I cannot comprehend Gamergate

Post Reply New Topic

Um, how exactly is the anti-GG side filled with hate? We dislike people who are prejudice dickheads, yes, but we don't threaten to kill and rape people for having different opinions. No are we harassing people out of nowhere.

Seriously, I fail to see the logic behind people seeing GG as a good cause. It's a goddamned sheep mentality.

Death threats, of course, are *never* sent to GG supporters.

There's an interesting Slate article on GamerGate. Talking about toxic branding, when is Gawker going to shut down?

Of course, what almost everyone has ignored is that *this is the Internet*. There is no leader, there is no membership roll, and as such there is no way to be sure the entire thing hasn't been manufactured by a rogue AI using sockpuppets to argue against itself.

Boogie has gotten death threats before and people have threatened developers for a game not working or for changes in the past, so those are straw-man arguments. Also, Boogie is the in the middle (or so he claims, don't see how there is a middle considering there is a black and white answer to this).

Corruption has existed in media for a long time and hell, probably in the government even longer. It isn't going to go away with these dips**ts threatening people and being prejudiced idiots about it.

There is nothing to comprehend. Just a bunch of lunatic fringers having at each other.

What is a cultural marxist misandrist?

A Pinko Commie man hater!

(theyre even worse the atheist muslims who want gay marriage and Sharia Law!).

The Long Answer:

A "misandrist" is someone who hates men (the opposite of a "misogynist" who hates women).
A "cultural marxist" is someone who analyzes the nation's culture through the lens of Marx's ideas about class struggle, but who may, or may not, be a "political Marxist".

Cathy Young did some fairly balanced articles on it over at Reason.

Sex, Lies, and Gender Games

Videogames Meet Feminists

Misandry in the Gamergate Controversy

Gamergate is mostly "waah girls are ruining video games". The rest of it is persecution fantasy (claims of censorship and the like). The "ethics in gaming journalism defense" came from the same troglodytes butthurt about the "gamers are dead" idea. Like gaming journalism was meant to be taken seriously anyway.

Gamergate was for harassment from the start. A better name for it would be "He-Man Woman Haters Club".

You don't really need evidence of someone sleeping around to promote something to know that the gaming industry is as agenda driven as any other form of media industry. Throw money (or whatever) at it, and you'll be able to buy it.

Ethical standards and media are two ideas you can't put together without laughing.

It's very murky and hard to pin down.

I've heard various sources say that it's a Feminist conspiracy, an anti feminist conspiracy, a cynical excuse for traffic, a righteous fight back against the new politically correct authoritarianism, an elaborate threat against all independent voices on the web via well publicised harassment, a detailed seminar on media corruption, and just an opportunity to troll and vent.

It could be a lot of things.

I've also wished people a merry christmas recently, does that make me a christian? Stop looking for a box to squeeze me into, you don't have any that fit. Rather than dismissing anything I, or anyone else has to say based only on your own prejudicial preferences, why not try some of that objectivity I suggested earlier, do some reading and start thinking for yourself?

As for the "lie" about ethics in game journalism, I merely suggested that they have a bloody good point as I've witnessed it first hand.



I loved her article on "Ban Bossy" too.

Personally, I could care less about the Quinn thing that started GG and never paid much attention to the whole thing, but I really don't like the ideological element that has been creeping into game reviews lately, I want to know if the game is well designed and fun to play, I don't want to hear hand-wringing about how it offends the reviewer's politics.

Does it really matter though? Even if she did sleep around, how is that anyone else's business?

She was getting favourable coverage in the media from the men she was sleeping with.
It's more the men who are the ones who should be getting the anger for letting their journalistic ethics slide.

Also these journalists liked to collude:
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/09 ... ism-elite/

Right-wing site leaning on the verge of neo-nazism, ignore.

Newsflash; all journalists in all forms of media talk to each other. Also, there is no proof that she "slept around" for coverage of her game, when there were hardly any articles and really, is her personal business ours?

So you're defending these fuckwits that threaten to murder and rape women? If you are, you're in the same boat of vileness that they are.

So, if they said the sky was blue, you'd ignore that because there's no way they could be correct, given their claimed bias? That's poor critical thinking, skepticism of sources with a known bias is one thing, but by outright dismissing them without examination, you're only putting yourself in a bubble, not to mention at a disadvantage to people who actually examine things before disregarding them.



You're putting words in his mouth, he said nothing about the threats and did not defend them, he only said that he thought there were legitimate issues regarding game journalism and the Quinn fiasco. Equating the two may advance a certain partisan feminist agenda, but it's dishonest, not to mention sort of a dick move.