Three Definitions of GamerGate

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Ogoid:

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).

Yes, all of the hateful garbage he keeps spewing into the world. Even the point where he called gamers rapists, for instance. Glad to know you agree with a person, who called gamers rapists, because they plugged a story no one else wanted to, because why would they want to? Apparently Alexander is worse because of an article no one actually read and realised what it was actually about. And then you wonder why Gamergate never had any real steam to begin with because, to our credit, most of our numbers actually have reading comprehension and a longterm memory store.

Or maybe that's asking too much of the average gater?

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.

Glad to know we can just ignore it as a whole then.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

Yes, all of the hateful garbage he keeps spewing into the world. Even the point where he called gamers rapists, for instance. Glad to know you agree with a person, who called gamers rapists, because they plugged a story no one else wanted to, because why would they want to? Apparently Alexander is worse because of an article no one actually read and realised what it was actually about. And then you wonder why Gamergate never had any real steam to begin with because, to our credit, most of our numbers actually have reading comprehension and a longterm memory store.

Or maybe that's asking too much of the average gater?

Aye, he did insult gamers. But see, for all my pigheadedness, I'd like to think I'm a reasonable guy, and he apologized for it. I don't even particularly care if it was a sincere apology, in all honesty (though, since he hasn't really gone back on it in all this time, I'm inclined to consider it was). If either Totilo or Grayson had done so, however insincerely they actually meant it, I wouldn't be here right now.

Instead we had an obviously coordinated narrative pushed not only by Alexander (whose article I did read and perfectly understand, thank you very much), but by a couple dozen supposedly competing websites and, as time went on, by mainstream media as well.

So here we are instead.

As to "why would they want to", chalk that up to my hopeless naivete in believing journalists were supposed to report on facts, a notion they've done quite a good job of thoroughly disabusing me of ever since.

Ogoid:

Aye, he did insult gamers. But see, for all my pigheadedness, I'd like to think I'm a reasonable guy, and he apologized for it. I don't even particularly care if it was a sincere apology, in all honesty (though, since he hasn't really gone back on it in all this time, I'm inclined to consider it was). If either Totilo or Grayson had done so, however insincerely they actually meant it, I wouldn't be here right now.

And for all the other hateful garbage he spouted that is factually wrong? Or the fact that he used Sentinel Media to plug the products of companies he had friends with/in, and try to sabotage the businesses for which had called him out on it? Morality seems to be quite flexible in the camp of ethical journalism.

Instead we had an obviously coordinated narrative pushed not only by Alexander (whose article I did read and perfectly understand, thank you very much), but by a couple dozen supposedly competing websites and, as time went on, by mainstream media as well.

So here we are instead.

Obvious narrative being; "Gamers aren't reactionary dudebros..."?

Glad we proved them wrong. This shit right here is why I prefer board gaming circles, tbqh.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

And for all the other hateful garbage he spouted that is factually wrong? Or the fact that he used Sentinel Media to plug the products of companies he had friends with/in, and try to sabotage the businesses for which had called him out on it? Morality seems to be quite flexible in the camp of ethical journalism.

Like I said, I found his coverage of Gamergate refreshingly honest, and that was the full extent of my interest in anything pertaining or relating to Milo Yiannopoulos. I'm not familiar with "all the other hateful garbage" he spouted or shady stuff he did, and quite frankly, I'm simply not invested in the guy enough to care.

Ogoid:

Like I said, I found his coverage of Gamergate refreshingly honest, and that was the full extent of my interest in anything pertaining or relating to Milo Yiannopoulos. I'm not familiar with "all the other hateful garbage" he spouted or shady stuff he did, and quite frankly, I'm simply not invested in the guy enough to care.

He is literally everything and worse that the Gamergate crowd pretended to be against ... and yeah, pointing this out is important for why Gamergate was generally hated for from the start. It's not about investment, it's about hypocrisy. I was all for more ethical journalism of all stripes ... because, who exactly can be against that?

No real videogamer would ever want to give clicks to Yiannopoulos barring the very masochistic amongst us. And this same moronic trend in threads like this are persistent. It's alnmost as if the only press Gamergate could get is by being genuinely awful and propping up, like you do right now, genuinely awful people that is the polar opposite of whatever nobility might be in the Gamergate message.

Yes ... I'm calling you out, personally ... because in one post you're bantering on about how great he was, then pretending like he wasn't exactly the type of journalist Gamergate should have been opposing. You not 'being invested enough' is a garbage argument and you know it. You're not being 'reasonable' ... you're being hypocritical.

Either you believe in journalism ethics and intelligent consumption, or you don't ... but don't pretend us that have a problem with Gamergate for all the reasons you express in totality are the ones pushing a narrative. You don't see movements within anti-Trump protests saying: "Down with Trump..." Also turning around and saying; "Bannon is okay, though."

Jim Sterling is the real Gamergate. He's also done way more than anyone of your keyboard jockeys.

Addendum_Forthcoming:

He is literally everything and worse that the Gamergate crowd pretended to be against ... and yeah, pointing this out is important for why Gamergate was generally hated for from the start. It's not about investment, it's about hypocrisy. I was all for more ethical journalism of all stripes ... because, who exactly can be against that?

No real videogamer would ever want to give clicks to Yiannopoulos barring the very masochistic amongst us. And this same moronic trend in threads like this are persistent. It's alnmost as if the only press Gamergate could get is by being genuinely awful and propping up, like you do right now, genuinely awful people that is the polar opposite of whatever nobility might be in the Gamergate message.

Yes ... I'm calling you out, personally ... because in one post you're bantering on about how great he was, then pretending like he wasn't exactly the type of journalist Gamergate should have been opposing. You not 'being invested enough' is a garbage argument and you know it. You're not being 'reasonable' ... you're being hypocritical.

Either you believe in journalism ethics and intelligent consumption, or you don't ... but don't pretend us that have a problem with Gamergate for all the reasons you express in totality are the ones pushing a narrative. You don't see movements within anti-Trump protests saying: "Down with Trump..." Also turning around and saying; "Bannon is okay, though."

Jim Sterling is the real Gamergate. He's also done way more than anyone of your keyboard jockeys.

Okay, this will probably be my last response, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself and we're already way off topic here.

Yiannopoulos, for all the faults I have no problem whatsoever assuming he does have, wasn't the one caught in a gaming-specific conflict of interest; he wasn't the one whose buddies in a secret mailing list were discussing how to protect. He owned up to past disparaging remarks and apologized for them, which is more than I can say of any other "journalist" involved in this whole brouhaha, and for that he has a modicum of my respect - but precisely jack diddly squat more than that.

Because, as I have stated multiple times now - he's not some personal hero of mine, as much as media, gaming or otherwise, would have anyone who's listening believe. My opinion of him, yet again, boils down to "he wrote a couple of articles about one specific subject in which I thought he did a good job". Period. Full stop. End of. So if you could point me to just precisely where, exactly, I "bantered" about "how great he was", I would be very thankful.

And speaking of hypocrisy, I find it particularly ironic you should bring up Jimothy Fucking Sterling Son, firebrand and consumer advocate extraordinaire, who'll defend the shit out of consumers.. as long as his personal friends aren't the ones shitting on consumers, of course, because then we should all calm down and try to see both sides, because let's be reasonable here, guys.

Ogoid:

Okay, this will probably be my last response, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself and we're already way off topic here.

Yiannopoulos, for all the faults I have no problem whatsoever assuming he does have, wasn't the one caught in a gaming-specific conflict of interest; he wasn't the one whose buddies in a secret mailing list were discussing how to protect. He owned up to past disparaging remarks and apologized for them, which is more than I can say of any other "journalist" involved in this whole brouhaha, and for that he has a modicum of my respect - but precisely jack diddly squat more than that.

Yeah, well, most of us aren't that flexible.

Because, as I have stated multiple times now - he's not some personal hero of mine, as much as media, gaming or otherwise, would have anyone who's listening believe. My opinion of him, yet again, boils down to "he wrote a couple of articles about one specific subject in which I thought he did a good job". Period. Full stop. End of. So if you could point me to just precisely where, exactly, I "bantered" about "how great he was", I would be very thankful.

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).

How else should people interpret that?

And speaking of hypocrisy, I find it particularly ironic you should bring up Jimothy Fucking Sterling Son, firebrand and consumer advocate extraordinaire, who'll defend the shit out of consumers.. as long as his personal friends aren't the ones shitting on consumers, of course, because then we should all calm down and try to see both sides, because let's be reasonable here, guys.

Yes, let's be reasonable and call a hypocrite who has never cared for ethics or personal integrity a person who co-opted a movement pretending to be about journalist ethics and personal integrity a hypocrite.

Your argument could apply to the best and worst of people everywhere. If you simply surgically isolated one behaviour or event to the exclusion of all else, he might look different. Chiang Kai Shek looks different. Thatcher looks different. The difference is, most of us will not look at it like that. Nor should we. Everybody was pointing at Yiannopoulos and saying; "You know, he's the creepiest, most repulsive individual to head up your journalist ethics crusade you could imagine ... don't you think you guys not calling him out on his past and his current garbage looks bad for you?"

Lo and behold, the media called you out on it by the spokespeople nobody in Gamergate decided to bother calling out their own and doing inhouse cleaning. Funny that. Milo played the lot of you. Even now you're making excuses for him. So yeah, let's be reasonable here. There is zero reason anybody actually interested in journalism integrity would ever want to associate within a hundred miles of complete cunts like him.

A joke. That's my definition. And not a particularly good one.

Johnlives:
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 got to agree with this one, closest I have seen so far.

I'd change the "by social justice warriors" to "by the media and personalities accused of ethical and professional breeches" if I wanted to make it more accurate. After all, the claims of harassment by the whole is unfounded garbage pushed in response to the audience demanding the media address the elephant in the room of the unethical and unprofessional behavior.

On the wiki-
Wikipedia is garbage. All it got correct was that the term applies to three aspects, the rest is an unfounded lie. What is more, the site itself forced the horribly biased perspective as rules lawyers on the site manipulated the system to push their politics. You can go back and look at how anyone pro-gamergate was drummed out of the ability to edit by site politics, some even accused of harassment in order to get them kicked. That leaves nothing but very politically motivated against gamergate individuals manipulating what is allowable as a source based on their whims rather than any actual desire for accuracy. Not surprisingly, it is an entirely one-sided regurgitation of the narrative the media was trying to push, devoid of honesty or accuracy, with sources that themselves are nothing but a circle jerk of referencing each other.

Honestly, basic practice of recusing those involved or those connected to those involved should have meant that sites directly involved in crafting the narrative shouldn't be allowed to be used as sources in the first place, let alone the only ones used as it. Instead, I watched the site play a shell game where any independent reporting of the controversy is deemed unusable because of technicalities, but sites biased against it are defended as valid, regardless how directly connected the publication, or the author is to the controversy itself.

On encyclopedia-
Very short, but more accurate as the controversy is accurately described as a response to the quinn story. More accurate to say it was a response to the handling of the story by the media though. As for revealing the clique nature, that too is true, though the whole description is a bit too short for necessary detailing. Biased as well, but at least not outright dishonest so it is worlds better. You wouldn't be openly lying to repeat the definition like you would with the wikipedia one, though you would be missing a lot of important information.

Infoglactic-
More detail, but again is biased and is missing important details. In this case, while it touches on how the media responses to the quinn story resulted in the backlash that created gamergate itself, it is missing the real galvanizing event of the "gamers are dead" article wave that demonstrated the perceived collusion of the media against the inquiring audience. This would later be confirmed, as suspicions about the clique-nature of the media working together to cover its own ass were revealed further down the line.

So of the three, probably the most accurate, though is still biased and is still not as good as it could be. Infinitely better than wikipedia though.

compatibility-
Wikipedia is incompatible with all, not surprising as it is incompatible with reality itself. It was never a harassment campaign, and it was never about sexism. And that is all the article defines it as, the outright lie that it was.

The second and third definition, and the forth added by John all are compatible. While can be biased, the accuracy of the definitions are not incompatible nor lies like the wikipedia one, and can be used together I think.

I am sure different people will come up with different opinions on what gamergate means to them. With regard to the overview of it though, it will be very distinctly split into two groups based entirely on if they supported or opposed gamergate.

For those that opposed it, the wikipedia definition will be used, hinted at, implied, or work towards. Demonizing the group dishonestly as a bunch of harassers and sexist has always been the primary opposition to it, so this seems the one used most often by those opposed to it.

For those who support it, some collective of the last 3 definitions will be used, with the key starting point nearly always being gamergate being a response to the media's mishandling of the quinn story, usually specifically the "games are dead" unified response against those demanding media address audience professional and ethical concerns, and that gamergate itself was always a reaction by gamers and audience to the media's behavior, not the claims of harassment or sexism as motivation.

runic knight:

On the wiki-
Wikipedia is garbage. All it got correct was that the term applies to three aspects, the rest is an unfounded lie. What is more, the site itself forced the horribly biased perspective as rules lawyers on the site manipulated the system to push their politics. You can go back and look at how anyone pro-gamergate was drummed out of the ability to edit by site politics, some even accused of harassment in order to get them kicked. That leaves nothing but very politically motivated against gamergate individuals manipulating what is allowable as a source based on their whims rather than any actual desire for accuracy. Not surprisingly, it is an entirely one-sided regurgitation of the narrative the media was trying to push, devoid of honesty or accuracy, with sources that themselves are nothing but a circle jerk of referencing each other.

Honestly, basic practice of recusing those involved or those connected to those involved should have meant that sites directly involved in crafting the narrative shouldn't be allowed to be used as sources in the first place, let alone the only ones used as it. Instead, I watched the site play a shell game where any independent reporting of the controversy is deemed unusable because of technicalities, but sites biased against it are defended as valid, regardless how directly connected the publication, or the author is to the controversy itself.

On encyclopedia-
Very short, but more accurate as the controversy is accurately described as a response to the quinn story. More accurate to say it was a response to the handling of the story by the media though. As for revealing the clique nature, that too is true, though the whole description is a bit too short for necessary detailing. Biased as well, but at least not outright dishonest so it is worlds better. You wouldn't be openly lying to repeat the definition like you would with the wikipedia one, though you would be missing a lot of important information.

Infoglactic-
More detail, but again is biased and is missing important details. In this case, while it touches on how the media responses to the quinn story resulted in the backlash that created gamergate itself, it is missing the real galvanizing event of the "gamers are dead" article wave that demonstrated the perceived collusion of the media against the inquiring audience. This would later be confirmed, as suspicions about the clique-nature of the media working together to cover its own ass were revealed further down the line.

All three of those definitions are crap.

The Wikipedia definition took the Law and Order: SVU approach to portraying GamerGate and misses all the nuances of why the entire thing exploded so badly.

The Encyclopedia definition goes the other way. It ignores the fact that the Quinspiracy was a vicious and misogynistic witch hunt that ultimately was shown to be based on conjecture and unproven allegations.

The Infogalactic definition jumped straight into the conspiracy theory kiddie pool and generally "assumes facts not in evidence".

The definition Johnlives posted is the most neutral I have seen so far but it does miss a lot of the issues that were part of GamerGate or the events preceding it.

All of them miss the "Gamers are Dead" articles and why it divided the community so strongly between those who agreed with the articles and those who considered them the gravest insult.

They also miss the identity issuess that are a big part of the discussion, both the general gender issues and the more specific issues of what it means to identify as a "gamer" today.

Nielas:

runic knight:

On the wiki-
Wikipedia is garbage. All it got correct was that the term applies to three aspects, the rest is an unfounded lie. What is more, the site itself forced the horribly biased perspective as rules lawyers on the site manipulated the system to push their politics. You can go back and look at how anyone pro-gamergate was drummed out of the ability to edit by site politics, some even accused of harassment in order to get them kicked. That leaves nothing but very politically motivated against gamergate individuals manipulating what is allowable as a source based on their whims rather than any actual desire for accuracy. Not surprisingly, it is an entirely one-sided regurgitation of the narrative the media was trying to push, devoid of honesty or accuracy, with sources that themselves are nothing but a circle jerk of referencing each other.

Honestly, basic practice of recusing those involved or those connected to those involved should have meant that sites directly involved in crafting the narrative shouldn't be allowed to be used as sources in the first place, let alone the only ones used as it. Instead, I watched the site play a shell game where any independent reporting of the controversy is deemed unusable because of technicalities, but sites biased against it are defended as valid, regardless how directly connected the publication, or the author is to the controversy itself.

On encyclopedia-
Very short, but more accurate as the controversy is accurately described as a response to the quinn story. More accurate to say it was a response to the handling of the story by the media though. As for revealing the clique nature, that too is true, though the whole description is a bit too short for necessary detailing. Biased as well, but at least not outright dishonest so it is worlds better. You wouldn't be openly lying to repeat the definition like you would with the wikipedia one, though you would be missing a lot of important information.

Infoglactic-
More detail, but again is biased and is missing important details. In this case, while it touches on how the media responses to the quinn story resulted in the backlash that created gamergate itself, it is missing the real galvanizing event of the "gamers are dead" article wave that demonstrated the perceived collusion of the media against the inquiring audience. This would later be confirmed, as suspicions about the clique-nature of the media working together to cover its own ass were revealed further down the line.

All three of those definitions are crap.

The Wikipedia definition took the Law and Order: SVU approach to portraying GamerGate and misses all the nuances of why the entire thing exploded so badly.

The Encyclopedia definition goes the other way. It ignores the fact that the Quinspiracy was a vicious and misogynistic witch hunt that ultimately was shown to be based on conjecture and unproven allegations.

The Infogalactic definition jumped straight into the conspiracy theory kiddie pool and generally "assumes facts not in evidence".

The definition Johnlives posted is the most neutral I have seen so far but it does miss a lot of the issues that were part of GamerGate or the events preceding it.

All of them miss the "Gamers are Dead" articles and why it divided the community so strongly between those who agreed with the articles and those who considered them the gravest insult.

They also miss the identity issuess that are a big part of the discussion, both the general gender issues and the more specific issues of what it means to identify as a "gamer" today.

The wiki article claims gamergate was a harassment campaign relating to sexism, that isn't missing nuances, that is outright lying about what it was. Even the responses to quinn during the height of the controversy before gamergate were more about the hypocrisy and politics involved there, not sexist motivations because she happened to be a woman. And after gamergate fully formed, it did so in response to a barrage of articles and attacks against gamers as the audience of the gaming press, making it even less honest to claim it was a harassment campaign when it was more accurately a consumer response to a media campaign. Furthermore, because it was directed specifically at the gaming media at large, it is even less honest to argue it was sexistly motivated. I could see some who would argue it politically motivated (I disagree, as while it was a rejection of a politically uniform group, the overall reasons of the collective rejection wasn't based on disagreement of politics for those opposing them, but on actions and behaviors they were using, often in name of their politics), but at that point sexism just doesn't fit in the least save arguments relying on fallacies that equate criticizing the would-be feminist in the media as the same as being sexist.

The quinnspiracy wasn't much of a witch hunt either. Oh, it was certainly juicy tabloid-quality gossip, but up til she started to flag videos and use connections to kill conversation on sites like reddit, that was all it was, the equivalent of laughing at a male conservative politician caught in a public bathroom with a gay prostitute. Hypocritical and humiliating, but not sexist to remark on it (save to those who think that, as a woman, her embarrassing screw up going public should have been treated differently). After she started to do try to abuse existing systems to hide things though, Streisand effect kicked in and people started to demand to the media address the shenanigans going on. You know, cause that sort of is their duty and responsibility to do that sort of thing. Overall though, far less a witch hunt, and more attempting to cover up her screw up backfired and pissed people off at the tactics she was using, including tactics people have hated for a while such as abusing DMCA on youtube and contacting reddit mods.

The conspiracy theory about colluding was demonstrated true as well. Suspected in how the media was going out of its way to cover for her and how they were all repeating the same talking points, leaks like the GJP eventually revealed that those supposedly competing publications were all happily talking among themselves in how to handle the situation, even going so far as to suggest sending Quinn a gift for her troubles. While in the confusion caused by the lack of the media doing their job and actually investigating and informing the public on the ongoing controversy did cause a lot of conspiracy theories to sprout and made trimming them harder, the overall suspected colluding by the media was very clearly demonstrated in their private chat room logs.

I will agree the last definition is missing the details of the cause and why the split was, so that would be worth adding. The "gamers are dead" articles in particular are a key point of formation, as well as the reason why those articles were responded to as a spit in the face of those demanding the media do their jobs in properly investigating and reporting on the controversy.

The identity issue though is an interesting one. Gamer identity being resoundingly rejected and attacked by the media who is suppose to represent it through the "gamers are dead" articles was certainly a fire that caused gamergate, though I don't get how gender relates to this in any relevant way. At best I see how the media was treating a story about a woman differently than they would one about a man, or their using the gender like a shield to deflect criticisms of her while using it as a sword to level accusations of sexism on those detractors, but that is more a tactic used against gamergate than any actual relevance of gender to the controversy itself.

How does gender identity matter in this to the least?

Ogoid:
Okay, this will probably be my last response, because I'm getting tired of repeating myself and we're already way off topic here.

I get what you're saying. And I'm sure a lot of other people do, too. I don't think you realize though how this sounds. You are saying explicitly that you are willing to overlook some egregious behavior in Milo because he gave an apology to gamers that he probably wasn't even sincere about. Not to say that you will defend that behavior. But you made clear that you are willing to turn a blind eye toward it as much as possible in exchange for that one moment of validation.

Think about that for a minute. Milo is a guy who has said the lesbians don't exist, gay men should be bullied back into the closet, Scottish people who want to leave the UK are all heroin addicts, fat people should be publicly shamed non-stop for failing to meet an arbitrary standard of beauty and that's just the cock-tip of the iceberg. Yet he has at least your nominal support because he gave you a sense of external validation. It's like when Trump said of Putin, "He said nice things about me, so I'm gonna say nice things about him."

The perception of GGers as immature, bitter and needy comes from the fact that you guys keep saying shit like this. It's not even about Milo's horribleness so much as that you won't even own the fact that he played you. He left you guys a long time ago when he boarded the Trump Train to Infamy Town. I'm not asking you to call him Hitler or anything. I'm suggesting that given the current state of affairs it's time to accept that mistakes were made and move on. If you still want to change the system, there are non-shitty people you can talk to about doing something. Just make sure you have a plan next time.

BeetleManiac:

I get what you're saying.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem to me you actually do.

I thought his articles on Gamergate were good, and showed a part of the story most of the media was loudly shouting didn't exist in spite of actual facts. That's it. That's the entirety of what I'm saying.

I don't know how much clearer than this I can be. I'm not defending or supporting Yiannopoulos nor do I feel any reason to, because I don't give a shit about him. Whatever else he may or may not have done has zero bearing on his coverage of Gamergate, which is the single thing I have typed out a singular shred of threadbare praise for this entire time.

But since, apparently, saying "I appreciated his work on this topic" is such blindingly hyperbolic praise of his person that specifically stating "I don't care about him or any views unrelated to this topic he may or may not hold" just doesn't cover it, I'm at a loss as to what else I can possibly contribute to this conversation.

Ogoid:
I thought his articles on Gamergate were good, and showed a part of the story most of the media was loudly shouting didn't exist in spite of actual facts. That's it. That's the entirety of what I'm saying.

Then let me be a little clearer. Someone calls Milo a hypocrite. You pay lip service to agreeing, then change the subject to call someone else a hypocrite. GamerGate claims that because of their shapeless nature, no one can speak for them. You presume to speak for them when it comes to political ideology. Milo issues a probably-fake apology. You state openly that you don't care if it's fake, you'll take it anyway. What reaction do you want me to have to this?

People will take you seriously in inverse proportion to how seriously you take yourself. Anyway, I'm not interested in starting a fight. I've said my piece and I'll bow out of the thread from here. PM me if you really want to keep going, just know that it will be a while before I respond.

Wrex Brogan:
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.

-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.

so biased definition 1 is close enough but the 2nd one biased the other way is obviously false. Sure seems to be a biased take on this if you only trust the anti-gg definition.
The second paragraph is more nuanced if you admit that both sides flung a lot of crap and harassed each other. One side used the mainstream media to harass their opponents and I see the side calling out abuse of mainstream media as the underdogs. You may have a different point of view. Both of our viewpoints can be valid without resorting to mockery as often happens in discussions about gamergate.

Smithnikov:

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

I'm a liberal and many others that were opposed to the media's position on gamergate are liberal. Your statement is inherently false from ym personal perspective. Others may have had that bias but unless you think all anti-gamergaters should be called bullies and labelled as pro-bullying because an anti-gamergater publicly called for harassment and bullying then you shouldn't fallaciously label the movement as anti-0liberal.

Parrikle:

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.

The attempted omission of the con leaks that show that anti-gg took part in harassment sprees shows a pretty huge bias in Wikipedia. I am sure netscape or someone else can furnish many other examples of bias.

Ogoid:

BeetleManiac:

I get what you're saying.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem to me you actually do.

I thought his articles on Gamergate were good, and showed a part of the story most of the media was loudly shouting didn't exist in spite of actual facts. That's it. That's the entirety of what I'm saying.

I don't know how much clearer than this I can be. I'm not defending or supporting Yiannopoulos nor do I feel any reason to, because I don't give a shit about him. Whatever else he may or may not have done has zero bearing on his coverage of Gamergate, which is the single thing I have typed out a singular shred of threadbare praise for this entire time.

Yeahhh... It's still hypocritical.

The reason why is because if we take a look at Deepfreeze, we can find a laundry list of people who have allegedly failed their journalistic duty and/or said mean things in an article or tweet somewhere.

Ogoid:
[...] I thought his articles on Gamergate were good, [...]

... And many of the Deepfreeze writers have written articles that were "good" too. But that doesn't matter to Gamergate. All of that is hand-waved away and thrown in the trash, in favor of effectively blacklisting these writers as journalistic 'write-offs'.

Milo has done journalistically-questionable things too, and worse, but for some reason all that gets overlooked by Gamergate and its supporters.
It's hypocritical.

FriendoftheFallen:

Wrex Brogan:
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.

-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.

so biased definition 1 is close enough but the 2nd one biased the other way is obviously false. Sure seems to be a biased take on this if you only trust the anti-gg definition.
The second paragraph is more nuanced if you admit that both sides flung a lot of crap and harassed each other. One side used the mainstream media to harass their opponents and I see the side calling out abuse of mainstream media as the underdogs. You may have a different point of view. Both of our viewpoints can be valid without resorting to mockery as often happens in discussions about gamergate.

I said 'ehh, close enough'. Which tends to mean 'I have problems with it, but I don't give nearly enough of a shit to pick apart a fucking wiki article'. The second one is bad because it's Encyclopedia Dramatica - it would be bad even if it was leaning more towards 'anti-GG' (god I hate that term), because Encyclopedia Dramatica is a poor place to acquire ones information. Wikipedia is, at the very least, closely monitored and moderated, so even if it has some inaccuracies it's still a more reliable resource than Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Also weird that you call on me about being biased when your own take is just as biased as mine. Hell, this entire thread is biased, unless you've somehow managed to miss the novela Runic Knight put up and all the various other people posting their own wildly different definitions of Gamergate. It's literally impossible to have an unbiased take on Gamergate given all the shit that went down during it, and the general difficulty of accessing unbiased resources (or resources that everyone views as unbiased) easily.

And uhhh... I appreciate the sentiment, but given my viewpoint is 'there's way more than two sides to this whole sordid affair, and as hard as pro-GGers try to present a pretty picture there was still an awful lot of harassment, attacks and straight up bullshit coming from their ranks and are hardly the noble underdogs they think they are' I'm struggling to see how our two viewpoints can co-exist. Ah well, good thing I'm not that interested in serious discussions about GG, the snide comment right out the gate is honestly far more productive these days.

Ogoid:

And speaking of hypocrisy, I find it particularly ironic you should bring up Jimothy Fucking Sterling Son, firebrand and consumer advocate extraordinaire, who'll defend the shit out of consumers.. as long as his personal friends aren't the ones shitting on consumers, of course, because then we should all calm down and try to see both sides, because let's be reasonable here, guys.

I consider roasting Digital Homicide a far more noble endeavor than anything GamerGate accomplished. Jim earned some slack.

FriendoftheFallen:

I'm a liberal and many others that were opposed to the media's position on gamergate are liberal.

I would LOVE to put that to the test...

Your statement is inherently false from ym personal perspective. Others may have had that bias but unless you think all anti-gamergaters should be called bullies and labelled as pro-bullying because an anti-gamergater publicly called for harassment and bullying then you shouldn't fallaciously label the movement as anti-0liberal.

Well, being an anti gamergater, I've been called far worse than that, even that for my opposition, so fallacious labeling is apparently A-Okay anyway. Netscape has stated before he demands an accounting from any of us who didn't join in on GamerGate. I'm declared an SJW, a femininazi, a Communist, and most importantly I hate gaming and want to censor people. So if that's the rules...

Smithnikov:

FriendoftheFallen:

I'm a liberal and many others that were opposed to the media's position on gamergate are liberal.

I would LOVE to put that to the test...

Your statement is inherently false from ym personal perspective. Others may have had that bias but unless you think all anti-gamergaters should be called bullies and labelled as pro-bullying because an anti-gamergater publicly called for harassment and bullying then you shouldn't fallaciously label the movement as anti-0liberal.

Well, being an anti gamergater, I've been called far worse than that, even that for my opposition, so fallacious labeling is apparently A-Okay anyway. Netscape has stated before he demands an accounting from any of us who didn't join in on GamerGate. I'm declared an SJW, a femininazi, a Communist, and most importantly I hate gaming and want to censor people. So if that's the rules...

One side doing it doesn't justify you doing it. That's the tu quoque fallacy. If you choose to respond to toxicity with toxicity that is the choice you make and thus you should own your own choice of response. This isn't like someone approaching you IRL, you have many options to not engage with people online that negate any justifications for highly toxic responses.
Love to put it to the test because you like having your biases discarded when I am proven right? Or love to put it to the test because people can't identify as something politically without YOUR permission? What right do you have to tell me how I identify politically? None, whatsoever.
If you support anyone that hates a jokes or political message enough they try and get someone to lose their job, channel, or suffer irl punishments for views they disagree with then they are in de facto favor of censorship.
If you advocate for fascist views and tactics then you being called that isn't far off. They should call the actions and comments fascist, not the person itself. That being said, name-calling on both sides deters some type of mutual understanding. I have seen anti-gamer gaters downright bullying people (even in these forums) including someone making toxic arguments to harass/callout(bully) and cull those who have different political views. When someone begins advocating for violence against people they disagree with on here, it doesn't make these forums feel very safe. What if they figured otu where I lived and decided to CULL me? This person identifies as an anti-bully; while advocating culling of the opposition (and not getting the contradiction.) These anti-gg bullies don't make everyone in gg a bully anymore than those toxic fringe members of gg make every gger sexist or racist. I take the position against mass doxxing or trying to get people fired just for presenting offensive jokes or views. I'm against the side that likes to get people fired or punished for saying mean stuff online while ignoring their own sides complete hypocrisy and toxicity. I take the position that jokes alone don't make someone sexist or racist. I believe sexual appreciation is not objectification and feel those calling out "drooling fanboys" are shaming others based on sexuality.
I'm very pro environment, pro-choice, and pro social programs that help the poor.
I tested like 3rd leftmost in the discussion on the liberal vs conservative scale forum. Apparently the polls and tests where pro-gg was predominantly leftist libertarian on the 4 part scale doesn't count because it contradicts your conclusion?

IceForce:

Ogoid:

BeetleManiac:

I get what you're saying.

I'm sorry, but it doesn't seem to me you actually do.

I thought his articles on Gamergate were good, and showed a part of the story most of the media was loudly shouting didn't exist in spite of actual facts. That's it. That's the entirety of what I'm saying.

I don't know how much clearer than this I can be. I'm not defending or supporting Yiannopoulos nor do I feel any reason to, because I don't give a shit about him. Whatever else he may or may not have done has zero bearing on his coverage of Gamergate, which is the single thing I have typed out a singular shred of threadbare praise for this entire time.

Yeahhh... It's still hypocritical.

The reason why is because if we take a look at Deepfreeze, we can find a laundry list of people who have allegedly failed their journalistic duty and/or said mean things in an article or tweet somewhere.

Ogoid:
[...] I thought his articles on Gamergate were good, [...]

... And many of the Deepfreeze writers have written articles that were "good" too. But that doesn't matter to Gamergate. All of that is hand-waved away and thrown in the trash, in favor of effectively blacklisting these writers as journalistic 'write-offs'.

Milo has done journalistically-questionable things too, and worse, but for some reason all that gets overlooked by Gamergate and its supporters.
It's hypocritical.

1. Deepfreeze has a very specific focus, that being gaming journalism. Yiannopoulos, to the best of my (already repeatedly stated to be) limited knowledge, isn't and has never been a games journalist, and if he's done any questionable things within that ambit, I'm not aware of them.

2. I'm not really aware of Deepfreeze, or anyone else for that matter - sure as hell not me - painting Yiannopoulous as the shining golden standard to be followed always and in any situation, in all things journalistic; that really doesn't seem to stop people from claiming anyone who expresses the slightest sign of approval of any specific thing the man ever did is doing precisely that, e.g., my entire participation in this thread.

3. Deepfreeze writers are generally known to have been in a private group of several supposedly competing websites - one a certain consumer advocate was fully aware of but didn't think worth mentioning for the consumers he supposedly advocates for, I'm inclined to point out - exchanging notes as to how they should be protecting a personal friend of one or several of them, "using their front pages" to "condemn these attacks" or "signal boost" her game. That's what I have a problem with.

FriendoftheFallen:
One side doing it doesn't justify you doing it. That's the tu quoque fallacy.

Numerous GGers responded to people's rejection of them with, "They treat me like an animal, so Imma shit on the floor!" If you didn't have that reaction, good for you on exercising self-control and decency. Doesn't change the fact that it happened.

I'm very pro environment, pro-choice, and pro social programs that help the poor.
I tested like 3rd leftmost in the discussion on the liberal vs conservative scale forum. Apparently the polls and tests where pro-gg was predominantly leftist libertarian on the 4 part scale doesn't count because it contradicts your conclusion?

Would it be fruitless of me to point out that this hardly qualifies as a proper statistical sample or analysis?

FriendoftheFallen:
If you support anyone that hates a jokes or political message enough they try and get someone to lose their job, channel, or suffer irl punishments for views they disagree with then they are in de facto favor of censorship.

Neither side has held the moral high ground on this. GG or "anti-GG".

Parrikle:

FriendoftheFallen:
If you support anyone that hates a jokes or political message enough they try and get someone to lose their job, channel, or suffer irl punishments for views they disagree with then they are in de facto favor of censorship.

Neither side has held the moral high ground on this. GG or "anti-GG".

That... is unrelated to if it is censorship though. I mean if you automatically equate censorship to moral failure, fine, but you seem to be mistaking that being the argument here. It seems to be more a statement of fact. If you support actions that censor because of politics or humor, it is censorship.

runic knight:

Parrikle:

FriendoftheFallen:
If you support anyone that hates a jokes or political message enough they try and get someone to lose their job, channel, or suffer irl punishments for views they disagree with then they are in de facto favor of censorship.

Neither side has held the moral high ground on this. GG or "anti-GG".

That... is unrelated to if it is censorship though. I mean if you automatically equate censorship to moral failure, fine, but you seem to be mistaking that being the argument here. It seems to be more a statement of fact. If you support actions that censor because of politics or humor, it is censorship.

So gamergate is pro censorship

Gotcha

undeadsuitor:

runic knight:

Parrikle:

Neither side has held the moral high ground on this. GG or "anti-GG".

That... is unrelated to if it is censorship though. I mean if you automatically equate censorship to moral failure, fine, but you seem to be mistaking that being the argument here. It seems to be more a statement of fact. If you support actions that censor because of politics or humor, it is censorship.

So gamergate is pro censorship

Gotcha

As always, "It's okay if we do it."

FriendoftheFallen:
If you support anyone that hates a jokes or political message enough they try and get someone to lose their job, channel, or suffer irl punishments for views they disagree with then they are in de facto favor of censorship.

FriendoftheFallen:
I'm against the side that likes to get people fired or punished for saying mean stuff online while ignoring their own sides complete hypocrisy and toxicity.

Need I remind you that Gamergate itself is guilty of the very things you're saying here. They were the 'side' that wanted writers to be fired and websites to go out of business due to publishing "political messages" and "mean stuff" online.

Unless you're saying you're against Gamergate and you're admitting that Gamergate is pro-censorship? The lines here are extremely blurry.

undeadsuitor:

runic knight:

Parrikle:

Neither side has held the moral high ground on this. GG or "anti-GG".

That... is unrelated to if it is censorship though. I mean if you automatically equate censorship to moral failure, fine, but you seem to be mistaking that being the argument here. It seems to be more a statement of fact. If you support actions that censor because of politics or humor, it is censorship.

So gamergate is pro censorship

Gotcha

Don't forget that by following FriendoftheFallen's reasoning, every individual person who ever supported GG is automatically pro-censorship as well.

undeadsuitor:

runic knight:

Parrikle:

Neither side has held the moral high ground on this. GG or "anti-GG".

That... is unrelated to if it is censorship though. I mean if you automatically equate censorship to moral failure, fine, but you seem to be mistaking that being the argument here. It seems to be more a statement of fact. If you support actions that censor because of politics or humor, it is censorship.

So gamergate is pro censorship

Gotcha

No, but since that particular point has been explained to you many times previously, I can only see your willful misunderstanding of what was being said as intentional dishonesty at this point and that you have no actual point of value to add save this sort of worthless-to-the-conversation dismissive snark.

To clear this misconception up once again though.

Gamergate was a consumer reaction to how journalists were being unethical and unprofessional. It responded by letting the people who funded those journalists know what the journalists were saying about the target audience and what they were doing that was making the advertiser's brand be negatively associated with the selfish, unethical, unprofessional jackasses in the media.

That isn't saying someone can't say their opinion, that is saying that advertisers will not be rewarded by encouraging journalist behavior, such as by paying journalists to advertise on their glorified political blogs that marketed as actually being legitimate news media. In fact, a big part of the problem with the journalists was that they were suppose to be, you know, ACTUAL journalists in the first place. They were suppose to be acting as professional journalists, complete with the ethical expectations in how they handled things, and not as the petulant children trying to lie to cover up their screw ups and protect their friends by abusing their media reach to slander those criticizing them.

Someone losing their job because they are not doing it properly in the first place is not censoring them any more than firing a waiter for smearing feces on the wall and calling it art is censoring him. A journalist's job has responsibilities, standards and ethical expectations, and the game media was failing there. That such failure warranted demand for consequences is not censoring them, regardless how much anyone may wish to equate it to that solely because they happen to agree with the politics the journalists were being unethical and unprofessional in support of.

Avnger:

undeadsuitor:

runic knight:

That... is unrelated to if it is censorship though. I mean if you automatically equate censorship to moral failure, fine, but you seem to be mistaking that being the argument here. It seems to be more a statement of fact. If you support actions that censor because of politics or humor, it is censorship.

So gamergate is pro censorship

Gotcha

Don't forget that by following FriendoftheFallen's reasoning, every individual person who ever supported GG is automatically pro-censorship as well.

Good try, but foundational argument was faulty, so derived one is too.

Also, pretty sure the argument was being used to demonstrate the flaw with making sweeping generalizations about a group based entirely on cherry-picked examples, so the fact you are continuing to use that same irrationality here while missing the point of that argument entirely is sort of telling about the intellectual honesty of your response.

I mean look at what they ACTUALLY said before chompiong at the bit to snark up the place.

These anti-gg bullies don't make everyone in gg a bully anymore than those toxic fringe members of gg make every gger sexist or racist.

Please don't be so willfully dishonest about other users, it makes your position look terrible.

IceForce:

FriendoftheFallen:
If you support anyone that hates a jokes or political message enough they try and get someone to lose their job, channel, or suffer irl punishments for views they disagree with then they are in de facto favor of censorship.

FriendoftheFallen:
I'm against the side that likes to get people fired or punished for saying mean stuff online while ignoring their own sides complete hypocrisy and toxicity.

Need I remind you that Gamergate itself is guilty of the very things you're saying here. They were the 'side' that wanted writers to be fired and websites to go out of business due to publishing "political messages" and "mean stuff" online.

Unless you're saying you're against Gamergate and you're admitting that Gamergate is pro-censorship? The lines here are extremely blurry.

You mistake the behavior done in support of those political messages with the messages themselves, to your argument's discredit. Being critical of how someone behaves in support of their position is not automatically a condemnation of the political beliefs themselves. There is a difference between tactics and beliefs, and it is only because the unscrupulous media blurred that fact that this argument is used at all. After all, why else lie about the motivations of people critical of the media by claiming it was sexism if not to claim it is politically motivated opposition to the political beliefs instead of what it actually was, a non-partizan, consumer motivated opposition to unethical and unprofessional behavior and a message from the media of "fuck you" to them for daring to criticize the media's behavior?

Furthermore, as stated before, journalists are doing a job. That comes with expectations in behavior and ethical handling. They failed that greatly, so demands were made for consequences for that failure.

That is not censorship of their political views, that is refusing to accept that a news media that exists to serve the interests of the public is instead pretending it is the proper stage to commandeer for personal political soapboxing and to cover the fuck-ups of themselves and their friends. That is reminding the media sites themselves that the audience they are paid to represent and reach is not there solely to be the captive audience for political blogs but rather are there because the media is suppose to serve a purpose. That chalkboard they are writing on is funded in order to represent the audience interest in accurate, relevant, and integral news about the gaming world, after all.

This contrasts to, say, the media leading witch-hunts against games like DoA where the audience clearly wants the game, the game is serving the purpose it was made to serve, but busybodies are offended by it and are actively removing the option for anyone to enjoy it as best they can.

Near as I can tell, no one in gamergate has been saying the journalists can't go start up their own political blogs to express their free speech as much as they want. Instead, it has been pretty solely about accountability for their various fuck-ups and cover-ups as agents in the media, or personalities profiting from their connections to such agents in the media.

runic knight:

Parrikle:

FriendoftheFallen:
If you support anyone that hates a jokes or political message enough they try and get someone to lose their job, channel, or suffer irl punishments for views they disagree with then they are in de facto favor of censorship.

Neither side has held the moral high ground on this. GG or "anti-GG".

That... is unrelated to if it is censorship though. I mean if you automatically equate censorship to moral failure, fine, but you seem to be mistaking that being the argument here. It seems to be more a statement of fact. If you support actions that censor because of politics or humor, it is censorship.

Fair enough. Both groups are guilty of arguing for censorship. Whether or not censorship is an ethical issue is a separate concern.

BeetleManiac:

Would it be fruitless of me to point out that this hardly qualifies as a proper statistical sample or analysis?

About as fruitless as people trying to tell me I'm not a liberal because I don't agree with them on free speech issues when I know how left leaning and anti-authoritarian I am.

Parrikle:

FriendoftheFallen:
If you support anyone that hates a jokes or political message enough they try and get someone to lose their job, channel, or suffer irl punishments for views they disagree with then they are in de facto favor of censorship.

Neither side has held the moral high ground on this. GG or "anti-GG".

Both sides possessed many amoral actors and both sides possessed people genuinely believing they were on the "right" side.

IceForce:

FriendoftheFallen:
If you support anyone that hates a jokes or political message enough they try and get someone to lose their job, channel, or suffer irl punishments for views they disagree with then they are in de facto favor of censorship.

FriendoftheFallen:
I'm against the side that likes to get people fired or punished for saying mean stuff online while ignoring their own sides complete hypocrisy and toxicity.

Need I remind you that Gamergate itself is guilty of the very things you're saying here. They were the 'side' that wanted writers to be fired and websites to go out of business due to publishing "political messages" and "mean stuff" online.

Unless you're saying you're against Gamergate and you're admitting that Gamergate is pro-censorship? The lines here are extremely blurry.

It feels like you're minimizing the toxicity on the anti-gg side. I admit there were toxic asshole son gg's side- it doesn't negate their core point. Arguing from a position of "empathy" while advocating tactics devoid of empathy is different.
I'm against whatever side just gets people fired because of viewpoints. Someone not doing their job is very different. Someone that tells an off-color joke about a minority on their facebook shouldn't get fired, even if a cop. If they discriminate against minorities while working or don't provide for them as a peace officer should then they should be fired and maybe even prosecuted.

Avnger:

undeadsuitor:

runic knight:

That... is unrelated to if it is censorship though. I mean if you automatically equate censorship to moral failure, fine, but you seem to be mistaking that being the argument here. It seems to be more a statement of fact. If you support actions that censor because of politics or humor, it is censorship.

So gamergate is pro censorship

Gotcha

Don't forget that by following FriendoftheFallen's reasoning, every individual person who ever supported GG is automatically pro-censorship as well.

If you deliberately misunderstand and misrepresent my reasoning, sure. People that do that tend to want to just insult and slam others rather than engage in real discussion. I'm not pro-censorship and I find your mental gymnastics to arrive at that position highly amusing.

My definition! And I promise I'll as fair as I can about it.

Gamergate is a blanket term to describe a loosely assembled movement relating to gamers and the videogames industry. It was initiated by a harassment campaign against the perceived ethical failings of several women related to the industry, but quickly expanded to become an outlet for many people's grievances against the industry. Thus, gamergate is simultaneously a movement by people who believe there are serious faults with game development and journalism, and also an excuse for other people to commit malicious behaviour against those they don't like, as long as they can link them in with the movement's allegedly pro-consumer, allegedly pro-gamer views. Whether or not the claims of "gamergators" are legitimate, whether or not their complaints against the industry amount to a conspiracy theory, whether or not the movement has been de-legitimatised by the malicious behaviour of some people within it, are all highly contentious subjects within the gaming community. As a movement itself, gamergate lacks any official leadership or organisational structure, so what gamergate actually represents is highly subjective.

maninahat:
My definition! And I promise I'll as fair as I can about it.

That is the most objective definition of GamerGate I've seen yet. And for that reason virtually none of them are going to accept it as valid.

BeetleManiac:

maninahat:
My definition! And I promise I'll as fair as I can about it.

That is the most objective definition of GamerGate I've seen yet. And for that reason virtually none of them are going to accept it as valid.

Then again, I could just say what I think it actually is: It's a cobbled together conspiracy theory that is used to excuse the bullying journalists and random women, that has sadly swept up lots of well meaning people who are genuinely convinced by said theory and think they can work to improve the industry.

 Pages PREV 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