Current Events > Gamergate was almost a decade ago.

(+) Yeah! (+)

So I can't use Wikipedia to get an idea of Gamergate

and I can't use the Gamergate subreddit to get an idea of Gamergate either.

Yeah, the guys sending death and rape threats to female game devs and journalists were just understandably upset at being misrepresented.

/s

Lmao.

they only accepted trusted/verified sources for their articles

If you think this is a bad thing, lmao.

If you think this is a bad thing, lmao.

And now you are just arguing from the supposed subjective experience of people in the past which nobody has any way of concretely "debunking".

Btw, on this forum, at least, 99% of the conversation during Gamergate was about "fighting back against the SJWs ruining gaming culture." With a very very large focus on how booby characters are lol.

And now you are just arguing from the supposed subjective experience of people in the past which nobody has any way of concretely "debunking".

idk who Jordan Owen is, but Hbomberguy is a POS

You may have issues with the gaming industry, but Gamergate was not your movement lol.

Do you remember your time during Gamergate being driven primarily by discussion of unfair review practices and shitty labor conditions?

I just directly refute any notion that criticism of how fucked up the video game industry and mainstream media are is somehow sexist hate speech.

you can keep the gymboree, but it's not built for this level of acrobatic conclusions

Case and point

This topic alone by itself a decade after the fact is full of people just screaming about Abe Lincoln and the Confederacy when you bring up Crunch Periods being standard practice and "I wasn't aware of that so it didn't happen"

Now imagine this a decade ago when the stuff was hot and there was vested interest in deflecting.

Again, you guys aren't even willing to talk crunch periods or layoffs or lootboxes. Just weird rants and insults.

What do crunch periods have to do with sexism? How can you possibly be sexist for talking about crunch periods?

What do crunch periods have to do with sexism? How can you possibly be sexist for talking about crunch periods?

They've mastered the art of deflection over the years since gamergate.

It's easily applicable to anything now.

"You didn't like the new Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, etc? It's because you're a sexist, I don't care if you have some valid criticisms. You aren't allowed to have those at the same time that someone on the internet is being harassed."

Nevermind that as long as anonymity on the internet exists there will always be some form of harassment. For those who would try to obfuscate my statement, no...this doesn't mean I'm endorsing it, just stating that it's an inevitability.

Scapegoats

I think the problem is you're thinking it's us versus them mindset. This isn't red team versus blue team.

They've mastered the art of deflection over the years since gamergate.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/2/3/AAEv3mAAEQXn.png

Why do I need to listen to criticism if I can just point to some assholes sending death threats and pretend like they're the same people making criticism?

I'm done going back and forth with people who can't separate harassment from criticism
Untracking this topic

Why do I need to listen to criticism if I can just point to some assholes sending death threats and pretend like they're the same people making criticism?

I'm done going back and forth with people who can't separate harassment from criticism
Untracking this topic

gamergate was basically the anti hogwarts of its day. based on a fallacious narrative and used as a weapon to attack and harass people.

^ You're talking like the HL loons aren't sending death threats and harrasing people

You're ignoring the loons for everyone else and focusing on nothing but the loons of Gamergate

Because that's what your media feeds told you to do for a decade and you've dug yourself a hole now

Because that's what your media feeds told you to do for a decade and you've dug yourself a hole now

Same way if look at Bernie Sanders, nearly all mainstream media coverage of him his hostile and negative.

I often say Im a video game culture writer, but lately I dont know exactly what that means. Game culture as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- its not even culture. Its buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and its getting mad on the internet. Its young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They dont know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who dont quite know why they themselves are standing there. Games culture is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online wars about social justice or game journalism ethics, straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences. Because of video games. Lately, I often find myself wondering what Im even doing here. And I know Im not alone. All of us should be better than this. You should be deeply questioning your life choices if this and this and this are the prominent public face your business presents to the rest of the world.
"When you decline to create or to curate a culture in your spaces, youre responsible for what spawns in the vacuum."
This is what the rest of the world knows about your industry -- this, and headlines about billion-dollar war simulators or those junkies with the touchscreen candies. Thats it. You should absolutely be better than this. You dont want to be divisive? Whos being divided, except for people who are okay with an infantilized cultural desert of shitty behavior and people who arent? What is there to debate?

Isn't TheQuarterPounder one of them?

At least the anti-HL people can stay on target. They feel like HL sales fund JK Rowling and assist her transphobe activities so they target her revenue stream and supporters. Sure they're completely inneffectual and harass people for no reason, but at least they're pointed in the same direction.

It's astounding how the media bias can be so blatant and yet people will still pretend it's 100% credible and that the people complaining are the problem.

Literally all we're claiming here is that some of the people lured into GG had positive intentions, yet people here are deadset on generalizing everyone. Then they wonder why the people they slandered end up courted by political extremists.

I get it. Some are trying to save face and act like it was hijacked. Except someone hijacked them by pretending they cared and then slowly revealed the identity politics at play, the misogyny and complaints about "woke agenda" about putting singular minorities in games or movies. Yet I see no party splinter, no Reformationists and just people going "It's sad what happened to ___, it was only about game reviews in the beginning!"

You do realize this whole "MSM is brainwashing you and radicalizing you against the truth" is literally one of the primary talking points that drove the Trump campaign to success, right?

Pretty sure this is exactly the rhetoric about Jan 6th that Tucker Carlson just got ripped for.

Is it possible that you were just duped by bad actors, who, for whatever silly reason, convinced you that Gamergate was an honest movement with a few bad actors which the MSM prop up as examples?

What's made it effective, though, is that it's exploited the same basic loophole in the system that generations of social reactionaries have: the press's genuine and deep-seated belief that you gotta hear both sides. Even when not presupposing that all truth lies at a fixed point exactly equidistant between two competing positions, the American press works under the assumption that anyone more respectable than, say, an avowed neo-Nazi is operating in something like good faith. And this is why a loosely organized, lightly noticed collection of gamers, operating from a playbook that was showing its age during Ronald Reagan's rise to power, have been able to set the terms of debate in a $100 billion industry, even as they send women like Brianna Wu into hiding and show every sign that they intend to keep doing so until all their demands are met.
...
Earlier this month, the New York Times covered Intel's capitulation in the face of a coordinated Gamergate campaign, called "Operation Disrespectful Nod." Here's how the story read:
For a little more than a month, a firestorm over sexism and journalistic ethics has roiled the video game community, culminating in an orchestrated campaign to pressure companies into pulling their advertisements from game sites.
That campaign won a big victory in recent days with a decision by Intel, the chip maker, to pull ads from Gamasutra, a site for game developers.
Intel's decision added to a controversy that has focused attention on the treatment of women in the games business and the power of online mobs. The debate intensified in August, partly because of the online posts of a spurned ex-boyfriend of a female game developer.
The story continued in this veincautious, assiduously neutral, lobotomized, never questioning the premises of the Gamergate "firestorm" and "debate." Both sides were heard. And thus did Leigh Alexander's commentary on the pluralism of gaming today get equal time with a campaign bent on silencing her.
And that's how it works. It's a neat trick. Agitate bare-facedly for the absolute necessity of developers investing the vast majority of their resources in games pitched at the intellectual and emotional level of a 16-year-old suburban masturbator, and no one beyond the gaming world is going to take you very seriously. But make it a story about an oppressive and hypocritical media conspiracy, and all of a sudden you have a cause, a side in a "debate."

What's made it effective, though, is that it's exploited the same basic loophole in the system that generations of social reactionaries have: the press's genuine and deep-seated belief that you gotta hear both sides. Even when not presupposing that all truth lies at a fixed point exactly equidistant between two competing positions, the American press works under the assumption that anyone more respectable than, say, an avowed neo-Nazi is operating in something like good faith

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/3/6/AAPHc5AAEQcg.jpg

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/3/7/AAPHc5AAEQch.jpg