Just gonna make a hopefully non-derailing reminder to people that pedophilia itself isn't a crime or a thing to get locked up for. I haven't read the apparently disgusting posts attributed to her, but I assume the actual contention here is whether or not she actually harassed or molested a child, possessed child pornography, etc., not whether she's a pedophile.
Please don't misconstrue, I was making a technical explanation for the sake of defending someone who was being mocked in a ridiculously disingenuous way.
Whether or not absolutely 100% of the people who refer to themselves as GGers are terrible people, it would be silly to suggest that there aren't two "sides", because there obviously are.
There are those who are harassing and trying to push out minorities in gaming, and there are those who are against that. The former is pretty much indefensible, and while it may(?) be the case that there are "horrible" people on both sides, the proportions are going to be pretty well stacked not in favor of, you know, the group of people that are harassing minorities in gaming.
It's unfortunate that there are stubborn or ignorant non-terrible people that continue to align themselves with GG, but it is what it is. So even if it doesn't line up 100%, of course the natural course is going to be to refer to the harassment campaign with the name they give themselves "GamerGate" even if that encompasses more than them.
If there are people who really do care about ethics in journalism and aren't on board with the whole harassing thing then they should probably be less stubborn, inform themselves somehow, and just start a new movement with a new name that actually investigates and cares about shitty bribes, review scores, etc., whatever that would entail.
This is the problem I have whenever the "GamerGate" boogeyman is brought up. Who is GamerGate? Is there an official membership list? What stops someone from claiming to be a member when they aren't? What stops someone who IS a member from just being a jerkhole and giving a lot of other people a bad name?
The whole thing has been messy, and horrible people have existed on both sides, if there are even sides.
Please don't misconstrue, I was making a technical explanation for the sake of defending someone who was being mocked in a ridiculously disingenuous way.
Whether or not absolutely 100% of the people who refer to themselves as GGers are terrible people, it would be silly to suggest that there aren't two "sides", because there obviously are.
There are those who are harassing and trying to push out minorities in gaming, and there are those who are against that. The former is pretty much indefensible, and while it may(?) be the case that there are "horrible" people on both sides, the proportions are going to be pretty well stacked not in favor of, you know, the group of people that are harassing minorities in gaming.
It's unfortunate that there are stubborn or ignorant non-terrible people that continue to align themselves with GG, but it is what it is. So even if it doesn't line up 100%, of course the natural course is going to be to refer to the harassment campaign with the name they give themselves "GamerGate" even if that encompasses more than them.
If there are people who really do care about ethics in journalism and aren't on board with the whole harassing thing then they should probably be less stubborn, inform themselves somehow, and just start a new movement with a new name that actually investigates and cares about shitty bribes, review scores, etc., whatever that would entail.