5 ms·

I think that the KnowYourMeme article [0] is the closest thing to "favorable to gamergate + moderately unbiased" I've read. And while I do think it leaves out s

I think that the KnowYourMeme article [0] is the closest thing to "favorable to gamergate + moderately unbiased" I've read. And while I do think it leaves out some of the horrible behavior on GG's side, at least it doesn't try to paint the media as being composed entirely of angels. 0: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/gamergate

mfoy_ 8y ago
I'm confused, isn't "Gamergate" like "Watergate"? How can you be on Gamergate's "side"? That's like... are you on Watergate's side?
- DuskStar 8y ago
  This is a comment chain from someone saying that the Wikipedia Gamergate article is horribly biased... Edit: I think I misunderstood the parent. To be on GG's 'side' in this sense would be to be a gamer who believes that games journalism should abide by some basic ethical standards and/or be a horrible mysoginist who hates the idea of female characters and catering to people besides straight white men, depending on who you ask.
  - Asooka 8y ago
    GG is a pretty heavy case of an "if by whiskey" argument from all sides (I don't want to say both, because it feels like there's a lot of sides there), and it's been blown up to horrific proportions in the politics of entertainment scene. I recall Stallman's remark that even if you're not interested in politics, politics is interested in you, but it looks more and more like there's nothing you can do to meaningfully and safely interact with the zeitgeist, so why the hell would you try to be part of any kind of politics. It feels more like a force of nature than an actual human activity. More like a tornado than a debate of any sort - just close your doors and windows, keep quiet and hope it's not your house that gets destroyed.
- calimac 8y ago
  Did you learn about watergate via Wikipedia?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > I'm confused, isn't "Gamergate" like "Watergate"? No, not really, but... > That's like... are you on Watergate's side? There were people on (the) Watergate (break-in)’s side. There are still, oddly enough, people proudly on that side (Roger Stone, for instance.) Anyhow, since the Watergate scandal, naming things “-gate” to evoke Watergate and the widespread (though not universal) revulsion is common by opposing activists, but just because the name sticks doesn't mean the association does.
duxup 8y ago
I feel like that is accurate to a point, but really doesn't accurately portray the /r/KotakuinAction and similar groups views. There's a very strong undercurrent of sexism and strange politics that played into it all from the very start. The "ethics" questions very much took a back seat as far as their actions as group in favor of a sort of reactionary response to social justice moments, women in staring roles in a game or movie, just about anything they could grab onto. Even things like a game not receiving a "score" that they disagreed with... They were big on memes about women with colored hair, harassment campaigns on twitter (and awkward / faked claims they were harassed), and so on, entirely disconnected from any "ethics" concern. The fact that it was rooted in claims about a woman cheating on a man is no coincidence. I appreciate that sites effort to remain neutral but I think at some point if a group's actions and behavior don't match their claims... then just reporting their stated motivation is actually inaccurate.
- aisengard 8y ago
  The "ethics in game journalism" was basically a weaselword for what they really wanted - women out of gaming. It's a lot like how "economic anxiety" elected Trump - it's a way to excuse people's inexcusable attitudes towards others.
  - duxup 8y ago
    Yeah it grew very fast, and pivoted really fast to be a sort of identity thing. What is strange is that even for a while on their main gathering forums ... they denied even the source of the moment being the post about Zoe Quinn. It was a very fluid movement from the start, hate, us vs them, and other identity moments allow for that.
- dangerface 8y ago
  > harassment campaigns on twitter (and awkward / faked claims they were harassed) That /r/kotakuinaction organised harassment campaigns and that they faked harassment claims is a pretty harmful accusation, care to back it up with some evidence?
  - 8y ago

mfoy_ 8y ago

I'm confused, isn't "Gamergate" like "Watergate"? How can you be on Gamergate's "side"? That's like... are you on Watergate's side?

DuskStar 8y ago
This is a comment chain from someone saying that the Wikipedia Gamergate article is horribly biased... Edit: I think I misunderstood the parent. To be on GG's 'side' in this sense would be to be a gamer who believes that games journalism should abide by some basic ethical standards and/or be a horrible mysoginist who hates the idea of female characters and catering to people besides straight white men, depending on who you ask.
- Asooka 8y ago
  GG is a pretty heavy case of an "if by whiskey" argument from all sides (I don't want to say both, because it feels like there's a lot of sides there), and it's been blown up to horrific proportions in the politics of entertainment scene. I recall Stallman's remark that even if you're not interested in politics, politics is interested in you, but it looks more and more like there's nothing you can do to meaningfully and safely interact with the zeitgeist, so why the hell would you try to be part of any kind of politics. It feels more like a force of nature than an actual human activity. More like a tornado than a debate of any sort - just close your doors and windows, keep quiet and hope it's not your house that gets destroyed.
calimac 8y ago
Did you learn about watergate via Wikipedia?
dragonwriter 8y ago
> I'm confused, isn't "Gamergate" like "Watergate"? No, not really, but... > That's like... are you on Watergate's side? There were people on (the) Watergate (break-in)’s side. There are still, oddly enough, people proudly on that side (Roger Stone, for instance.) Anyhow, since the Watergate scandal, naming things “-gate” to evoke Watergate and the widespread (though not universal) revulsion is common by opposing activists, but just because the name sticks doesn't mean the association does.

duxup 8y ago

I feel like that is accurate to a point, but really doesn't accurately portray the /r/KotakuinAction and similar groups views. There's a very strong undercurrent of sexism and strange politics that played into it all from the very start. The "ethics" questions very much took a back seat as far as their actions as group in favor of a sort of reactionary response to social justice moments, women in staring roles in a game or movie, just about anything they could grab onto. Even things like a game not receiving a "score" that they disagreed with... They were big on memes about women with colored hair, harassment campaigns on twitter (and awkward / faked claims they were harassed), and so on, entirely disconnected from any "ethics" concern. The fact that it was rooted in claims about a woman cheating on a man is no coincidence. I appreciate that sites effort to remain neutral but I think at some point if a group's actions and behavior don't match their claims... then just reporting their stated motivation is actually inaccurate.

aisengard 8y ago
The "ethics in game journalism" was basically a weaselword for what they really wanted - women out of gaming. It's a lot like how "economic anxiety" elected Trump - it's a way to excuse people's inexcusable attitudes towards others.
- duxup 8y ago
  Yeah it grew very fast, and pivoted really fast to be a sort of identity thing. What is strange is that even for a while on their main gathering forums ... they denied even the source of the moment being the post about Zoe Quinn. It was a very fluid movement from the start, hate, us vs them, and other identity moments allow for that.
dangerface 8y ago
> harassment campaigns on twitter (and awkward / faked claims they were harassed) That /r/kotakuinaction organised harassment campaigns and that they faked harassment claims is a pretty harmful accusation, care to back it up with some evidence?
- 8y ago