This is absolutely not true. The feelings of distrust have been building for years and simply labelling a group with words like "sexist" or "haters" won't even manage to destroy the group, let alone address the underlying feelings.
Let's step back from #gamersgate. There is a widespread, general feeling among a lot of gamers that journalists cannot be trusted. We've had more than enough instances of why someone might feel this way so let's not get into it. For one reason or another, people feel justified in their distrust of journalists.
Since journalists make money based on readership, the hammer had to fall sometime in the same way that it fell for cable subscriptions and newspapers and magazines and pretty much every other form of informative media: you have to win your readers' trust or you'll go out of business.
Gaming journalists as a whole really weren't doing anything to make that happen. Unfortunately for the people caught in the abusive crossfire, this explosion was waiting to happen but the lack of responsiveness by journalists over the years allowed this to also hone that wonderful edge of bigotry and hate.
I feel you have misconstrued what I was inferring when I said it had no basis. It has no basis in the ethos of GamerGate, for the image of GamerGate has been tainted and presented as a hate campaign. Some may be in support of it for the issues you raise, but the movement we have here make addressing those issues insoluble, for the problem of harassment and an attack on women have become the more vocal topics. You are better off bringing up such criticisms externally, away from such a movement, despite how some who are for this sort of stuff are all about that. It is particularly apparent when a site like NeoGAF - a site that has called out journalistic shit like this in the past - seems venomously against this sort of movement. It's because calling that out seems to be far outweighed from death threats, personal information being posted on the internet, and the general game of mudslinging going about. All it forces is a shit eating contest in the end, similar to modern American politics; which bowl of doodoo do you want to slurp between your teeth?
Very plainly, if you use GamerGate and talk about these ethical problems, one is now a part of a movement that one can infer such problems as trying to play "damage control", or to spin something, regardless of how sincere one is to such issues. That's all I'm saying, and that seems to be the consensus to those who see how GamerGate's reception has turned into one of malice and not critical inquiry. The image of such a movement has already painted people involved, to make an archetype. I have seen people bring up ethical issues, and in fact I was
for this movement when it seemed that was a point raised by some. The problem here is that such points are no longer the most vocal ones, and trying to make them such points is like trying to get a sinking ship to float. It became more and more that public discourse was less on these issues and more on typical internet shittery with death threats and that sort of game which has all but killed any momentum in people taking such points seriously, especially in this sort of movement.
The public image of most movements is usually cast in a dark light by "the establishment". I'm not even rooting for #gamersgate here. I'm pointing out some very basic tennets of viva la revolution. All of this discussion about how awful and hypocritical #gamersgate is means nothing. NOTHING.
If you think the conversation is "what is incorrect about #gamersgate?" then you are doing it very, very wrong. The conversation should be "how do we de-claw #gamersgate effectively?" and so far all of the measures have failed hilariously while #gamersgate continues to threaten and make moves.
But sure.
Let's talk about what's wrong with #gamersgate and why it's still toxic to be associated with the hashtag.
It means a lot as people tend to label and classify things rather hastily in their minds. If people think it's awful, they'll very plainly not want anything to do with it, regardless if it's one person shitting a bed or a poor misinterpretation. The issue I find with threatening is the most apparent examples of this are to cancel public events with death threats and less on pulling advertising. The incident with that Gawker guy talking about bringing back bullying to nerds and getting shat on by the internet was a noble effort, but that almost seems like collateral and less of a planned goal, as he was shitflinging in a shit pit.
Clearly we do. It is why these sort of grassroot movements come to fruition and why "astroturf" movements end up crashing and burning.
Grassroot movements are fine, but the problem is they must keep their message on point and progress to more spread out ideas with said message. Instead, public reception to this has been less of "let's call out the shady shit of journalism" and more of "let's throw shit at people we don't like". GamerGate's image has been more about Anita being a control freak with her message and less of shit like GMAs and clear nepotism between press and publishers, the latter who
host the event.
It is worth considering the possibility that - because the outcries against Doritogate when largely unheard - it made it all the more necessary for a more vocal and vitriolic movement now. And when I say "more necessary", what I mean is "inevitable".
I'm not sure if that's totally true. If anything, Doritogate has only made me choose to ignore most journalistic inquiries in such a medium because I think this sort of industry has unfathomably low standards. People should perhaps get into the model of assuming culture - in this case, the journalistic culture of video games - is fundamentally not your friend. They're in this typically for money, clicks, and potential jobs at companies they write about. If one can validate their own opinions and not rely on the timed mouthpieces giving out details on products, on how one should "believe the hype", one has a better sense of self-awareness to things. I would argue our problem is putting the weight and worth in other people who write about games and less upon ourselves.
Of course, that doesn't get rid of shady shit like Gerstmanngate and that sort of jazz, but that's not just an issue with games, but an issue with rampant market awareness, controlling a message, and our pervasive chase for money that our consumer capitalist culture has overly fetishized. We're in an age where critically analyzing if an iPhone 6 can bend can get you blacklisted, and while that's not games, imagine how bad it gets in such a place where one doesn't want to be bitten by the person keeping them around. It then becomes more apparent that one shouldn't be calling out games journalism, but this capitalistic model we have that goes the whole way, from advertisement, to PR, to magazines and news throughout many, many,
many industries.
