Support NeoGAF

[s10satsu]

Oh he is a dirtbag in this case too.
He could just happen to be a dirtbag with a legitimate point.

Haha, true enough. Looks like Zoe just published a more in depth blog about the case as well. Haven't read it yet though.

 

[Listonosh]

At this point it's just amazing to me how many of you don't think to like, take 10 minutes to read the wikipedia article about Gamergate and instead high-five each other for being ignorant. Why does this happen in every GG related discussion here?

It's important to help misguided people learn what's going on, but when half a thread two years into an ongoing controversy is like this, I cant help but think you guys see it as a badge of honor. And given the subject matter -- organized mass harassment of mainly women -- it's particularly poor form to feel like you accomplished something by being uninformed. And then to post about it in Gamergate news threads, for some inexplicable reason.

Because when I first had slight interest in the beginning, no one could give me a straight answer as to what it was. I'm 100% serious. I've had different people constantly telling me it was something else. At that point, I was like fuck it. I'm all for the fair treatment of women, and against their harassment, and the reason I was originally going to post here was a congratulations for Zoe, cause I actually was familiar with that particular news back when this shitstorm started.

I guess I'll see myself out

 

[DarkConfidant]

Gamergate had massive implications outside gaming. It has been an ongoing news topic -- as in, mainstream news, political news -- for a long time.

Get out of your bubbles.

Yeah, I've seen other aspects of culture, aside from news, also pick up the topics, if not directly reference GG.




Also, yay for minor justice! Fuck GG.

 

[The Lamp]

Thankfully, this thread is packed with explanations of Gamergate on every single page. I'll go for another one: with harassment of Zoe Quinn as a catalyst, a group of angry young men codified a set of harassment tactics to attack feminists and liberals even tangentially related to gaming. This toolset has since been applied to multiple fandoms outside games and serves as the new model for alt-right political harassment in general.

Yeah, well I'm on my way out of this thread, because I'm not really interested in a discussion on this topic that goes to the length/depth some others here are, I was just responding to that one person.

But from your explanation, yes, that sounds awful, and that is awful that Zoe was harassed and that people are using the incident to bully others on the internet. I am obviously glad that she, as a victim, got the victory she deserved.

The issue has never been complicated or meta to anyone observing it from the outside. It has been embarrassingly simple. Timelines and activities both. I'd caution that the only people I have ever heard say "it's complicated" have been its passive aggressive defenders.

No, I didn't think the history of this thing wasn't as simple as you describe. I have seen several threads over the years with flowing trains of quotes and tweets and journal articles and journalists commenting on each other that I just have not followed up with and made the whole issue sound intimidating to understand.

Well I'm definitely not a defender or passive aggressive. I have heard it's oppressive to women which is obviously bad and I do not support sexism/oppression of women.

 

[Ghost Dad the Whip]

have the GGs doxxed the judge yet?

So happy for Zoe. Time to get on with things now that the dragged out case is closed.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Some people take pride in ignorance. Like in OT, when someone posts "Who?" in response to a thread about pop stars or something "mainstream".

Which ironically betrays the fact that they know about the celebrity enough to know they are mainstream, and thus that their ignorance is not widely shared.

So in short, they even fail in their already depressing goal of showing the world how distinguishedly ignorant they are. If Zoe ever makes Depression Quest 2, this is powerful material right here.

No, I didn't think the history of this thing wasn't as simple as you describe. I have seen several threads over the years with flowing trains of quotes and tweets and journal articles and journalists commenting on each other that I just have not followed up with and made the whole issue sound intimidating to understand.

I remain baffled by how challenging it can be to read a wikipedia article on the subject. It's not even that long.

Also let me spare a moment to say at times like this is when I love GAF the most. If we get occasional derails and disingenuous trolls, most people in here are on point reasoning why that's toxic and the mods waste no time dealing with them. In most other places even the most basic conversation is instantly blotted out by batshit deranged GGers running rampant.

 

[dodgykebaab]

More accurately it was a harassment campaign that tried to present itself as being anything besides that by attempting to co-opt actual concerns into its rhetoric in hopes of tricking people into its crusade.

This attitude is why people can't have mature conversations on the internet any more.

Gamer Gate may have started as one thing, but it very quickly (in a matter of hours I'd argue) involved the following:

* People Abusing Zoe Quinn,
* People Discussing the events that lead the the ex boyfriend doing what he did,
* People not talking about Zoe Quinn and looking at Games Journalism,
* People talking about specific websites and their staff

Now right there you have four conversations going on but the mob mentality of the internet decided to declare people either pro or anti gamer gate.

How on earth can you be in one of two camps when you have double the amount of conversations going on?

People saw this whole thing as a binary decision when the actual fact is that it was a topic that went off in many different directions.

Just to nail the whole saga down to just one topic is an immature and stupid thing to do.

 

[PataHikari]

have the GGs doxxed the judge yet?

So happy for Zoe. Time to get on with things now that the dragged out case is closed.

Depends.

Is the judge a woman?

Just to nail the whole saga down to just one topic is an immature and stupid thing to do.

Except Gamegate is about one topic.

Namely the harassment of women.

 

[partyphone]

at this point in time trying to claim that gamergate is multifaceted is bullshit. their tactics were specifically designed to obfuscate their real motive. so now that the veil has been lifted there's no reason to pretend that they were ever anything but a misogynist hate group. the devil doesn't need any more advocates. especially on this topic.

 

[Nekofrog]

Something I've been wondering ever since GG started shitting up everything:

Is it still possible to have a real discussion about ethics in games journalism in a post-GG world? Is that topic now endlessly linked to them? I don't agree with the harassment/sexism/misogyny bullshit that group propagates, but I think there are still discussions to be had about ethics, but those discussions need to be fully removed from GG... Don't know if that can be done though.

That's one of the biggest ironies. GAF used to be one of the BEST PLACES to come to in regards to actual discussion of "ethics" in games journalism. I put quotes over that word because of the joke line it has become.

There would be thread after thread over the years discussing what conflicts of interests had arose in X situation, some of it was total BS in that people were mad a review got an 8.8 instead of 10/10 best game evar, but for the most part GAF used to have really great discourse on this topic.

Now that the tag line "ethics in game journalism" has been skewed to "drive all wimmins, gays, minorities, and trannies outta my games (unless they lock and stock agree with my view that they should shut up and tow the party line)" by these GoobyGoots, there is little discussion to actually be had.

 

[dodgykebaab]

Except Gamegate is about one topic.

Namely the harassment of women.

If that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.
I don't think any sane person would think that the abuse Zoe went through was in any way correct, but to deny the fact that the topic spawned an interesting look at the way parts of the games media is corrupt is just childish.

I fail to see why people can't understand that Zoe's abuse was the catalyst for this further conversation. I understand that the fact that Zoe was involved in the problems brought up in that corruption conversation means it got tagged in with the whole gamergate scandal.

But I can't see why so many people refuse to acknowledge that this further conversation even happened.

Look, what happened to Zoe is bad; we can all agree that. But I don't know her or am ever likely to meet her. I wish no ill on her, but in reality I'm sure I'll never know the whole story so I'm not going to involve myself in that side of things. Abusing anyone is wrong, this shouldn't even need to be said, but I'm not about to leap to the defence of someone I know nothing about outside of hear-say on internet forums.

I do however read gaming websites and if the people behind them are being corrupted then I'd like to know about that.

 

[Ucchedavāda]

I remain baffled by how challenging it can be to read a wikipedia article on the subject. It's not even that long.

There is also RationalWiki's rather extensive pages on GamerGate, including a detailed time-line, and an "Index to Creationist Claims"-like overview of common GamerGate accusations. And you'll find that on the first page if you google "gamergate", with the first hit being the aforementioned Wikipedia article.

GamerGate is a huge mess, and you necessarily have to spend some time to get to the bottom of it, which just makes it all the more absurd when people demand to have it explained to them in a forum post.

 

[Fat4all]

but to deny the fact that the topic spawned an interesting look at the way parts of the games media is corrupt is just childish.

You mean Kotaku. Because that's all they ever really cared to go after whole hog.

And pretty much only because their articles are more feminist-leaning then some other gaming media sites.

 

[partyphone]

If that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.
I don't think any sane person would think that the abuse Zoe went through was in any way correct, but to deny the fact that the topic spawned an interesting look at the way parts of the games media is corrupt* is just childish.

I fail to see why people can't understand that Zoe's abuse was the catalyst for this further conversation. I understand that the fact that Zoe was involved in the problems brought up in that corruption conversation means it got tagged in with the whole gamergate scandal.

But I can't see why so many people refuse to acknowledge that this further conversation even happened.

Look, what happened to Zoe is bad; we can all agree that. But I don't know her or am ever likely to meet her. I wish no ill on her, but in reality I'm sure I'll never know the whole story so I'm not going to involve myself in that side of things. Abusing anyone is wrong, this shouldn't even need to be said, but I'm not about to leap to the defence of someone I know nothing about outside of hear-say on internet forums.

I do however read gaming websites and if the people behind them are being corrupted then I'd like to know about that.

*citation needed

 

[RoboPlato]

Glad to hear this. Zoe is a really cool/funny person and she deserves some peace. I wish she didn't have to be known as the GamerGate girl.

 

[PataHikari]

If that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.

I generally believe in facts yes.

I don't think any sane person would think that the abuse Zoe went through was in any way correct, but to deny the fact that the topic spawned an interesting look at the way parts of the games media is corrupt is just childish.

No it did not.

The central topics of Gamergate have always been come back to two people

Zoe Quinn: Amatur game developer. Not a journalist.
Anita Sarkeesian: Feminist critic. Not a journalist.

Gamergate, from day one has been about harassing women who dare involve themselves in gaming. It has nothing to do with journalism, and the fact that they ignore the male journalist that they allege that Ms. Quinn slept with to get a positive review (That never existed) reveals their true colors.

I fail to see why people can't understand that Zoe's abuse was the catalyst for this further conversation. I understand that the fact that Zoe was involved in the problems brought up in that corruption conversation means it got tagged in with the whole gamergate scandal.

Because there is no abuse. The only word we have on the alleged "abuse" is from a known liar and malciious individual that's been doing his best to ruin Ms. Quinn's life, and who organized and started this entire harassment campaign.

But I can't see why so many people refuse to acknowledge that this further conversation even happened.

Because there never was any further conversation.

Any talk about "ethics" is just a smokescreen to allow further harassment of women.

 

[Mael]

If that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.
I don't think any sane person would think that the abuse Zoe went through was in any way correct, but to deny the fact that the topic spawned an interesting look at the way parts of the games media is corrupt is just childish.

I fail to see why people can't understand that Zoe's abuse was the catalyst for this further conversation. I understand that the fact that Zoe was involved in the problems brought up in that corruption conversation means it got tagged in with the whole gamergate scandal.

But I can't see why so many people refuse to acknowledge that this further conversation even happened.

Look, what happened to Zoe is bad; we can all agree that. But I don't know her or am ever likely to meet her. I wish no ill on her, but in reality I'm sure I'll never know the whole story so I'm not going to involve myself in that side of things. Abusing anyone is wrong, this shouldn't even need to be said, but I'm not about to leap to the defence of someone I know nothing about outside of hear-say on internet forums.

I do however read gaming websites and if the people behind them are being corrupted then I'd like to know about that.

Look, nothing of value was gained from GG.
NOTHING.
There was already discussion about the ethics of gaming journalism before and I'd argue that it was actually a bigger topic than it was after that shitshow.
Remember Gertsman and the reason he was fired of Gamespot?
That was nearly a decade prior that shitty's public meltdown.
the only topic of discussion from that shitty movement is how they fear so much that dudebro shit is going away because of women or some shit.
They also had that hilarious collusion/nepotism 'scandal' about gaming journalists having a mailing list.
Literally the only thing good that came out of GG is the push to the career of Sarkeesian because it made people realize that they could be better than machismo shitstains.

 

[Jumplion]

If that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.
I don't think any sane person would think that the abuse Zoe went through was in any way correct, but to deny the fact that the topic spawned an interesting look at the way parts of the games media is corrupt is just childish.

Was that conversation not spurred on by Gertsmann's firing? Or "doritosgate"? Or any number of stories that we've had over the years of journalists and developers and publishers doing shitty stuff? I don't recall a single story where an indie developer tries to woo journalists with review events, hotels, exorbitant swag, or anything like that. Low-level indie developers aren't the ones who have the power for corruption nor are they the ones who've demonstrated said corruption.

Why did Quinn have to be the witch to burn to "get the conversation started" when the conversation was already happening? This is to say nothing of Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, or the many other women who had nothing to do with "corruption in games journalism".

I fail to see why people can't understand that Zoe's abuse was the catalyst for this further conversation. I understand that the fact that Zoe was involved in the problems brought up in that corruption conversation means it got tagged in with the whole gamergate scandal.

But I can't see why so many people refuse to acknowledge that this further conversation even happened.

Look, what happened to Zoe is bad; we can all agree that. But I don't know her or am ever likely to meet her. I wish no ill on her, but in reality I'm sure I'll never know the whole story so I'm not going to involve myself in that side of things. Abusing anyone is wrong, this shouldn't even need to be said, but I'm not about to leap to the defence of someone I know nothing about outside of hear-say on internet forums.

I do however read gaming websites and if the people behind them are being corrupted then I'd like to know about that.

This is like saying "sure, Lewinski was unfairly focused on and harangued in the public media compared to the goddamn president, but at least we got some conversations on how we should expect public figures to conduct their private relationships"
(not to compare Quinn's false accusations of sexual relations with Lewinski's, but you get the idea. Only analogy I could think at the top of my head)

Yeah, we've been having that conversation regardless.

Is there a conversation to be had on how to best conduct professional relationships in journalism, particularly in entertainment media like in video games and film? Sure. Quinn was not the person to start that conversation on top of, nor was it worth any of the absolute trash, from doxxing herself and family members, to creating a whole atmosphere of absolute shittery on the internet.

 

[Jackpot]

If that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.
I don't think any sane person would think that the abuse Zoe went through was in any way correct, but to deny the fact that the topic spawned an interesting look at the way parts of the games media is corrupt is just childish.

It's funny how topics about actual bad practices like the promotion policies YT lets play personalities sign sank like a stone in GGer circles, but if you posted an article about a woman commenting on something they went bananas.

 

[domlolz]

Gamergate had massive implications outside gaming. It has been an ongoing news topic -- as in, mainstream news, political news -- for a long time.

Get out of your bubbles.

you have to be in a bubble to claim that gamergate was massive too. the lasting legacy will be a few amendments to harassment laws. it was just another battle in the endless culture war between conservatives and 'liberals'.

it was a lot of noise with little to no significance to most peoples actual lives.

 

[dodgykebaab]

Was that conversation not spurred on by Gertsmann's firing? Or "doritosgate"? Or any number of stories that we've had over the years of journalists and developers and publishers doing shitty stuff? I don't recall a single story where an indie developer tries to woo journalists with review events, hotels, exorbitant swag, or anything like that. Low-level indie developers aren't the ones who have the power for corruption nor are they the ones who've demonstrated said corruption.

Why did Quinn have to be the witch to burn to "get the conversation started" when the conversation was already happening? This is to say nothing of Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, or the many other women who had nothing to do with "corruption in games journalism".



This is like saying "sure, Lewinski was unfairly focused on and harangued in the public media compared to the goddamn president, but at least we got some conversations on how we should expect public figures to conduct their private relationships"
(not to compare Quinn's false accusations of sexual relations with Lewinski's, but you get the idea. Only analogy I could think at the top of my head)

Yeah, we've been having that conversation regardless.

Is there a conversation to be had on how to best conduct professional relationships in journalism, particularly in entertainment media like in video games and film? Sure. Quinn was not the person to start that conversation on top of, nor was it worth any of the absolute trash, from doxxing herself and family members, to creating a whole atmosphere of absolute shittery on the internet.

I never said it didn't happen Pre-Zoe. But there no no doubt that this Saga pushed those same conversations back to the hot topics of the day. Not just that but so many people these same ethics conversations were strung out for a much longer time. I mean come on, we are talking about it now even though it's been a long time since all this happened.

 

[nakedeyes]

Honestly, I nearly spit my coffee out when I read what Brave said as well, but I can totally see someone googling "gamergate" and still not knowing what the fuck is going on. Its a term that has been used to represent different things by different people. Whole thing is just a cluster fuck.

Like "Gamergate sucks", "Gamergate can fuck off".. I agree with the sentiment because I know at this point what these people are saying, but its like.. I thought it was the name of the situation ( encapsulating both sides ), not just a nick name for the misogynists?

 

[Corronchilejano]

you have to be in a bubble to claim that gamergate was massive too. the lasting legacy will be a few amendments to harassment laws. it was just another battle in the endless culture war between conservatives and 'liberals'.

it was a lot of noise with little to no significance to most peoples actual lives.

Yep.

 

[Mael]

I never said it didn't happen Pre-Zoe. But there no no doubt that this Saga pushed those same conversations back to the hot topics of the day. Not just that but so many people these same ethics conversations were strung out for a much longer time. I mean come on, we are talking about it now even though it's been a long time since all this happened.

You're joking right?
We had a huge topic about this subject here about actual malpractice and ethical issues with a recent issue still being discussed when that blew up.
Do you happened then?
This drowned all gaming media discussion at the exclusion of all else to the point that it was impossible to discuss it without having to deal with that shitty harassment hate group.
It did the very opposite of what you are claiming.

And while we're still discussing the events of GG, we're not discussing anything related to journalism.

 

[dodgykebaab]

.. I thought it was the name of the situation ( encapsulating both sides ), not just a nick name for the misogynists?

Hang on...that is what #gamergate was!

 

[nakedeyes]

Hang on...that is what #gamergate was!

Yeah I think so.. but a bunch of people ( including in this very thread ) use it as a term for the misogynists themselves.. I dunno. Fuck it?

 

[Freiya]

And if a junior gets banned for getting annoyingly argumentative about discussed-to-death claims that have long since been disproven, people that spend no time on gaf start screaming "censorship" and "hive mind".

Basically. As someone who never really cared to look into GG too much this definitely seems unfair to me. The guy posts his understanding of the situation and gets clobbered for it on top of a ban. The only thing I knew about GG was basically what Brave said too. Though in my case I don't really care if it's true or not. I don't see anything wrong with a lady using her advantages to get ahead in life.

People pissed all over this guy and he didn't even share his actual personal opinion. Only what he read. I was even scared to make this post because who knows what's going to happen.

There are a ton of people in here who don't even know whats true and whats not about the subject, Including me. Hell I thought it was called gamergate because of what brave posted lol. How else does it have anything to do with games? this stuff is confusing.

 

[dodgykebaab]

You're joking right?
We had a huge topic about this subject here about actual malpractice and ethical issues with a recent issue still being discussed when that blew up.
Do you happened then?
This drowned all gaming media discussion at the exclusion of all else to the point that it was impossible to discuss it without having to deal with that shitty harassment hate group.
It did the very opposite of what you are claiming.

And while we're still discussing the events of GG, we're not discussing anything related to journalism.

Incorrect, my actual comment was this (In reply to what is GG?):

It's lots of people arguing about different things, but instead of making separate augments for the different issues; the internet spazed out once again and grouped all the arguments together to ruin any chance making sense out of it and prevent any sort of resolution from happening.

 

[Fat4all]

Yeah I think so.. but a bunch of people ( including in this very thread ) use it as a term for the misogynists themselves.. I dunno. Fuck it?

That's what the term has evolved into over the years, yes.

 

[Freiya]

Dbl post

 

[ghibli99]

Gamergate had massive implications outside gaming. It has been an ongoing news topic -- as in, mainstream news, political news -- for a long time.

Get out of your bubbles.

Call me the bubble boy, I guess. From my perspective, it seemed like almost all of them ignored it.

 

[TaterTots]

I still till this day don't know what gamergate is.

Me either. It's kind of confusing. It's a he said she said thing I believe. Hopefully, this is the right outcome because I'm not 100% sure about anything outside of that lol.

 

[Mael]

Incorrect, my actual comment was this (In reply to what is GG?):

GG is the term coined by the shittiest Baldwin about a vid made by some misogynist to harass Quinn.
After that it's mostly a hashtag movement about harassing women.
There was no discussion about ethics to begin with.
the ethic discussion is really a smoke screen like #notyourshield to try to obfuscate what the movement really is about.
That's why "it's really about ethics in ****" became a meme even.

That's what the term has evolved into over the years, yes.

Actually it's really how it started as.
It's not a movement co opted by shitty people, it's a movement STARTED by shitty people and the whole "discussion" thing is really a smoke screen.

 

[kamineko]

Quoted to white knight your post from being bottomed, like the filthy cuck SJW beta that I am.

As a student of writing, I find this sentence amazing. It says so much in so little space.

It's legit hilarious, too

 

[Primus]

ITT: Posters professing no or limited understanding of GamerGate, right alongside multiple people (including myself, now three times) directly linking to WHAT THE EVERLOVING CRAP GAMERGATE WAS ALL ABOUT.

Christ.

EDIT:

 

[GustyGardens]

Gamergate, from day one has been about harassing women who dare involve themselves in gaming. It has nothing to do with journalism, and the fact that they ignore the male journalist that they allege that Ms. Quinn slept with to get a positive review (That never existed) reveals their true colors.

Pretty much.

GamerGate was an idea, or a movement, where-in a certain group of people felt that their hobbies and interests were threatened by women. They are under the impression that women are a catalyst for feminism, which in-turn leads to the censorship of their beloved video games. Ethics in gaming journalism is a real topic that should be discussed further, but it was used by the movement to guise their real motive. A motive that was meant to further segregate the sexes in the industry.

It's a very dedicated echo-chamber. An echo-chamber that was built on lies, pollution and insecurities. There are still members of that community that firmly believe what they're doing is right. They see themselves as Batman-esque vigilantes protecting the community from the poison that we call women. In their heads, this is what needs to be done to protect our safe space.

In the end, they're all lunatics that really need a swift reality check in the form of a punch in the face and jail time.

 

[dodgykebaab]

GG is the term coined by the shittiest Baldwin about a vid made by some misogynist to harass Quinn.
After that it's mostly a hashtag movement about harassing women.
There was no discussion about ethics to begin with.
the ethic discussion is really a smoke screen like #notyourshield to try to obfuscate what the movement really is about.
That's why "it's really about ethics in ****" became a meme even.

I'm going to leave this thread because I see no good coming from further conversation. You see Gamergate as a one dimensional conversation and I see it as a nebulous concept.

Good day Sir.

 

[Famassu]

Honestly, I nearly spit my coffee out when I read what Brave said as well, but I can totally see someone googling "gamergate" and still not knowing what the fuck is going on. Its a term that has been used to represent different things by different people. Whole thing is just a cluster fuck.

Like "Gamergate sucks", "Gamergate can fuck off".. I agree with the sentiment because I know at this point what these people are saying, but its like.. I thought it was the name of the situation ( encapsulating both sides ), not just a nick name for the misogynists?

Gamergate is an imaginary assault on games/ethics in game journalism, as if the integrity of all of gaming is under attack because women don't want to only be sex objects in games 99,9% of the time anymore and were getting a bit more vocal about it. It doesn't capture both sides because there really is only one clearly defined side in all of this and that's the GAMERGATERS, who are the misogynistic cunts causing all these issues to politically active people. They are really the only somewhat clearly defined side in this, otherwise the "other side" are imaginary boogeymen that gamergaters have come up with and random feminists/liberals aiming for improved equality in all aspects of the game industry.

 

[partyphone]

I'm going to leave this thread because I see no good coming from further conversation. You see Gamergate as a one dimensional conversation and I see it as a nebulous concept.

Good day Sir.

citation still needed.

 

[Mael]

I'm going to leave this thread because I see no good coming from further conversation. You see Gamergate as a one dimensional conversation and I see it as a nebulous concept.

Good day Sir.

How about you stay and actually defend your pov and provide data to go with your arguments instead of tipping your fedora on your way out?
There is nothing controversial in calling a harassment movement started by a hate group as such, there's nothing nebulous about it, it's clear.

 

[partyphone]

How about you stay and actually defend your pov and provide data to go with your arguments instead of tipping your fedora on your way out?
There is nothing controversial in calling a harassment movement started by a hate group as such, there's nothing nebulous about it, it's clear.

"yeah they're a group of criminals and terrorists but they make some good points about a video game."

that's one of the real fucked up things about all of this. it's over video games. fucking toys.

 

[Fat4all]

I never understood why people losing a debate have to announce the fact they are 'leaving' a thread.

It's the internet, it's not like it's a room and your slamming a door or sommit.

 

[PataHikari]

I'm going to leave this thread because I see no good coming from further conversation. You see Gamergate as a one dimensional conversation and I see it as a nebulous concept.

Good day Sir.

AKA: I got called out on my concern trolling, can't back up my arguments, and am thus leaving before I get owned more.

 

[nakedeyes]

Gamergate is an imaginary assault on games/ethics in game journalism, as if the integrity of all of gaming is under attack because women don't want to only be sex objects in games 99,9% of the time anymore and were getting a bit more vocal about it. It doesn't capture both sides because there really is only one clearly defined side in all of this and that's the GAMERGATERS, who are the misogynistic cunts causing all these issues to politically active people. They are really the only somewhat clearly defined side in this, otherwise the "other side" are imaginary boogeymen that gamergaters have come up with and random feminists/liberals aiming for improved equality in all aspects of the game industry.

Well. I agree with your sentiment, but I don't remember it being quite exactly like that.

Please don't attack me here if I messed anything up, just calmly tell me, lol.. but I remember the origin more like this:

So, there was the Zoe Quinn thing, where a bunch of people flipped their shit because it seemed like she may have been sleeping with a games journalist who may have written something about one of her games. When I say "it seemed", I say that just because it was a thing that was said on the internet, not because I actually think she did. Admittedly, there seemed to be like zero evidence, and seemed to stem from some random person putting together some random facts that A) She made some games, B) she may have had some sort of relationship with that kotaku dude, and C) he wrote about one of her games once.

This is the one place where the term GamerGate makes sense. Its obviously a play on WaterGate ( or any other *Gate, which is a term a bunch of people use. I remember my mom undercooking 50 baked potatoes ~10 years ago and the whole family calls it PotatoGate ever since then ).

Then that was entirely all disproved. I think the kotaku dude did write one tiny mention of one of her games once, but it was a game that came out well before they got together ( I think ). Of course, certain basement dwellers couldn't let this go and thought they were still right, which was fueled by a different ( non-kotaku ) ex of hers writing that horrible note about her. Which I don't think the note even said she did anything unethical, it just looked like a typical note you would see from an immature, angry ex, and mostly called her a bunch of horrible names ( I think? ). Said basement dwellers started using internet doucebag tactics to make her life a living hell.

Around the time of the note, was the same( ish ) time Anita S. started doing her Female Tropes in Games series, which was basically a series pointing out how women are portrayed in games usually in sexist ways, and are rarely featured in non-sexist ways. She started kind of calling out to developers that they should try and represent women in more realistic and less misogynistic ways. Of course, the mere mention of this got many of the same basement dwellers from earlier to use the same internet douchebag tactics from earlier to make Anita's ( and anyone else saying similar statements ) life's hell as well.

So basically, you have the first 2% of this whole timeline tied to an unproven thought that maybe a developer slept with a journalist for positive coverage. Then the next 1% is that all being disproved. Then the next 97% on to the rest of everything else up to today is just misogynist raving douchebags freaking out on the internet ( and IRL in some cases ).

So let me be clear: I am just breaking this down as I understand it, and I 100% am not for any misogynist internet douchebaggery. These people are deplorable. I am 100% on Zoe and Anita and friends' side here.

But I just can't see how the term "GamerGate" makes any sense outside of the context of that first "conspiracy" ( which was nearly immediately disproved ). For that first week where maybe this did go down ( take gender out of it, and keep in mind, there was no widely available proof to discredit it for the first couple days ), it was actually kind of a cute term, obviously copying WaterGate to denote the potential conspiracy.

This is why when people say "GamerGate = conspiracy of ethics in games journalism", to me, this is actually 100% accurate on a semantics level. The term has just been co-oped to be a term for all the misogynist douchebags on the internet at this point. Which is fine.. but I wish we could all agree that it just doesn't make sense. When people say "No, GamerGate is about waay more than ethics in games journalism", I can't help but get a headache, cause the term was never supposed just represent misogynists.

Sorry for the long post. Hope I handled it with kid's gloves enough to not be yelled at! I have never once sided with a "gamer-gater" 1 time, I don't think that Zoe Quinn did anything disingenuous, I fully deplore any doxing, swating, or other douche bag internet tactics. But I can't help but get a semantic headache when I hear how people use the term at this point.

 

[The Technomancer]

^You basically got it right, except for the part where her ex has said, on record, that he made the original allegations and shopped them around with the explicit aim of getting her harassed

 

[jstripes]

How about you stay and actually defend your pov and provide data to go with your arguments instead of tipping your fedora on your way out?
There is nothing controversial in calling a harassment movement started by a hate group as such, there's nothing nebulous about it, it's clear.

Eh, I've been watching it from the start, and it is slightly nebulous. The driving force behind the scenes is harassment, but people are in it for many different reasons, and there's some genuinely dim people who actually think it's about ethics in journalism. That nebulous nature works to their advantage, because they can simply change the narrative when cornered.

 

[Freiya]

^You basically got it right, except for the part where her ex has said, on record, that he made the original allegations and shopped them around with the explicit aim of getting her harassed

The bf actually came out and said he made the shit up? wow lol.

 

[Jumplion]

The bf actually came out and said he made the shit up? wow lol.

Specifically that he shopped around and carefully constructed his blog post to be as damaging as possible. It wasn't just a jilted ex whining about his relationship, it was a deliberate, calculated plan to ruin as much of her life as he could.

 

[aeolist]

The bf actually came out and said he made the shit up? wow lol.

he heavily edited the story's tone and focus to get more attention from 4chan, which is where it originally caught on. her relationship with the journalist dude was barely mentioned at first, then he decided to play it up and heavily insinuate (can't remember if he said it outright because i never read the whole thing) that there was a sexual quid pro quo between them.

 

[Mael]

Eh, I've been watching it from the start, and it is slightly nebulous. The driving force behind the scenes is harassment, but people are in it for many different reasons, and there's some genuinely dim people who actually think it's about ethics in journalism. That nebulous nature works to their advantage, because they can simply change the narrative when cornered.

There's idiots in it but outside of that it's really about harassment,
the movement never reacted to any ethical issue (and even tried to downplay any ethical issue when confronted about actual big publishers misdeeds) and only moved to either protect itself or to harass women.
It's a self perpetuating circle of hatred and harassment.
You may think KKK is about heritage and getting sure you laundry is the whitest it can be but no one will be duped by that argument.