5 ms·

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?

by mfoy_ 8y ago

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.

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?

by 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.