harassment campaign" slogan has lasted so long.

Dalsyne:

jademunky:

In the case of that Milo guy, it comes down to how it makes you look when you have an online personality that has become strongly associated with the harassment of women take your side. Particularly when the name of the group itself exists in order to disassociate itself from the quinnspiracy. To try to say "No, this is not a right-wing culture-war issue to us and this is not about the targeting of non-journalist women to hold up for public shaming."

This is a bit silly though. Let me give a counter example: Andrea Dworkin is considered by all to have been a prominent feminist. She wrote books on the topic that some feminists take to heart nowadays. Andrea Dworkin was also a complete lunatic that considered all sex to be rape against the woman.

Yet you don't see people saying feminism is ruined forever and needs to become obsolete, or is otherwise full of lunatics, simply because Andrea Dworkin was one of them. It's called guilt by association, and it's been one of the favorite strategies of gamergate critics to undermine the movement's arguments, stances and reasoning. The idea that "gamergate likes right-winger X, therefore gamergate is right-wing (and thus, through the lens of cognitive bias, evil)" should not be part of any rational commentary or discussion. Yet it is. This is in part why I said what i said about being very wrong and very ignorant.

GG is pretty tied to "the quinnspiracy" in that if that wouldn't have happened, then it would have required another conflict of interest scandal to get GG off the ground. So there's a chance it wouldn't have happened at all. But the "targeting women" part is incredibly... should I say Kafka-esque, in that the mere presence of the female sex among the people GG dislikes invites an instant knee-jerk reaction of "they hate them just because they're women", implying none of the other reasons are remotely valid. In this case, gamergate critics have mob judgement on their side and GG supporters are forced to take a defensive position in which they're forced to prove that they're not guilty of something that has not been proven as a positive. This is, in part, why the "GG is a harassment campaign" slogan has lasted so long.

Two things though

"Feminism" as a whole is a lot more encompassing and larger than the specific "gamergate", so individuals within "feminism" don't exactly taint the well as easily. (I mean, are you talking about first wave? Second wave? Third wave?)

And also? Gamergate wasn't just an answer to the Quinnspiracy, it was a direct continuation coined by Adam Baldwin who was directly referencing Quinnspiracy. Gamergate just took the specifics of the Quinnspiracy and applied it to a much larger group of people who they disagreed with. By that metric, the idea of gg being a harassment campaign is true since it's a direct continuation wjth the same people using the same tactics for the same reason.

undeadsuitor:
Two things though

"Feminism" as a whole is a lot more encompassing and larger than the specific "gamergate", so individuals within "feminism" don't exactly taint the well as easily. (I mean, are you talking about first wave? Second wave? Third wave?)

And also? Gamergate wasn't just an answer to the Quinnspiracy, it was a direct continuation coined by Adam Baldwin who was directly referencing Quinnspiracy. Gamergate just took the specifics of the Quinnspiracy and applied it to a much larger group of people who they disagreed with. By that metric, the idea of gg being a harassment campaign is true since it's a direct continuation wjth the same people using the same tactics for the same reason.

Let's go with whatever wave Andrea Dworkin was part of. Not that it matters since I've never heard anyone make the argument purely because of Dworkin, which was my point. Even staunch critics of feminism seem to agree that one person doesn't break a movement.

There was never a harassment campaign against Zoe Quinn. There was massive public backlash of the Twitter kind, and of course it was not something I agree with but if you think a bunch of people got together and conspired to push Zoe Quinn out of Twitter with the power of mean words and discouragement you're out of your mind. There were many accusations going around back then: misogynerds, sockpuppets, trolls using the hashtag. A lot of smoke and a lot of lies for what was mostly an angry mob that itself angered another mob of self-righteous people into responding in the most antagonizing way they could. I sorta watched it happen.

But beyond all that, GG is not a harassment campaign because it's not just a campaign and its method isn't and was never harassment.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here