How does GG pick its targets?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Looks like the topic of GG has been rearing its head again on the forums, so I'd like to ask a question that's been bugging me for a while. I would very much appreciate if some gator were willing to shed some light on it.
Gaming journalism's ethics are, and have for a long time been put to a test - a variety of entities are seeking to pervert and abuse it for their own gain and I truly, honestly believe something should be done about this.
I am, of course, talking about the manifold, undue influence that certain large publishers, most notably Activision, EA and Ubisoft have rather frequently exerted or attempted to exert.
In contrast, the single largest internet movement, that takes upon itself protecting the integrity of gaming journalism seems obsessed with a few individuals. Regardless of whether said individuals pose a liability to fair and truthful coverage of games and gaming, it should be quite evident, that they have neither the resources of large companies, nor could their actions possibly leave an impact even remotely on the same scale.
I think that, given the circumstances, any movement that has as its primary focus protecting the gaming press from undue influence should first and foremost deal with the primary threats - why does it instead waste so much energy with small fry?

Edit: corrected a shameful, shameful grammatical mistake in the title

Question, why are we getting so many Threads with people acting like GG is actually still a thing?

The thing with GamerGate is that the Jounalistic Ethics stuff is bullshit when you try to divorce it from the idea of being a pushback against progressive rhetoric.

I always thought that the ideal solution would require a different approach altogether. All the Twitter and YouTube bullshit is just kids stuff. It's, at best, entertainment.

Fischgopf:
Question, why are we getting so many Threads with people acting like GG is actually still a thing?

It did seem to have died down, which is probably for the best, but it recently turned out that one of the guys working for Defy Media (Escapist's owners) is now a CEO of Milo Yannothatguy's new website, and iirc Milo largely built his career on GG so it kinda served to remind people of the whole shebang, I guess?

...with a dartboard and a socket-wrench?

Ugicywapih:

Fischgopf:
Question, why are we getting so many Threads with people acting like GG is actually still a thing?

It did seem to have died down, which is probably for the best, but it recently turned out that one of the guys working for Defy Media (Escapist's owners) is now a CEO of Milo Yannothatguy's new website, and iirc Milo largely built his career on GG so it kinda served to remind people of the whole shebang, I guess?

Didn't Milky Yannayuki get largely disowned from GG after the whole 'down with pedophelia' scaldal-thing last year? Or something? I honestly don't keep much track since he's such a god-awful person to start with, but I recall him falling out of favour with everyone still rabid about into GG.

And I mean, it's not like Defy Media does a lot around here to begin with... *looks at Gaming Discussion*

Ugicywapih:

It did seem to have died down, which is probably for the best, but it recently turned out that one of the guys working for Defy Media (Escapist's owners) is now a CEO of Milo Yannothatguy's new website, and iirc Milo largely built his career on GG so it kinda served to remind people of the whole shebang, I guess?

"One of the guys working for Defy Media" was actually "one of Defy Media's vice presidents", and he apparently recently left his position at Defy, for what it's worth.

Wrex Brogan:

Didn't Milky Yannayuki get largely disowned from GG after the whole 'down with pedophelia' scaldal-thing last year? Or something? I honestly don't keep much track since he's such a god-awful person to start with, but I recall him falling out of favour with everyone still rabid about into GG.

You'd think, but it looks like he's still getting a fair amount of support because they can't even be consistent about how bad they think child abuse is.

As for the topic at hand, you're not going to get an unbiased answer from a Gator. And when you actually look at the targets they have gone after, both on the large-scale and in small-scale forums, it's pretty obvious how they choose their targets.

(Hint: They're women first and people with progressive sociopolitical views second. And then whenever you point that out you get some Gator #NotYourShielding you about how they're totes progressive, and look at this one "anti-GG" guy who turned out to be a shitty person, so GG can't possibly be blahblahblah, it's been the same way for three years now.)

Did you just assume Gamergate is back? ;)

But seriously folks.... Gamergate will likely not get the widespread attention it initially got ever again. Mainstream media are focused more on Trump and every. SINGLE. THING. HE. DOES!
So they are unlikely to get involved in such a small thing like the gaming industry anytime soon when they have that bigger fish to fry (or to fail against if recent evidence is anything to go by). As a result, the likes of the gaming press are the only ones who might give the likes of Anita (hereafter known as "them") the platform they so desperately desire to spout their nonsense.

Gamergate should only really concern themselves with highlighting and trying to stop conflicts of interest and other such unethical practices within games media. If said games media offers "them" a platform for their daft opinions and ideas, it's simply a matter of putting that GGAutoblocker to good use and blacklisting that games media site (even if it's just for yourself). As long as there's no conflict of interest or unethical practices, you should just think of that site as a rebranded salon/marysue/whatever nonsense SJW site and consider it a lost cause. After all, it's not unethical to be dumb as f**k.

As for "them".... No point trying to change the minds of such folks - It should be painfully obvious to everyone at this point that they are simply not wanting to debate or discuss the points with you. To be honest, I doubt they even want much agreement with them - they want an argument and they want to be seen as victims. It is effectively their ONLY source of income in this industry so DO NOT GIVE IT TO THEM! Do not rise to their bait (and that IS exactly what it is), do not talk to them, dont even talk about them - Just let them scream from their twitter/blogs and leave it at that.

As for the censorship side of things "they" try to force onto everyone, well as long as it is legal, a developer or publisher should be allowed to pursue their art and their vision without some sort of self appointed regulator bullying them into not doing so. If they are trying to force a developer or publisher to bend to their cries of soggy knees/cultural approptiation/some sort of ism or ist, it is up to you (the actual games consumer) to let said publisher/developer know who their REAL customers are and how you truly feel about whatever change they are feeling pressured about. Or if a store drops a game due to such manufactured rage (hello, Target Oz), you have to let that retailer know they wont be getting further funds from you and folks like you because of it (JBHi-Fi is better for games anyway). The only think worse than "them" folks coming up with these bizzare/ridiculous complaints are the folks that bow to their insanity.

Ultimately, in almost all cases, the shower of rage disappears. Case point: I'm willing to bet that MOST (I would imagine a good 70%) of the folks that were "outraged" about Cecil the Lion's killing cant recall the dentist's name without google. Or cant remember that black kid's name that was killed by police that time.

shrekfan246:

As for the topic at hand, you're not going to get an unbiased answer from a Gator. And when you actually look at the targets they have gone after, both on the large-scale and in small-scale forums, it's pretty obvious how they choose their targets.

I'm not looking for an unbiased answer though. In fact, I'd say an unbiased answer to that is effectively impossible between how charged the topic is and how GG, much like Anonymous, seems to be a decentralized movement that's only in agreement about some basic general ideas, and even that's a stretch. Nonetheless, I have seen some fairly coherent arguments from gators and I agree journalistic ethics are important, in gaming journalism as well - as such, I would like to see, at the very least, how a rational individual reconciles what I consider one of, if not THE principal fault in the whole movement with its stated goals.
At worst, I'm hoping to get an excuse or a rationalization, one that probably had some thought put into it and as such may make an interesting read in and of itself. At best, I could gain valuable insight - who knows, maybe one of the assumptions I've based this on is incorrect and for example gators are laboriously putting together an exhaustive compilation of liabilities to ethics in gaming journalism that actually includes mostly the serious, yet less contentious issues and hardly anyone's heard about it since it simply doesn't rouse as much controversy as their apparent hunt for vile feminist witches. I know I'd love to read that sort of thing, myself! Or I could foster second thoughts in a more reasonable gator though that's neither the main objective, nor particularly likely given how long GG has been around and how much the discussion about it seems to have encouraged siege mentality on both sides - I'm sure most folks are very strongly entrenched in their views by now, if they weren't before.
At any rate, while I may suspect that the defense of journalistic integrity is often just a thin veneer for harassment, again, the movement is multifaceted and condemning everyone involved as hypocrites without giving them an opportunity to respond to my reservations would be unfair of me, while potentially turning a deaf ear to something genuinely interesting.

Ugicywapih:

shrekfan246:

As for the topic at hand, you're not going to get an unbiased answer from a Gator. And when you actually look at the targets they have gone after, both on the large-scale and in small-scale forums, it's pretty obvious how they choose their targets.

I'm not looking for an unbiased answer though. In fact, I'd say an unbiased answer to that is effectively impossible between how charged the topic is and how GG, much like Anonymous, seems to be a decentralized movement that's only in agreement about some basic general ideas, and even that's a stretch. Nonetheless, I have seen some fairly coherent arguments from gators and I agree journalistic ethics are important, in gaming journalism as well - as such, I would like to see, at the very least, how a rational individual reconciles what I consider one of, if not THE principal fault in the whole movement with its stated goals.
At worst, I'm hoping to get an excuse or a rationalization, one that probably had some thought put into it and as such may make an interesting read in and of itself. At best, I could gain valuable insight - who knows, maybe one of the assumptions I've based this on is incorrect and for example gators are laboriously putting together an exhaustive compilation of liabilities to ethics in gaming journalism that actually includes mostly the serious, yet less contentious issues and hardly anyone's heard about it since it simply doesn't rouse as much controversy as their apparent hunt for vile feminist witches. I know I'd love to read that sort of thing, myself! Or I could foster second thoughts in a more reasonable gator though that's neither the main objective, nor particularly likely given how long GG has been around and how much the discussion about it seems to have encouraged siege mentality on both sides - I'm sure most folks are very strongly entrenched in their views by now, if they weren't before.
At any rate, while I may suspect that the defense of journalistic integrity is often just a thin veneer for harassment, again, the movement is multifaceted and condemning everyone involved as hypocrites without giving them an opportunity to respond to my reservations would be unfair of me, while potentially turning a deaf ear to something genuinely interesting.

You're far more optimistic than I am. Legitimate question, did you actually follow the thing when it started?

shrekfan246:

You're far more optimistic than I am. Legitimate question, did you actually follow the thing when it started?

Yes, quite avidly too. I never really got involved in the discussion though, things were quite heated and metaphorical shrapnel was flying left and right, so I figured there's no point inserting myself in the line of fire, especially since with how heated the situation quickly got, any finer points I'd try to make would be missed.

NiGHTSJOD:
Did you just assume Gamergate is back? ;)

Goodness me, I do hope not. It seems it's been brought up a little more recently though, so I just figured I'd ask some stuff I've had puzzling me for a while now, that I didn't really want to mention at the time (for reasons stated above).

NiGHTSJOD:

As a result, the likes of the gaming press are the only ones who might give the likes of Anita (hereafter known as "them") the platform they so desperately desire to spout their nonsense.

Gamergate should only really concern themselves with highlighting and trying to stop conflicts of interest and other such unethical practices within games media. If said games media offers "them" a platform for their daft opinions and ideas, it's simply a matter of putting that GGAutoblocker to good use and blacklisting that games media site (even if it's just for yourself). As long as there's no conflict of interest or unethical practices, you should just think of that site as a rebranded salon/marysue/whatever nonsense SJW site and consider it a lost cause. After all, it's not unethical to be dumb as f**k.

Again, I don't really like Anita, nor do I really expect to hear anything worthwhile from her (granted, I will reiterate, that I've at most familiarized myself with it in passing, and she might well surprise me for what I know). That being said, as I stated in OP, I believe there are far bigger and more obvious threats to gaming journalism ethics. Why not use at least a part of the fervor with which GG pursues Sarkeesian to deal with those?

NiGHTSJOD:

To be honest, I doubt they even want much agreement with them - they want an argument and they want to be seen as victims. It is effectively their ONLY source of income in this industry so DO NOT GIVE IT TO THEM! Do not rise to their bait (and that IS exactly what it is), do not talk to them, dont even talk about them - Just let them scream from their twitter/blogs and leave it at that.

As I said in the OP spoiler, I consider Sarkeesian a troll. It's impressive that she can make money off of it, but it's been fairly obvious from the get go and people kept biting. I guess that's just how the 'net is.

NiGHTSJOD:

Ultimately, in almost all cases, the shower of rage disappears. Case point: I'm willing to bet that MOST (I would imagine a good 70%) of the folks that were "outraged" about Cecil the Lion's killing cant recall the dentist's name without google. Or cant remember that black kid's name that was killed by police that time.

Ira furor brevis est :). Still, that's why I'm actually broaching the subject now. It's hard to have a sensible discussion with someone blinded by senseless rage.

As far as picking targets went, I think the main consideration went like this: Do they make game GG liked? If yes, they wouldn't be a target.

For example, Shadows of Mordor hit at the height of GG's popularity. A much anticipated Triple A title that blatantly told YouTubers to cut out the bits of their videos that showed the game poorly. GG's response? "Well, Total Biscuit made a video about it, so that's handled."

Meanwhile, GG's big three targets were an indie developer who might've gotten more press "than she deserved" for a free indie game most people never heard of even in passing; a critic who got more money and attention "then she deserved" criticizing games from a perspective they didn't like; and a games journalist who said that devs shouldn't cater to an ultimately incorrect stereotype of gamers, but she said it in a way that made all the broflakes mad.

Basically, they managed to spin a tale about the unethical nature of games journalism that didn't, in any way, implicate any game dev or publisher of significant means. It'd be like launching a years long crusade against the ethics in the political process and the nature of political reporting, and then focusing on city council elections in towns smaller than Helena, Montana.

altnameJag:

Lots of good points, and that's precisely why I'm asking. Iirc there was also a scandal not long before GG hit in full force, where Ubi offered journalists grab bags that contained a handheld console of some sort - I may be wrong since it's been a while and I can't really find any articles about the issue, since it just came and went without making much noise. Still, I hadn't seen that sort of point addressed in discussion with the GG crowd and I'd rather hear them out before jumping to conclusions, hence the thread.

If you're of the wrong political stripe or have the wrong taste in games, you're considered a Social Justice Warrior and a target regardless. Also the wrong religion (Jewish) will get you on the hitlist.

I don't think any GG activist here gets to choose the target. They simply hear about them from more active members and just follow the flock.

CaitSeith:
I don't think any GG activist here gets to choose the target. They simply hear about them from more active members and just follow the flock.

They may not actively choose the targets for the entire community, but they still seem to, by and large, personally keep expending effort disproportionate to the apparent threat their target poses to their stated objective.
Moreover, even if the targets are not an issue of individual choice, but some form of malleable, intangible consensus, how can a movement that stands up against women working outside of a rigid framework of a large, well coordinated and wealthy organization, yet seemingly ignores massive corporations and their equally massive transgressions be reasonably rationalized as primarily defending journalistic integrity?

You guys sounds like GamerGate is a club where members meet once a week. You also all sound paranoid about them.

WeepingAngels:
You guys sounds like GamerGate is a club where members meet once a week. You also all sound paranoid about them.

It's not an alternate fact that Oprah in fact runs the club and picks the games.

Oh for crying out loud.

"GamerGate" was a scandal that revealed the extent of collusion and agenda driving among the leading "gaming" media outlets. Turns out that instead of offering independent views and opinions, these outlets largely coordinated in creating a "party line" to determine what to promote (i.e. Zoe Quinn and cronies) and what to blackball (Fine Young Capitalists, perceived as a rival operation by Ms. Quinn). Of course they also functioned as gatekeepers regarding hiring, so that only likeminded people could become "games journos" across all these leading sites, eliminating the emergence of alternative viewpoints in the future.

It logically follows that the proper "targets" of the "GamerGate" protests are these particular media outlets, and others cooperating with them in advancing their fraudulent narrative about the "misogynist hordes of Muh White Males". Naturally some of the protesters have extended their purview to cover other examples of corruption in gaming media, like that Shadows of Mordor controversy. But the crucial thing is that it was indeed exposed, and no one in the media was actively covering it up or defending it as legitimate "progress" towards a higher status for games "as art", or something to that effect. In other words, it was handled satisfactorily and there's little need to keep rehashing it.

The best explanation I've seen was a series of videos by Innuendo Studios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ

In essence, GamerGate is an angry response to perceived attacks on games. Reviewers, commentators or developers who are seen as critical of the gaming status quo become the targets. It is understandable - when people criticise something you love you tend to go on the defensive and bite back. So the targets are mostly those connected with feminism and political correctness, as they are the people criticising the games.

StatusNil:

Thank you, I have kept up on the general goings on and I understand the stated root issue. I'm afraid, that I've used the term GamerGate or GG somewhat inaccurately, as I've meant the gator community, people who had supported and gotten involved in exposing and circulating the issue.

As I mentioned before, the GG case had stirred up quite a storm - however, there have since been other public cases of gaming press' journalistic integrity being severely compromised: aside from the stuff already mentioned, I recall Gearbox coercing positive reviews of Aliens: Colonial Marines out of some news outlets, Ubisoft covering up one of the buggiest high profile releases in semi-recent memory by strict review embargoes and DMCA strikes against YT videos discussing the issues, and of course no member of the press has yet managed to get a public statement regarding the progress on Half-Life 3 from Valve. There have also been no shortage of controversies of this stripe earlier, yet none provoked such an impassioned, widespread response. Why doesn't the same community act with something at the very least comparable to that vigor in these cases?

Is it popular perception that the corruption unearthed in the GG scandal was so severe, that Quinn, a lone dev with no financial backing to speak of and without support of many specialized departments that a company has on hand, such as legal and marketing, was posing a much more dire threat to gaming journalism than general corporate meddling?

Parrikle:
The best explanation I've seen was a series of videos by Innuendo Studios: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y8XgGhXkTQ

In essence, GamerGate is an angry response to perceived attacks on games. Reviewers, commentators or developers who are seen as critical of the gaming status quo become the targets. It is understandable - when people criticise something you love you tend to go on the defensive and bite back. So the targets are mostly those connected with feminism and political correctness, as they are the people criticising the games.

Thanks, the video had run a little long and while I didn't necessarily agree with everything (author kinda makes it sound like Sarkeesian and Quinn's work is of exceptional quality), but I really liked some points: the explanation of the mechanisms supporting GG in particular had made a lot of sense.

That being said, what I'm really interested is a Gator side explanation as to why, exactly, they are so lenient towards corporate shenanigans. In fact, whether the GG has a point and is based completely on irrefutable facts, and is thus subject to real world's causality, or if it's a fabricated narrative that successfully deceived large masses and therefore must maintain internal consistency to withstand at least basic scrutiny - either way, there should be logical explanations that describe at least the broadest, most general issues with the movement. I believe Gators' apparent ambivalence towards indisputable threats to journalistic integrity among the gaming press to go against such logic and as such, I wish to see how they perceive such ambivalence to fit into the general state of affairs, that I may understand it.

You guys aren't going to get anywhere while you maintain the belief that "GamerGate" is some sort of organization.

inmunitas:
You guys aren't going to get anywhere while you maintain the belief that "GamerGate" is some sort of organization.

Of course it's not, it's absolutely disorganized - it's been frequently described as a mob, though I believe that in order to foster amicable discussion, a more neutral term like "popular movement" would be more welcome.

Either way, it claims to stand for something, and goes about it in a way that has, on occasion, raised questions as to their stated motives' legitimacy, as it appears to tackle the stated objective in a counter-intuitive, roundabout way, by drawing attention to secondary targets, who often benefit from said attention, while giving high profile perpetrators, who only stand to lose from being exposed a more or less free pass (or at the very least pursuing them in a decidedly halfhearted way, compared to the likes of Sarkeesian and Quinn).

Obviously, I'm not looking for an official statement from His Excellence King of Gamergate, Sovereign of 4chan and High Lord of Memes, I simply want to learn the individual gators' opinion on why that is/was the right way to go about things, or if it was not, why have things gone in that direction anyway.

Ugicywapih:
Is it popular perception that the corruption unearthed in the GG scandal was so severe, that Quinn, a lone dev with no financial backing to speak of and without support of many specialized departments that a company has on hand, such as legal and marketing, was posing a much more dire threat to gaming journalism than general corporate meddling?

That's a damn good question. Not a new one, but more eloquent than these sorts of threads usually get.

WeepingAngels:
You guys sounds like GamerGate is a club where members meet once a week. You also all sound paranoid about them.

No. They meet much more often and sporatically. Never heard of 8chan?

Smithnikov:

WeepingAngels:
You guys sounds like GamerGate is a club where members meet once a week. You also all sound paranoid about them.

No. They meet much more often and sporatically. Never heard of 8chan?

I see so Gamer Gate is officially 8chan and only 8chan. Well, I guess I am off the hook.

Ugicywapih:

inmunitas:
You guys aren't going to get anywhere while you maintain the belief that "GamerGate" is some sort of organization.

Of course it's not, it's absolutely disorganized - it's been frequently described as a mob, though I believe that in order to foster amicable discussion, a more neutral term like "popular movement" would be more welcome.

Either way, it claims to stand for something, and goes about it in a way that has, on occasion, raised questions as to their stated motives' legitimacy, as it appears to tackle the stated objective in a counter-intuitive, roundabout way, by drawing attention to secondary targets, who often benefit from said attention, while giving high profile perpetrators, who only stand to lose from being exposed a more or less free pass (or at the very least pursuing them in a decidedly halfhearted way, compared to the likes of Sarkeesian and Quinn).

Obviously, I'm not looking for an official statement from His Excellence King of Gamergate, Sovereign of 4chan and High Lord of Memes, I simply want to learn the individual gators' opinion on why that is/was the right way to go about things, or if it was not, why have things gone in that direction anyway.

You agree it's not, yet you're still treating it like is, which is it? Do you believe "GamerGate" is some sort of organization/entity/movement, or don't you?

Ha ha, they don't have weekly meetings and target planning sessions.

It was always just people hammering away at their keyboards after assuming one of two broad binary positions.

It's over now, the SJWs who were trying to control the agenda were flagged up, some ads were pulled and that's that.

Shame the Escapist was destroyed in the process though :(

WeepingAngels:

Smithnikov:

WeepingAngels:
You guys sounds like GamerGate is a club where members meet once a week. You also all sound paranoid about them.

No. They meet much more often and sporatically. Never heard of 8chan?

I see so Gamer Gate is officially 8chan and only 8chan. Well, I guess I am off the hook.

Well, if the anti gamers are only Buzzfeed, Kotaku, (and a couple of other journo sites, forgive me if I forget), Tumblr, and the Democrat party, then I'm off the hook too.

Smithnikov:

WeepingAngels:

Smithnikov:

No. They meet much more often and sporatically. Never heard of 8chan?

I see so Gamer Gate is officially 8chan and only 8chan. Well, I guess I am off the hook.

Well, if the anti gamers are only Buzzfeed, Kotaku, (and a couple of other journo sites, forgive me if I forget), Tumblr, and the Democrat party, then I'm off the hook too.

Who said that, I didn't. It's pretty clear that there are plenty of anti-GG's right here and NeoGaf has banned everyone except anti-GG's or those left know better than to speak up.

inmunitas:
organization/entity/movement

These are synonyms but do not mean the same thing, nor does not being described as one thing preclude being described as another.

BeetleManiac:

inmunitas:
organization/entity/movement

These are synonyms but do not mean the same thing, nor does not being described as one thing preclude being described as another.

Yes they don't necessarily have the exact same meaning, but they sort of do.

inmunitas:
Yes they don't necessarily have the exact same meaning, but they sort of do.

They are synonyms. They are not interchangeable. Do not treat them as such because that would be dishonest.

BeetleManiac:

inmunitas:
Yes they don't necessarily have the exact same meaning, but they sort of do.

They are synonyms. They are not interchangeable. Do not treat them as such because that would be dishonest.

Yes, they are indeed synonyms. Mhmm yep. Honestly I don't see where you are going with this.

inmunitas:
Yes, they are indeed synonyms. Mhmm yep. Honestly I don't see where you are going with this.

At this point I'm inclined to believe that lack of understanding is willful. Synonym does not mean, "the exact same thing." They're not interchangeable. Your repeated insistence that they are does you no favors.

BeetleManiac:

Ugicywapih:
Is it popular perception that the corruption unearthed in the GG scandal was so severe, that Quinn, a lone dev with no financial backing to speak of and without support of many specialized departments that a company has on hand, such as legal and marketing, was posing a much more dire threat to gaming journalism than general corporate meddling?

That's a damn good question. Not a new one, but more eloquent than these sorts of threads usually get.

Thank you, could you point me to any place where it's actually been answered?

inmunitas:

BeetleManiac:

inmunitas:
organization/entity/movement

These are synonyms but do not mean the same thing, nor does not being described as one thing preclude being described as another.

Yes they don't necessarily have the exact same meaning, but they sort of do.

At the risk of getting bogged down in semantics, organization is, as the word implies, organized. A movement, according to a thesaurus is more akin to a crusade or demonstration - some parties also describe themselves as "popular movements" for example and I generally understand the term to mean a group of people, not necessarily organized, but driven by a singular ideological purpose, a shared goal. An entity is a very broad term, synonymous with "a being". I am an entity, but not a movement or an organization. A popular uprising would be a movement, but I wouldn't necessarily call it an organization, unless/until it manages to develop centralized command. A corporation is an organization, but it's not necessarily driven by anything but profit and I generally wouldn't call one a movement. A political party would generally be both a movement and an organization. I'm sorry if the language used caused any confusion.

I don't believe this particular point is even relevant, however. Gators (as in gamergate supporters) are people that exist, yes? As such, they are capable of individual thought and independent assessment of the situation at hand (I know some folks reading this will get an itch to dispute this claim. Please don't - that's an exaggerated, disrespectful stance to take). I simply wish to know how individual gators independently assess the rationality of their collective actions - if for example you would happen to self-identify as a gator, tell me why *you think* yourself and other gators focused on targets that I perceive as secondary threats (if at all) to ethics in gaming journalism, when compared to corporate interests.

^This is a simplistic answer, that forgoes any minutiae of the issue, or my personal stance on it. You are of course welcome to include such auxiliary information, in fact I'm sure that, as it would paint a more complete picture, that would help to foster understanding, I have simply figured attaching such details to a simple example would be a waste of time.

Ugicywapih:
Gators (as in gamergate supporters) are people that exist, yes?

I don't believe so, at least not in the sense where such a proclamation is in any way meaningful.

BeetleManiac:

inmunitas:
Yes, they are indeed synonyms. Mhmm yep. Honestly I don't see where you are going with this.

At this point I'm inclined to believe that lack of understanding is willful. Synonym does not mean, "the exact same thing." They're not interchangeable. Your repeated insistence that they are does you no favors.

At no point have I stated 'synonym' means "the exact same thing", implied as such, or even used synonyms in such a manner.

 Pages 1 2 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