Three Definitions of GamerGate

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

GamerGate supporter MikiSayaka33 recently posted a drawing she made on KotakuInAction, showing three different definitions of GamerGate. Each definition seems to tell a very different story, one from Wikipedia, another from Encyclopedia Dramatica and the third from Infogalactic. Please do not link to Encyclopedia Dramatica in the comments, as the site does contain NSFW content and potential dox.

Wikipedia Definition

The Gamergate controversy concerns issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate. Gamergate is used as a blanket term for the controversy, the harassment campaign and actions of those participating in it, and the loosely organized movement that emerged from the hashtag.

Encyclopedia Dramatica Definition

GamerGate occurred when the seedy antics of Zoe Quinn exposed wide scale collusion in the indie game industry, benefiting developers, reviewers, journalists, and everyone else involved. That is, everyone except for you, the gamer.

Infogalactic Definition

The 'Gamergate controversy' occurred when the publication of a sex scandal in August 2014 led to industry reactions that confirmed longstanding rumors of a cultlike clique in the video game industry that conspired to promote unqualified friends as industry experts, write false news stories to promote a political agenda, and blacklist developers and fellow journalists who did not share their politics. The indie clique was also accused of rigging award shows to promote games that members of the clique had invested in.

Discussion Questions
* How would you define GamerGate?

* Do you believe the first definition from Wikipedia is accurate? Is it biased?

* Do you believe the second definition from Encyclopedia Dramatica is accurate? Is it biased?

* Do you believe the third definition from Infogalactic is accurate? Is it biased?

* Do you believe that these three definitions are incompatible with each other?

* Why do you think three different people have come up with three different definitions of GamerGate?

Only 3? Please, there's like, 19 different definitions on this very site, if they only found 3 then they're really not looking hard enough.

- I'd define it as a joke at this point.

- Ehh, close enough.

- Nope.

- Ha, no.

-I mean, obviously, but again, there's 19 different definitions on this very site, sooo... yeah. Who cares if they're incompatible, everyone's got their own special definition! Gamergate either doesn't exist, is a losely affiliated group, a hardened cabal of hacktivists, a pack of sad neckbeards, was actually the gamers all along, was actually the feminists all along or was just a short-lived outrage before everyone involved just went back to their business and the only people still invested in the endeavor are sad, lonely, miserable individuals with no aspirations in life who have stuck blindly to the label out of a desperate need for power and are too afraid to give it up what little imaginary standing they had and return to their dreary lives. But enough about me. Oh, and it's also a hashtag, occasionally.

-Because the whole thing was a mess of sides and political groups slapping each other with fish where nobody trusted anyone to be reasonable and anyone in any official capacity (or attempting to claim themselves as an official) were either soundly ignored, misrepresented for argument fodder or just mocked for even trying to stick their foot into the mess. Throw in the delightful harassment directed at many of the people attempting to have reasonable discussions about say, Ethics in Journalism, resulting in them leaving and having a poor view of the whole shindig, well... when all you've got is an unstructured shit-fit where every boy and his Chan can fling whatever they want around, having numerous wildly different definitions is kind of a given.

...Hey, at least it makes for a fun drinking game - take a shot whenever you see someone post a different definition of Gamergate. My current record is '37', though I may have forgotten if I saw anymore after that point, Vodka doesn't play nice after the 20th round...

I see it as a smaller part of a larger culture war. I see Trump's election to the Presidency of the United States and Brexit as part of a large-scale backlash against this culture of rampant political correctness.

Ultimately, #GamerGate is what you decide it is. I made up my mind: It's a small front in a larger culture war where a fight for ethics in game journalism spiraled out of control revealing links no one would have guessed existed. Ultimately, I choose to see it as being the most successful front so far in this culture war, but I know that this is a fight that will likely never end.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And as long as these authoritarian "Social Justice" types are still highly influential, there must always be resistance against them. I may not agree with all of the people that have chosen to take up this banner(/pol/tards can fuck right off with their alt-Reich bullshit), but I believe that this is a fight worth fighting. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Doesn't mean they need to stay my friends.

When there are no more threats of censorship from these "politically correct" "Social Justice" authoritarians, THEN it is over. But until then, #GamerGate will never die, because it's a cause worth keeping alive.

The Wikipedia entry is a complete joke, and anybody who's paid any attention to what went on behind the scenes there knows it was taken over and watched in 24-hour shifts by people so invested in the subject they make my own interest in it seem fleeting by comparison. When ED, of all places on God's green earth, is doing a better job of sticking to the facts than you, you know you done goofed something fierce.

I'm partial to the Internet Meme Database definition myself

GamerGate refers to the online backlash against perceived breaches of journalistic integrity on video game news sites that occurred as a result of the Quinnspiracy, an online controversy surrounding indie game developer Zoe Quinn's alleged affairs with a number of men working in the video game industry, including Kotaku staff writer Nathan Grayson. The term has also since been used to describe the group of internet users, based mainly on Twitter, who claim that there is a lack of transparency within the video game journalism industry. These same people have also been criticized of practicing misogyny and sexism by many, most notably social justice warriors

Apart from the use of "social justice warriors" but I guess that's just the term we have to use nowadays.

@Netscape how would you define it?

I define Gamergate as:

That one time a bunch of nerds didn't know how indie self-promotion and networking work in just about every industry and decided to throw a hissy fit after the games media pointed out that if Reddit and 4chan weren't batch deleting topics you wouldn't be able to swing a dead cat around without hitting dox of the non-journalist in the equation. This lead to gamers jumping in bed with folks who only a month earlier were blaming mass shootings on video games, people who believed unsourced 4chan posts about previous gaming bugbears, and people who think an influx of vocal new fans to a medium is an unequivocal "bad thing".

They would then waste money in a few hilarious ways, notably including paying a sad man in a bathrobe and a racist Kane cosplayer upwards of nine grand a month to make a "documentary" about one of their non-journalist, non-developer enemies. Far from being a front in the "culture war", their largest exposure to the mainstream included a silly L&O:SVU episode, a secondary interview by one of their "Literally Who"s on the Colbert Report, and being investigated by the FBI.

Gaming and games journalism has proceeded as normal, albeit with a few more disclaimers.

altnameJag:
snip

That's a bit long. Why not just go for "an opportunity to be sarcastic".

Gamergate: (n) That thing only Gamergaters still give a shit about. Also, some kind of ant. What is this, a hashtag for ants?

Johnlives:

altnameJag:
snip

That's a bit long. Why not just go for "an opportunity to be sarcastic".

...You're right, that would've been funnier.

American Tanker:
I see it as a smaller part of a larger culture war. I see Trump's election to the Presidency of the United States and Brexit as part of a large-scale backlash against this culture of rampant political correctness.

Sure, Trump was in part elected to fight political correctness, because as we all know the right never engages in rampant political correctness.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2017/03/20/report-tomi-lahren-suspended-at-theblaze.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/iowa-pol-pushing-bill-get-more-gop-profs-college-campuses-n725281
http://reason.com/blog/2017/03/03/arkansas-kim-hendren-ban-howard-zinn
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/iowa-pol-pushing-bill-get-more-gop-profs-college-campuses-n725281
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/29/president-elect-trump-calls-for-flag-burning-ban/

American Tanker:
When there are no more threats of censorship from these "politically correct" "Social Justice" authoritarians, THEN it is over. But until then, #GamerGate will never die, because it's a cause worth keeping alive.

So GamerGate supporters decided to fight back against out of control political correctness by...demanding that journalists never criticize gamers, gamer culture and their favorite games and putting the offending outlets out of business?

I'd say that the Wikipedia entry is the closest if I had to pick one. At least that entry seems to admit that the harassment campaign actually happened while the other two seem to imply that 'gamers' were quietly minding their own business when the evil Zoey Quinn suddenly jumped in front of their desktops and refused to budge.

altnameJag:
I define Gamergate as:

That one time a bunch of nerds didn't know how indie self-promotion and networking work in just about every industry and decided to throw a hissy fit after the games media pointed out that if Reddit and 4chan weren't batch deleting topics you wouldn't be able to swing a dead cat around without hitting dox of the non-journalist in the equation. This lead to gamers jumping in bed with folks who only a month earlier were blaming mass shootings on video games, people who believed unsourced 4chan posts about previous gaming bugbears, and people who think an influx of vocal new fans to a medium is an unequivocal "bad thing".

They would then waste money in a few hilarious ways, notably including paying a sad man in a bathrobe and a racist Kane cosplayer upwards of nine grand a month to make a "documentary" about one of their non-journalist, non-developer enemies. Far from being a front in the "culture war", their largest exposure to the mainstream included a silly L&O:SVU episode, a secondary interview by one of their "Literally Who"s on the Colbert Report, and being investigated by the FBI.

Gaming and games journalism has proceeded as normal, albeit with a few more disclaimers.

You forgot that one time they donated a paltry sum to a Kickstarter and didn't shut up about it for 5 years

That time they created a group of diverse gg supporters called "not your shield", and then preceeded to use them as nothing but a shield before dropping them at the earliest convenience

And that time they made a "Mccarthy list of un-American citizens" for the game journalist industry in an attempt to shut them down. While preaching about the virtues of free speech and anti censorship

undeadsuitor:

That time they created a group of diverse gg supporters called "not your shield", and then preceeded to use them as nothing but a shield before dropping them at the earliest convenience

I do believe you're mistaken about just which side of this issue regularly employs manufactured "diversity" astroturf as a crude implement of supposedly irrefutable validation. The #notyourshield hashtag wasn't for anyone to "use" or "drop", except the ones who used it to represent themselves.

It may be a challenging concept to grasp in this day and age, given how routinely Team SocJus bros speak for "all muh womenz" and such "marginal" groups, even to drown out any actual representatives of those groups who would rather not be spoken for by the self-designated overseers of the Progressive Plantation. But once you make the effort, it makes quite a difference.

American Tanker:

Exley97:
because as we all know the right never engages in rampant political correctness.

I'd assume the Tanker knows that seeing as he commented on his dislike for the more, let's go for impertinent members of that crowd.

I'm curious, do you see any merit in the Libertarian vs. Authoritarian perspective of the siuation, rather than Right vs. Left?

Netscape:
* Why do you think three different people have come up with three different definitions of GamerGate?

If you asked a hundred different people you'd get a hundred different definitions of Gamergate. I don't know why this still surprises you at this point.

Also, you're being horrendously disingenuous conflating the three definitions you posted with "three people", especially considering the Wikipedia page went to an arbitration panel (more than once I think?) and most of the findings and rulings were unanimous.

Ogoid:
The Wikipedia entry is a complete joke, and anybody who's paid any attention to what went on behind the scenes there knows it was taken over and watched in 24-hour shifts by people so invested in the subject they make my own interest in it seem fleeting by comparison. When ED, of all places on God's green earth, is doing a better job of sticking to the facts than you, you know you done goofed something fierce.

If there's one thing that GG should teach you that should worry you, it's that Wikipedia is structurally incapable of giving fair coverage to anything that is anti-media, or at least anti-established-media. At least not without violating their own rules pretty severely. Which on one hand will happen depending on the politics of the situation and on the other can actually be fought. I actually won one of those arguments on a non-GG related topic by offering to apply the standard they were creating to keep a name off a list article to the rest of the list, which I think made the neutral folks realize it wasn't a fight over standards but politics.

The second thing GG should teach you is that virtually all news media is "fake news", on the offchance you hadn't figured that one out yet.

Why do you think three different people have come up with three different definitions of GamerGate?

Because it depends on which end of the stick you were on. I don't have a personal definition to share because I stopped to follow the GG controversy closely as soon as they were demanding journalists to write articles about Zoe's sex life. Nope, I don't want game journalism to become TMZ, thank you.

With regards to the Wikipedia article, allow me to quote Captain John Price, SAS 22nd Regiment and Task Force 141:

"History is written by the victors. History is filled with liars."

Am I suggesting everyone on Wikipedia are liars? No. But I am suggesting that the ones writing the #GamerGate article there aren't exactly telling the truth.

undeadsuitor:

You forgot that one time they donated a paltry sum to a Kickstarter and didn't shut up about it for 5 years

That time they created a group of diverse gg supporters called "not your shield", and then preceeded to use them as nothing but a shield before dropping them at the earliest convenience

And that time they made a "Mccarthy list of un-American citizens" for the game journalist industry in an attempt to shut them down. While preaching about the virtues of free speech and anti censorship

Look, they created a sad lady puppet who needs more friends and doesn't seem to enjoy gaming much to be their mascot then got kicked off of 4chan, home of /pol/, for being too much of a pain in the ass. I'm skipping over a lot of stuff.

My own definition?

A loosely organized reaction hashtag and movement created in response to clickbait articles and collusion between a select number of games journalists, quickly turning into a right wing think tank primarily targeted towards the gamer subculture.

American Tanker:

So GamerGate supporters decided to fight back against out of control political correctness by...demanding that journalists never criticize gamers, gamer culture and their favorite games and putting the offending outlets out of business?

Oh no, criticizing and gamer bashing from RIGHT WING sources like Rebel Media and the NRA are still hunky dory.

Remember, this is a war to fight liberals, not preserve gaming, silly billy.

altnameJag:

And that time they made a "Mccarthy list of un-American citizens" for the game journalist industry in an attempt to shut them down.

And it was a heck of a broad list, considering that the New Yorker and Newsweek counted as game journalism sources.

Johnlives:

American Tanker:

Exley97:
because as we all know the right never engages in rampant political correctness.

I'd assume the Tanker knows that seeing as he commented on his dislike for the more, let's go for impertinent members of that crowd.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, and that may be my fault for posting something snarky and sarcastic. To clarify, I think all of the right-leaning criticism of rampant political correctness by "SJWs" and "libtards" is hypocritical BULLSHIT. Republicans and right wingers get just as offended as liberals and Democrats, and they do their level best to curb and restrict speech and expression they deem un-American. So we can sit here and claim one side is more "impertinent" with PC than the other (and lord knows the left has earned its criticism with the gross overreaction to Milo Yiannopoulos, as an example), but when you have Republican legislators literally trying to criminalize protests and ban books (again), I'm not sure anyone gets to claim they're on the correct side of the equation. And for the record, if right wingers boycott the Dixie Chicks and rename French Fries because they're so outraged by criticism of President Bush/the Iraq War (LOL, what a hill to die on) and then they freak out about a quarterback TAKING A KNEE during the national anthem, then I don't want to hear their bullshit about how liberals are they easily triggered special snowflakes and conservatives are the protectors of free speech. Because it's just that -- bullshit.

So no, I don't think Tanker knows what I'm getting at, seeing as he/she thinks Trump's election will marshal in some PC-free America. It won't. It's only shifted liberal PC for conservative PC.

Johnlives:

I'm curious, do you see any merit in the Libertarian vs. Authoritarian perspective of the siuation, rather than Right vs. Left?

I do see merit, but mostly in theory because very few people on the left or right truly practice Libertarianism in this regard (Cato Institute, Popehat, Cornel West & Robert George, etc.). A lot of folks claim to be free speech advocates that reside on the bottom half of the political spectrum, but when it comes time to walk the walk instead of just talking it, they mostly bend and buckle and find ways to justify their own gross behavior in defense of THEIR beliefs rather than free speech. This goes for students on college campuses, politicians and legislators, and yes, gamers too.

As I hinted at in my first post, it's very easy to criticize the opposition for imposing PC or groupthink when you don't have to look inward and take a long, hard look at what your side is doing. It's very easy to proclaim YOU are the true defender of free speech while apparently forgetting/dismissing that you got triggered into a gross overreaction to something that was written or said that you didn't like.

Well, this isn't as fun as I thought it would be. I can only laugh at Gamergate so many times. But, fine, I'll play:

*How would you define GamerGate?

Long Version: "A loosely organized movement that is supposedly based on preserving ethics in games journalism, but in reality is a hodge podge of eclectic individuals with eclectic beliefs, among the most common of which are that games are too "diverse," that the identity of "gamer" has been hijacked, that games should be judged solely on mechanics and not as art (by extension, games should never be put under the same scrutiny that other forms of media do in regards to theme or commentary), and that the definition of a "game" is too broad."

Short Version: Status quo warriors fighting from a keyboard

*Definitions Stuff*

The Wikipedia entry is easily the most accurate. The second entry loses a large amount of credibility, when it uses phrasing like "seedy antics" (yep, really encyclopedic material there). The third entry has a veneer of objectivity, even if it makes a wide variety of claims.

*Do you believe that these three definitions are incompatible with each other?*

Not necessarily - it's technically possible that some grand conspiracy exists, and that those who unveiled the "conpsiracy" resorted to shitty tactics via a hashtag. Problem is, the latter is true, and this sort of behaviour existed before Gamergate, and continues to exist long afterwards - beligerance, entitlement, etc. On the other, whatever claims of breaches in ethics Gamergate claims to have uncovered have been so minor that these have been blown out of preportion, to the point where looking at the supposed conflicts of interest, I have to ask, "how is this an issue?"

*Why do you think three different people have come up with three different definitions of GamerGate?*

Wikipedia at least would have to have more than one person write that definition. Also, same reason anyone has different opinions on anything. The definition of something can vary based on one's views on the issue.

American Tanker:

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. And as long as these authoritarian "Social Justice" types are still highly influential, there must always be resistance against them. I may not agree with all of the people that have chosen to take up this banner(/pol/tards can fuck right off with their alt-Reich bullshit), but I believe that this is a fight worth fighting. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Doesn't mean they need to stay my friends.

When there are no more threats of censorship from these "politically correct" "Social Justice" authoritarians, THEN it is over. But until then, #GamerGate will never die, because it's a cause worth keeping alive.

Yeah, sure, buddy. But who watches the watchers?

undeadsuitor:

That time they created a group of diverse gg supporters called "not your shield", and then preceeded to use them as nothing but a shield before dropping them at the earliest convenience

I remember that. I was tempted to try and spread a hashtag of "not in my name" or something, but decided that it wasn't worth the effort. Years on, that seems like the right decision - the smell of shit being thrown around doesn't always wash off.

Ogoid:

The second thing GG should teach you is that virtually all news media is "fake news", on the offchance you hadn't figured that one out yet.

So, wait, you mean that going by the news last night, there wasn't a hurricane in Queensland? That Turnbull and Shorten didn't engage in a shouting match in parliment? That Donald Trump didn't announce de-regulation of the coal industry in the US? That when they told me it would be raining tomorrow, they were guessing? I mean, it's raining right now, but hey, what do I know?

It's funny how the proponents of the "fake news" idea claim to have a monopoly on truth, and that Trump himself, the one who at least contributed to the meme, has been caught lying time and again.

I'll comment here as a long-time Wikipedia editor:

The Wikipedia entry is reasonably accurate, given the constraints of Wikipedia. There is more complex tale to be told, but as Wikipedia can only rely on verifiable and reliable sources, it is limited to what is published rather than what we might feel to be true. Thus while I find that the article is mostly correct, I would add a bit more from the perspective of some GamerGate supporters.

Encylopedia Dramatica we can drop. They're not trying to be accurate - it isn't what they do.

Infogalactic is more interesting. The definition is highly partisan, being written by a single GamerGate supporter. In which case it gives a perspective on how a supporter sees the movement. That's not, of course, how those of us looking from teh outside see it.

Infogalatic itself is not currently a viable project, and the new content will tend to be more biased that Wikipedia. I have no faith in it as a Wikipedia alternative. Citizendium was better, but ultimately unsuccessful.

Parrikle:

The Wikipedia entry is reasonably accurate, given the constraints of Wikipedia.

Which would appear severely crippling for the purposes of accuracy in any traditional sense of the word, seeing as those constraints consist of "whatever interpretation a completely biased clique of favored editors can get away with cobbling together from quote mining a list of approved publications that are heavily biased to begin with", especially in the case of a controversy in which the media is inextricably one of the sides involved in itself. Let's not pretend we haven't seen the talk pages with excited "encyclopedians" rushing in with more and more shrill condemnations they've managed to locate in some manifesto to find out if they could somehow be construed as sources "reliable" enough to gleefully heap more scorn on the notorious "hate movement".

Can't think of a time I've witnessed a more cringeworthy charade. I have to at least admire the chutzpah of defending this mess as "reasonably accurate" in public as an editor yourself, but my friendly advice would be to start establishing some distance from the sadly foundering wreck of the Grand Project asap. What "credibility" it has is only held together through wilful denial of the plain-as-day obvious and the sheer laziness of people looking up the first link that comes up on Google, even though they are fully aware they shouldn't. When the tide turns, there won't be any defenders of these shenanigans with any reservoirs of sincerity to draw resolve from.

StatusNil:

Parrikle:

The Wikipedia entry is reasonably accurate, given the constraints of Wikipedia.

Which would appear severely crippling for the purposes of accuracy in any traditional sense of the word, seeing as those constraints consist of "whatever interpretation a completely biased clique of favored editors can get away with cobbling together from quote mining a list of approved publications that are heavily biased to begin with", especially in the case of a controversy in which the media is inextricably one of the sides involved in itself.

This whole "media is inextricably one of the sides involved" only holds if you feel that the bulk of mainstream media has anything to do with what was happening in GamerGate. GG involved a relatively small number of specialist publications, almost exclusively online. That the media which had nothing to do with GamerGate - along with academic publications - found it to be largely a harassment campaign is either evidence of a grand conspiracy, or evidence that the few defending GamerGate are incorrect. I'm going with the latter.

Simply saying that "everyone is inextricably involved" doesn't make it so. The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Time, the BBC, Business Insider, Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, The Washington Post, the Toronto Star - these are not inextricably linked to GamerGate except in the eyes of those who imagine a great enemy targeting them from ivory and politically correct towers.

Parrikle:

This whole "media is inextricably one of the sides involved" only holds if you feel that the bulk of mainstream media has anything to do with what was happening in GamerGate. GG involved a relatively small number of specialist publications, almost exclusively online. That the media which had nothing to do with GamerGate - along with academic publications - found it to be largely a harassment campaign is either evidence of a grand conspiracy, or evidence that the few defending GamerGate are incorrect. I'm going with the latter.

And yet, for all that, the bulk of mainstream media never seems to be either willing or able to provide actual evidence of Gamergate being linked to any "harassment campaign", which leads me to believe they are just glad, either out of a sense of corporatism toward their figurative younger and kinda slow sibling, or out of sheer laziness and incompetence, to mindlessly parrot their equally unsubstantiated claims.

Parrikle:

This whole "media is inextricably one of the sides involved" only holds if you feel that the bulk of mainstream media has anything to do with what was happening in GamerGate. GG involved a relatively small number of specialist publications, almost exclusively online. That the media which had nothing to do with GamerGate - along with academic publications - found it to be largely a harassment campaign is either evidence of a grand conspiracy, or evidence that the few defending GamerGate are incorrect. I'm going with the latter.

Simply saying that "everyone is inextricably involved" doesn't make it so. The New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Time, the BBC, Business Insider, Nordic Journal of Science and Technology Studies, The Washington Post, the Toronto Star - these are not inextricably linked to GamerGate except in the eyes of those who imagine a great enemy targeting them from ivory and politically correct towers.

While there is a great deal yet to learn about the networks operating between such media institutions (Journolist, anyone?), the whole tone of the coverage was settled early on by the likes of The Guardian, who got their entire script for dealing with the scandal from one of the prime instigators of the "Gamers Are Dead" campaign which effectively provoked the protests into being, Leigh Alexander. Not to mention the "reputable to Wikipedia" likes of Gawker and Vox conglomerates, with their number of "vertical" siblings of Kotaku and Polygon respectively contributing a wide front to the narrative assault. And the sad truth is that even many of the more august of the outlets you mentioned now explicitly identify in the same class as the aforementioned blogs, their legacy paper editions notwithstanding, as clearly evinced by the number of teary-eyed hymnals mourning the memory of Gawker proper in the wake of the ignominious demise of that particular trash heap they have published between them.

In short, these outlets are only reprinting a second-hand narrative that had already been prepared by the gutter blogs they consider peers, rather than doing any investigating of their own. That's not because they are a "great" enemy by any means, only a puffed-up bunch of "this-will-do" charlatans squatting in the crumbling ivory towers left vacant by the nearly extinct professional elite.

As for "academic publications", I am familiar enough with the genre in the field of humanities and social studies that I know better than venture into contemplating their reliability, for legitimate fear of laughter-induced injury.

StatusNil:

In short, these outlets are only reprinting a second-hand narrative

As opposed to what? The primary PR narrative regurgitated by gamergate itself?

I thought you guys were for ethics in journalism. What's ethical about demanding news outlets portray your group using words pre-approved by gamergate itself?

undeadsuitor:

StatusNil:

In short, these outlets are only reprinting a second-hand narrative

As opposed to what? The primary PR narrative regurgitated by gamergate itself?

I thought you guys were for ethics in journalism. What's ethical about demanding news outlets portray your group using words pre-approved by gamergate itself?

I can't believe I have to spell this out. If there is a controversy, the responsible thing to do in reporting it would be at the very least allowing every side a voice to make their case, rather than just taking down the dictation of one and calling it the truth. At no point was there any shortage of individuals (even if pseudonymous ones) available to explain what the protest was about from their point of view. In fact, people coined a goddamn dismissive term ("sealioning") for it, so ubiquitous were the explanations no one in the media saw fit to acknowledge. Then there is always the simple technique of observing what is after all taking place very much in public. Also it helps reporting such matters if the writer has at least the barest inkling of how the Internet, "social media" and human beings function in practice.

So you see, all sides get to present their rationale. "Johnny Wankbeard of Kotaku says these are all nazi misogynists who want to persecute teh womenz because reasons. Meanwhile, the 80 people using the hashtag on Twitter we talked to provided detailed accounts of numerous conflicts of interest flaunted by Kotaku, as well as pointing out Wankbeard's history of publishing articles such as 'Gamers Are Stupid Assfaces And We Hate Them'." Then the reader can come to their own conclusion about what the whole thing is about.

StatusNil:

undeadsuitor:

StatusNil:

In short, these outlets are only reprinting a second-hand narrative

As opposed to what? The primary PR narrative regurgitated by gamergate itself?

I thought you guys were for ethics in journalism. What's ethical about demanding news outlets portray your group using words pre-approved by gamergate itself?

I can't believe I have to spell this out. If there is a controversy, the responsible thing to do in reporting it would be at the very least allowing every side a voice to make their case, rather than just taking down the dictation of one and calling it the truth. At no point was there any shortage of individuals (even if pseudonymous ones) available to explain what the protest was about from their point of view. In fact, people coined a goddamn dismissive term ("sealioning") for it, so ubiquitous were the explanations no one in the media saw fit to acknowledge. Then there is always the simple technique of observing what is after all taking place very much in public. Also it helps reporting such matters if the writer has at least the barest inkling of how the Internet, "social media" and human beings function in practice.

So you see, all sides get to present their rationale. "Johnny Wankbeard of Kotaku says these are all nazi misogynists who want to persecute teh womenz because reasons. Meanwhile, the 80 people using the hashtag on Twitter we talked to provided detailed accounts of numerous conflicts of interest flaunted by Kotaku, as well as pointing out Wankbeard's history of publishing articles such as 'Gamers Are Stupid Assfaces And We Hate Them'." Then the reader can come to their own conclusion about what the whole thing is about.

hilarious bias aside, you've just traded one POV for another.

Shouldn't an "equal" representation of gamergate also include the bad things they've done? All you've done is smear the media, cover up GG's faults, and then say "COME UP WITH A CONCLUSION BASED ON THE LEADING INFORMATION I'VE JUST PROVIDED"

You're no better than the people you claim to hate.

StatusNil:
In short, these outlets are only reprinting a second-hand narrative that had already been prepared by the gutter blogs they consider peers, rather than doing any investigating of their own. That's not because they are a "great" enemy by any means, only a puffed-up bunch of "this-will-do" charlatans squatting in the crumbling ivory towers left vacant by the nearly extinct professional elite.

This is the problem you run into. There are at least three perspectives of GamerGate - that of the supporters, that of those involved, and that of those outside, such as the general media and academics. The latter two are mostly aligned, but differ substantially from the view GamerGate supporters have of themselves. This is then turned into "the media is universally against us", or "the media just copies from each other and don't bother seeing what we're really about".

There's certainly a case to be made that GamerGate was difficult to get a grasp on - I'm reminded of Jesse Singal's piece, where he detailed trying to find out about GamerGate: http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/10/gamergate-should-stop-lying-to-itself.html But even if you did have some luck in accessing how GamerGaters see themselves, you still find misogyny, harassment, insults, and somewhere lost in the mess some complaints about ethics. In "Sexism in the circuitry" http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=2695577.2695582 the author makes a similar point - even if you accept that there are valid ethics concerns within GamerGate, the messages remain tarred by association.

By necessity, Wikipedia has to follow the mainstream view, and I haven't seen anyone argue convincingly that Wikipedia is failing to do so with GamerGate. Following the mainstream is virtually the only way a viable crowd-sourced encylopaedia can function. But while people on the fringe may feel that the mainstream view misrepresents them, this doesn't mean that they really are being misrepresented, or that there is even a means for the mainstream to come to a different view.

Ogoid:

And yet, for all that, the bulk of mainstream media never seems to be either willing or able to provide actual evidence of Gamergate being linked to any "harassment campaign", which leads me to believe they are just glad, either out of a sense of corporatism toward their figurative younger and kinda slow sibling, or out of sheer laziness and incompetence, to mindlessly parrot their equally unsubstantiated claims.

Beause Gamnergate was co-opted conservative stupidity at its finest and better political dialogues can be found elsewhere? Like the raving lunatic who sleeps on my street corner. I'd pick Alex Jones over any mouthpiece in Gamergate.

At least Jones is funny.

If Gamergate could stand on its own ... you wouldn't have desperate people like Netscape and you pretending like it had extensions beyond gamer entitlement and the people that capitalised on it despite hating gamers. Spending fucking hours trying to find a way to connect it to a larger 'culture war' (a seriously overused statement) and literally everyone else with a lick of sense saying that is moronic beyond the pale.

You know how many people have even said anything about GG from now until it started to me, in person? Once. And only because I was arguing in favour of videogames as a sociological device to understanding deeper ideas of reflexivity in the fragmentation of selfhood that occurs in things like net citizenship and what a human hivemind might look like through MMI, submerged neural interfaces and shared sense data.

Once.

And it was a stupid comment then and it's a stupid comment now. In the same way that Gamergate is so desperate to attach itself to other movements and spokespeople like Milo, to Trump ... I feel at this point they're merely masochists who are demanding attention despite having nothing of substance to offer.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Beause Gamnergate was co-opted conservative stupidity at its finest and better political dialogues can be found elsewhere? Like the raving lunatic who sleeps on my street corner. I'd pick Alex Jones over any mouthpiece in Gamergate.

At least Jones is funny.

If Gamergate could stand on its own ... you wouldn't have desperate people like Netscape and you pretending like it had extensions beyond gamer entitlement and the people that capitalised on it despite hating gamers. Spending fucking hours trying to find a way to connect it to a larger 'culture war' (a seriously overused statement) and literally everyone else with a lick of sense saying that is moronic beyond the pale.

You know how many people have even said anything about GG from now until it started to me, in person? Once. And only because I was arguing in favour of videogames as a sociological device to understanding deeper ideas of reflexivity in the fragmentation of selfhood that occurs in things like net citizenship and what a human hivemind might look like through MMI, submerged neural interfaces and shared sense data.

Once.

And it was a stupid comment then and it's a stupid comment now. In the same way that Gamergate is so desperate to attach itself to other movements and spokespeople like Milo, to Trump ... I feel at this point they're merely masochists who are demanding attention despite having nothing of substance to offer.

It's really not Gamergate, in my experience, that's "desperate to attach itself" to any political ideology or movement; in fact, it's mostly its opponents that do that.

Case in point, Yiannopoulos. He actually covered a part of the story most media outlets out there were plugging their ears and screaming at the top of their lungs didn't actually exist, some of us - myself included - appreciated it, and that was the full extent of it. Yet to hear the media tell it, I agree with every single thing the man ever said (which may or may not actually have been wilful shit-stirring, something he'd be the first to tell you he revels in).

Same thing with Trump. I couldn't have voted for him if I wanted to, since, you know, I don't live in so much as the same hemisphere as the US - and for the record, I wouldn't even if I could. But all those articles about Gamergate being the "canary in the coalmine" with regards to Trump or the even more nebulous bogeyman of the "alt-right"? Yeah, those weren't written by its supporters.

 Pages 1 2 3 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