GamerGate's Image Problem

[Caostotale]

So if you think that all gaming media is PR bullshit, why do you care to argue against GG so vehemently?

I think it's ludicrous that Gamergate is acting like it's ever been anything more than a different shade of PR bullshit. For me, the difference between GG and the normal gaming media is that I actually enjoy things that come from the latter. Writers on the Escapist, Destructoid, etc... very often post articles that I find interesting or, at least entertaining. On the other hand, I find people like InternetAristocrat, MundaneMatt, Thunderfoot, etc... to be lowbrow, vicious, creatively devoid, lacking in style, lacking in terms of any long-term mission, and spiritually/intellectually repulsive. The surge of traffic and attention that they've undoubtedly reaped from digging through the internet's dumpsters and speculating about people's private matters is worth limitless amounts of derision.

What does that say about yourself if you spend time bickering with the GG crowd?

In allying itself with vile neo-cons like the writer from Breitbart, tacitly accepting all sorts of extremists into their ranks, and continuing to cry about 'social justice warriors' while insisting that they're really out for 'journalistic integrity', GG has proven that they're not worth taking seriously at all. Were a group of overly-touchy and over-the-top social justice crusaders to show up at some point (i.e. I'm still waiting to actually see one of these elusive folk...), I'd probably feel the same way about their bullshit. What it says about me is that I'm a person who thinks the whole controversy is a lot of attention-grubbing bullshit by people who really don't have anything creative or fun to add to gaming. Any changes the supposed 'SJW agenda' would bring to gaming probably wouldn't affect me in the least, as I generally stick to retro/arcade games, shmups, and JRPGs, genres where magic spells, spaceships, and screen-clearing laser beams will always matter more than questions of race, sex, or class.

Are games dissatisfying to you?

Games have been more satisfying to me with each passing year I've spent gaming...and, having a backlog of more than a hundred titles and numerous future releases that I'm looking forward to, I'm expecting this trend to stay the same until the day I can no longer play games.

Again with Milo. I hate Milo. Why do you Anit-GG people keep bringing up Milo like he's our designated driver?

I think it's because a lot of GG people are freely offering the car keys and screaming 'Please! If we try to walk ourselves home, we'll just end up getting lost again!'

 

[Davroth]

No, pal, if you're telling them that you refuse to consume their product, then they emphatically do not serve you. They owe you exactly nothing. They serve the people actually consuming their product, and you are entitled to precisely zero.

Haha, I love that. Because that's the entire point. If I don't give them money anymore, I don't care that they don't serve me. And if they don't want my business, then everyone is happy. I don't understand why people throw such a tantrum over people advocating a boycott. That's the one thing the consumer can make his voice heard. I don't see why this is supposed to be condemned.

Ohh its not, believe me.

Could do without some of the rhetoric though. Mainly in regards to censoring of opinions and developers being able to make a game with social issues if they so choose. Same deal if they want to exclude those issues.

Seriously, boycott away.

I'm gonna call you on that. I'd like an example of GamerGate supporters trying to censor anyone's opinions or trying to dissuade developers to not make a game with social issues if they so choose. I'm waiting.

-snip-

You keep on acting like GG is about a specific group of people, when it really isn't. GamerGate has no central leadership. I don't know where you picked up anything else.

And I suppose me championing the Escapist as a press outlet for allowing discussion and providing us with ethically sound news articles doesn't count for anything I guess. And the only reason I don't read Destructoid anymore is because all the people I liked there are gone now (I quite enjoy some of the videos they put on their youtube channel though). I was very relieved to see that none of their important background people or prominent faces were part of that JournoList reprise, because I was always very fond of their no bullshit take on reviews and articles.

I feel like you have some kind of frustration with GamerGate people specifically and now take it out on all of us. I don't think that's fair. And I'll let you know that about 90% of the games I play and buy are indie games. So if anyone wants those artistic auteur pieces it's me. And you know what? It's very concerning the way indie developers get treated by the press. Most indie devs don't have some journalist friends in the right positions to prop up their games. Who's going to cover them? Likely noone. And not based on their merit, but on who they know. Is that fair to them? I don't believe it is.

You don't address this whole thing like you don't take it seriously though. If you don't take something seriously you don't spend this amount of time and energy into fighting against it. I'm not buying it, sorry. Maybe the dream of a code of ethics in game journalism is a futile one. But it is either fighting for that or walking away. And right now people are in a fighting mood.

Trying to put attention of Milo or any of those youtube nobodies you listed isn't really helping your argument. They are not important to GamerGate past the information they provide.

 

[Calbeck]

No, pal, if you're telling them that you refuse to consume their product, then they emphatically do not serve you. They owe you exactly nothing. They serve the people actually consuming their product, and you are entitled to precisely zero.

Haha, I love that. Because that's the entire point. If I don't give them money anymore, I don't care that they don't serve me. And if they don't want my business, then everyone is happy. I don't understand why people throw such a tantrum over people advocating a boycott. That's the one thing the consumer can make his voice heard. I don't see why this is supposed to be condemned.

Because it is a rational, commonplace and accepted form of protest which does not fit the "angry manchild wimminhaters" image central to the opposition's point of view.

Just a few hours ago, I had a very long and arduous discussion with an anti-GG on Twitter. But when he finally realized my anger over the ZQ Affair had to do with GRAYSON being unprofessional as a reporter... he stopped. I swear he must have blinked a few times. I cracked a Tarzan joke about not wanting roaches in a sloppily-built hut. He responded as Cheetah that the bananas must be protected from the roaches.

We laughed.

And we started talking.

See, for folks like Rex and Caos, all of this HAS to be about hating smart and successful women invading our precious man-caves, or we're not Evil in need of a Righteous Trouncing. Rex and Caos want to keep that myth, and their rage, going, and I'm willing to bet it's because they're afraid of being sucker-punched if they don't.

The villains here are the Shitlords whom the rest of us have already denounced time and again, and the journos whose reputations ride on maintaining an essential fiction: that ALL of us are Shitlords.

 

[aliengmr]

I'm gonna call you on that. I'd like an example of GamerGate supporters trying to censor anyone's opinions or trying to dissuade developers to not make a game with social issues if they so choose. I'm waiting.

You mean aside from trying to get people with opinions on social issues fired? Or maybe the exhaustive effort to discredit Anita Sarkeesian? Or maybe the "objective" journalism bullshit? Or maybe the non-gamers heading this crusade? You don't seriously think this about actual games journalism do you? Ending "click-bait"? Rampant use of the term Cultural Marxism?

Gamergate is mostly an anti-feminist movement that seeks to end social issues being used, critiqued, and discussed. Indies are being targeted because EA are a bit big for GG to take on. This is all being done to supposedly stop people like Anita Sarkeesian (whom GG has labelled an extremist) from censoring your games. (something she had no intent on doing.) Censorship to combat perceived censorship. And the belief that equality means rigidly adhering to demographics.

You all made this a war against SJWs, a term you slapped on literally everyone who opposes you. If this was a simple boycott, we wouldn't be discussing it. This has been one agenda trying to replace another from day one. Not sure how you missed this, you think Adam Baldwin gives shit about proper games journalism? or Milo? LOL, no, they're here to push for their anti-feminist agenda.

And just like the term SJW, feminism has been given a very large definition that includes moderates to be extremists.

I'm not with all that, which is why I'm opposed to it. Surprised you had to even ask. Did the guy posting an Aurini video not clue you in to this?

You can call bullshit all you like, but this is the issue with non cohesive, emotionally driven movements like gamergate, membership open and free for all.

 

[Davroth]

I'm gonna call you on that. I'd like an example of GamerGate supporters trying to censor anyone's opinions or trying to dissuade developers to not make a game with social issues if they so choose. I'm waiting.

You mean aside from trying to get people with opinions on social issues fired? Or maybe the exhaustive effort to discredit Anita Sarkeesian? Or maybe the "objective" journalism bullshit? Or maybe the non-gamers heading this crusade? You don't seriously think this about actual games journalism do you? Ending "click-bait"? Rampant use of the term Cultural Marxism?

Gamergate is mostly an anti-feminist movement that seeks to end social issues being used, critiqued, and discussed. Indies are being targeted because EA are a bit big for GG to take on. This is all being done to supposedly stop people like Anita Sarkeesian (whom GG has labelled an extremist) from censoring your games. (something she had no intent on doing.) Censorship to combat perceived censorship. And the belief that equality means rigidly adhering to demographics.

You all made this a war against SJWs, a term you slapped on literally everyone who opposes you. If this was a simple boycott, we wouldn't be discussing it. This has been one agenda trying to replace another from day one. Not sure how you missed this, you think Adam Baldwin gives shit about proper games journalism? or Milo? LOL, no, they're here to push for their anti-feminist agenda.

And just like the term SJW, feminism has been given a very large definition that includes moderates to be extremists.

I'm not with all that, which is why I'm opposed to it. Surprised you had to even ask. Did the guy posting an Aurini video not clue you in to this?

Ah, I see, so you are taking a couple of extremists and make rampant assumptions about the rest. That's a very adult way of handling this. Nothing you present here is evidence. You just make up connections where there are none, and it's saddening to watch. And the kicker is that the people that actually get fired are the ones who dare speak out on behalf of GamerGate. Suggesting that there is a problem with corruption in the gaming press can cost you your job in the games industry. I suppose you are only allowed the right opinion, huh? Otherwise you can just be fired. What a brave new world we live in.

Indies aren't being targeted, they are the biggest victims in this. They suffer the most under what passes as game journalism these days. I don't get why you guys get off on "us" supposedly not wanting to tackle the real villains like EA. Short answer: We don't have to. Noone is scared of badmouthing EA, and exposing their scummy business practices. To elaborate on that point though, that also has nothing to do with journalistic integrity. But I'm repeating myself. I already answered 80% of that in earlier posts, if you are interested. And you start to sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist. I will view actual evidence once you are done repeating the same old tired buzz words that basically have been used to a point where they are devoid of all meaning. Actual examples of what you claimed is happening.

To answer your question, yes, I think this is about journalistic integrity and transparency. And the moment Milo isn't investigating in that direction anymore, he will be dropped, because he will have outlived his usefulness. You'll see in time if you stick around for it.


Also, that video, what struck a chord with you in that? Did it mention GamerGate? How is it even connected to any of this?

 

[Caostotale]

See, for folks like Rex and Caos, all of this HAS to be about hating smart and successful women invading our precious man-caves, or we're not Evil in need of a Righteous Trouncing. Rex and Caos want to keep that myth, and their rage, going, and I'm willing to bet it's because they're afraid of being sucker-punched if they don't.

I suppose it's just coincidence, but I just love that increasingly-common neo-conservative technique to smear its enemies with the 'rage' brush, which to anybody with a functioning brain is quite obviously a misdirection tactic aimed at covering up the truth that right-leaning movements are precisely about mobilizing rage. While you guys are in this phase of courting right-wing commentators who have little or nothing to do with gaming, why not also give this dude a ring and find out more tricks for cheaply demonizing your opposition (though you're more than well on the way towards doing a fine job on your own). I think he just finished serving a white-collar sentence related to all that non-rage that informs his political behavior:

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/books/the-roots-of-obamas-rage/

 

[RexMundane]

You know, for a someone who blocked me he sure does want to talk about me a lot. Not even sure what the point was, I mean he's trying to convince... someone that I'm a petty rage-filled coward, but that's the thing because anyone reading that is either already convinced of that without having to even meet me, or not dumb enough to fall for it, I imagine. Ah well, nice of him to put forth an effort.

And I mean I'd follow up on earlier and ask if the whole purpose is a boycott so "everyone is happy" then why on earth they're all so angry, but that just piles onto questions of, if this is just about Journalism then why Anita keeps coming up, if this isn't promoting misogyny why does Aurini keep popping up, if this isn't about petty attacks then why are they so fixated on particular individuals losing their jobs, if they just want a debate why they refuse to leave their own echo chamber, if this is about people coming together for common purpose then why would they attack Boogie as a shill for trying to get people to agree on goals, and so on.

It's just exhausting to keep up with the cognitive dissonance of it all, the refusal to gain the merest bit of perspective or self-awareness. I just read someone in the megathread say, in what I have to assume is all seriousness as it's being re-quoted a few times: "Our culture was born of battle. But our true strength lay in unity." I... like genuinely, what is there left to mock? How do you parody this? They see themselves as mythic warriors, as superheroes, information operatives and splinter cells fighting against the essence of corruption and evil and entrenched institutions and shitlords and... I mean what's the point of arguing?

I'm not going to end this by saying I'm done for good, I know myself too well, I'm addicted to this bullshit, and I've tried saying that a few times since all this began, and something's always going to pull me back in. For example I imagine Camel is already in the middle of responding to a post I made two days ago and is about to hit post, expecting me to remember where my mind was at at the time, and then I'll likely try to explain I have no idea what he's talking about, and so it goes. So yeah, until I work up the sense to actually block myself from accessing the forums, I'm likely stuck with the depressing reality of re-living the same non-arguments day after day until, inevitably, it all just dies out. Le sigh...

 

[Karadalis]

The whole thing fell flat on its nose when they had to give it a name instead of letting the crowds outrage do the work. Suddenly it looked like an organisation, a group of people trying to create a banner that people could/should rally behind.

Sadly this also allowed people on the other "side" to point fingers each time some idiot who used the hashtag was behaving like a douche. Thus derailing everything.

They should have never come up with the bloody hashtag cause not everyone whos for a change in games media is behind it. Alot of people do not associate with gamergate because of the stigma.

Infact they shot themselves pretty much in the foot because they gave the other side a defined spot to attack instead of having to rely on insulting everyone by making broad generalisations and pissing off all gamers.

Now people can say "Oh im not talking about you when i say mysoginerds... im talking about the guys from gamergate"

 

[Thorn14]

I doubt random noise and grumbling would have gotten very far. Having a name means something people can identify with or at least point towards.

There was a lot of grumbling over the whole Jeff Gerstmann incident and ultimately absolutely nothing came of it in terms of punishing bad business behavior.

 

[aliengmr]

I'm gonna call you on that. I'd like an example of GamerGate supporters trying to censor anyone's opinions or trying to dissuade developers to not make a game with social issues if they so choose. I'm waiting.

You mean aside from trying to get people with opinions on social issues fired? Or maybe the exhaustive effort to discredit Anita Sarkeesian? Or maybe the "objective" journalism bullshit? Or maybe the non-gamers heading this crusade? You don't seriously think this about actual games journalism do you? Ending "click-bait"? Rampant use of the term Cultural Marxism?

Gamergate is mostly an anti-feminist movement that seeks to end social issues being used, critiqued, and discussed. Indies are being targeted because EA are a bit big for GG to take on. This is all being done to supposedly stop people like Anita Sarkeesian (whom GG has labelled an extremist) from censoring your games. (something she had no intent on doing.) Censorship to combat perceived censorship. And the belief that equality means rigidly adhering to demographics.

You all made this a war against SJWs, a term you slapped on literally everyone who opposes you. If this was a simple boycott, we wouldn't be discussing it. This has been one agenda trying to replace another from day one. Not sure how you missed this, you think Adam Baldwin gives shit about proper games journalism? or Milo? LOL, no, they're here to push for their anti-feminist agenda.

And just like the term SJW, feminism has been given a very large definition that includes moderates to be extremists.

I'm not with all that, which is why I'm opposed to it. Surprised you had to even ask. Did the guy posting an Aurini video not clue you in to this?

Ah, I see, so you are taking a couple of extremists and make rampant assumptions about the rest. That's a very adult way of handling this. Nothing you present here is evidence. You just make up connections where there are none, and it's saddening to watch. And the kicker is that the people that actually get fired are the ones who dare speak out on behalf of GamerGate. Suggesting that there is a problem with corruption in the gaming press can cost you your job in the games industry. I suppose you are only allowed the right opinion, huh? Otherwise you can just be fired. What a brave new world we live in.

Indies aren't being targeted, they are the biggest victims in this. They suffer the most under what passes as game journalism these days. I don't get why you guys get off on "us" supposedly not wanting to tackle the real villains like EA. Short answer: We don't have to. Noone is scared of badmouthing EA, and exposing their scummy business practices. To elaborate on that point though, that also has nothing to do with journalistic integrity. But I'm repeating myself. I already answered 80% of that in earlier posts, if you are interested. And you start to sound more and more like a conspiracy theorist. I will view actual evidence once you are done repeating the same old tired buzz words that basically have been used to a point where they are devoid of all meaning. Actual examples of what you claimed is happening.

To answer your question, yes, I think this is about journalistic integrity and transparency. And the moment Milo isn't investigating in that direction anymore, he will be dropped, because he will have outlived his usefulness. You'll see in time if you stick around for it.


Also, that video, what struck a chord with you in that? Did it mention GamerGate? How is it even connected to any of this?

Hey don't blame me, GamerGate sent this message a while ago. You asked, I answered. And if there's one gamergate has done well is refuse to look and the facts its presented with so it really doesn't matter what I show you.

Regardless, I'm not arguing a point that was made clear weeks ago. Maybe your little group could have done better with its actual message instead of messing with conspiracies.

You see what you want, that's cool.

 

[Karadalis]

I doubt random noise and grumbling would have gotten very far. Having a name means something people can identify with or at least point towards.

There was a lot of grumbling over the whole Jeff Gerstmann incident and ultimately absolutely nothing came of it in terms of punishing bad business behavior.

Maybe, maybe not.

Gamergate in the long run wont do much either because to many trolls have used it to insult other people in order to create more drama, giving the dirty dozen a strawman to attack, wich they aparantly wont get tired of.

 

[Davroth]

Hey don't blame me, GamerGate sent this message a while ago. You asked, I answered. And if there's one gamergate has done well is refuse to look and the facts its presented with so it really doesn't matter what I show you.

Regardless, I'm not arguing a point that was made clear weeks ago. Maybe your little group could have done better with its actual message instead of messing with conspiracies.

You see what you want, that's cool.

Well, since you never showed any evidence, I suppose we will never know. You seem all too content to just make inflammatory statements and then not backing them up with anything solid. But that's fine. I'm not really arguing with you for your sake.

 

[RexMundane]

*regretful peek into the megathread* ...#Comicgate now? Did I miss some news about how comic book authors sometimes have one another's emails or how indie comic artists have to sleep with powerful bloggers or... the Spiderwoman cover? Seriously? This is the... you're fighting for the right to force Marvel to use crappy art just because you prefer it's ludicrous over-sexualization, if only because it pisses off the EssJay-Dubbs?

captcha: "Live Life." Good call, Captcha.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

Guys, let me lay it out - #GamerGate can't fix its image problems. The well was poisoned from the beginning.

Actually, let me first explain strategic communications, because it's an important concept here. In a nutshell, strategic communications revolves around underlying messages and how they are communicated. Mostly, it just amounts to words and actions supporting each other (and the underlying message). If one undermines the other, the message is either discredited or not received at all.

So, the message that people want #GamerGate to send is "We want games journalism to reform and corruption to disappear." Those are the words.

The most visible actions, however, were the harassment of Zoe Quinn and those who called that harassment out, the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian, the driving out of Jenn Frank and Phil Fish, and attempts to silence people writing about social issues as they related to games, or "SJWs" as they kept being called. Actual legitimate efforts for reform were far less visible. And, 4chan logs clearly showing people planning and executing harassment and attacks finishes off the undermining of the desired #GamerGate message.

Now, if there had been a visible backlash against the harassment that appeared away from Twitter and forums (where they are easily lost), such as a petition, that would have worked to repair some of the damage. However, there was a petition by the gaming community, and it was directed at the industry itself for calling out the harassment. It doesn't matter how it was meant - it can and does look like the community supporting the harassment.

It won't matter what you say in blogs or forums - when people from the outside look on this what they'll see is misogyny, harassment, and an effort to silence people speaking out. Every single one of those perceptions is backed up by ample evidence. You can't say that it's a case of the media getting things wrong, because the evidence is there.

So, this one's done. If anybody wants to capitalize on some actual reform that was accomplished, the best thing they can do for their own legitimacy is to ditch the #GamerGate hashtag.

 

[Thorn14]

Guys, let me lay it out - #GamerGate can't fix its image problems. The well was poisoned from the beginning.

Actually, let me first explain strategic communications, because it's an important concept here. In a nutshell, strategic communications revolves around underlying messages and how they are communicated. Mostly, it just amounts to words and actions supporting each other (and the underlying message). If one undermines the other, the message is either discredited or not received at all.

So, the message that people want #GamerGate to send is "We want games journalism to reform and corruption to disappear." Those are the words.

The most visible actions, however, were the harassment of Zoe Quinn and those who called that harassment out, the harassment of Anita Sarkeesian, the driving out of Jenn Frank and Phil Fish, and attempts to silence people writing about social issues as they related to games, or "SJWs" as they kept being called. Actual legitimate efforts for reform were far less visible. And, 4chan logs clearly showing people planning and executing harassment and attacks finishes off the undermining of the desired #GamerGate message.

Now, if there had been a visible backlash against the harassment that appeared away from Twitter and forums (where they are easily lost), such as a petition, that would have worked to repair some of the damage. However, there was a petition by the gaming community, and it was directed at the industry itself for calling out the harassment. It doesn't matter how it was meant - it can and does look like the community supporting the harassment.

It won't matter what you say in blogs or forums - when people from the outside look on this what they'll see is misogyny, harassment, and an effort to silence people speaking out. Every single one of those perceptions is backed up by ample evidence. You can't say that it's a case of the media getting things wrong, because the evidence is there.

So, this one's done. If anybody wants to capitalize on some actual reform that was accomplished, the best thing they can do for their own legitimacy is to ditch the #GamerGate hashtag.

See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.

We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.

 

[Impulse725]

*regretful peek into the megathread* ...#Comicgate now? Did I miss some news about how comic book authors sometimes have one another's emails or how indie comic artists have to sleep with powerful bloggers or... the Spiderwoman cover? Seriously? This is the... you're fighting for the right to force Marvel to use crappy art just because you prefer it's ludicrous over-sexualization, if only because it pisses off the EssJay-Dubbs?

captcha: "Live Life." Good call, Captcha.

There's been periodic calls for a comic gate thing on comics forums by the odd loose GG cannon who's also into comics. I seldom see even a couple of posts in support. I believe comics culture has less of a knee jerk reaction to feminist and other critiques as they consider comics legitimate art, and criticism is the price of admission for leaving the kids table.

Comic demographics also trend 20 years older than gamer, so there's that too. There's less people whipped into a panic because they're confronting their first realization that other people see the world differently.

 

[Robert B. Marks]

See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.

We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.

I'm sorry, but I've seen this sort of attitude a lot, and it bothers the hell out of me.

Yes, #GamerGate was tainted from the beginning. But effective activism isn't about how much noise you make, and you don't need to surrender to the misogynists just because they're sometimes going to show up.

Here are some things you can do that don't need #GamerGate at all:

1. Create a website tracking cases of real corruption in the games media - when you find out about a game company giving a bunch of reviewers free tablets, for example, you post it on the site. To keep the cranks out, you moderate all posts.

2. Join something like the #GamerEthics hashtag, and be vocal in condemning those who try to co-opt it.

3. Create petitions for specific websites to implement proper disclosure policies for their editors and writers. Do it one petition per website, and make the disclosure policies clear in the body of the petition.

These are three forms of activism that can make the changes you want, in a way that isn't tainted, and none of them require #GamerGate. All of them will have a public legitimacy that #GamerGate lacks. And believe me - if the owner of a games media website receives a petition from a few thousand of its readers demanding new disclosure policies for editors and writers, they WILL listen.

 

[Thorn14]

See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.

We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.

I'm sorry, but I've seen this sort of attitude a lot, and it bothers the hell out of me.

Yes, #GamerGate was tainted from the beginning. But effective activism isn't about how much noise you make, and you don't need to surrender to the misogynists just because they're sometimes going to show up.

Here are some things you can do that don't need #GamerGate at all:

1. Create a website tracking cases of real corruption in the games media - when you find out about a game company giving a bunch of reviewers free tablets, for example, you post it on the site. To keep the cranks out, you moderate all posts.

2. Join something like the #GamerEthics hashtag, and be vocal in condemning those who try to co-opt it.

3. Create petitions for specific websites to implement proper disclosure policies for their editors and writers. Do it one petition per website, and make the disclosure policies clear in the body of the petition.

These are three forms of activism that can make the changes you want, in a way that isn't tainted, and none of them require #GamerGate. All of them will have a public legitimacy that #GamerGate lacks. And believe me - if the owner of a games media website receives a petition from a few thousand of its readers demanding new disclosure policies for editors and writers, they WILL listen.

1. Exists. I can't recall the exact HTML but I know its one of the links on the gamergate site.

2. #GamerEthics was literally made by Neogaf to try to suck the life out of #GamerGate. It failed horribly. And besides, even if we did, the same harassers could show up and get all the media attention and we'll have all this fun again.

3. I could get behind that. A lot of people are actually emailing publishers and advertisers and websites. Its a big part of #GamerGate actually.

Trust me, #GG is not just a bunch of people attacking each other on Twitter. I could argue that abandoning #GG is letting the abusers win actually, since it means we're not better than them and they did indeed represent us, which I will fight tooth and nail to deny.

Just because there is a problem doesn't mean we can just go "Welp, we tried, but we got jerks, lets go."

The people of Ferguson still protested peacefully despite the calls from Conservatives or whoever going "Yeah but they got looters, do they really want them to represent them?"

 

[runic knight]

*regretful peek into the megathread* ...#Comicgate now? Did I miss some news about how comic book authors sometimes have one another's emails or how indie comic artists have to sleep with powerful bloggers or... the Spiderwoman cover? Seriously? This is the... you're fighting for the right to force Marvel to use crappy art just because you prefer it's ludicrous over-sexualization, if only because it pisses off the EssJay-Dubbs?

captcha: "Live Life." Good call, Captcha.

There's been periodic calls for a comic gate thing on comics forums by the odd loose GG cannon who's also into comics. I seldom see even a couple of posts in support. I believe comics culture has less of a knee jerk reaction to feminist and other critiques as they consider comics legitimate art, and criticism is the price of admission for leaving the kids table.

Comic demographics also trend 20 years older than gamer, so there's that too. There's less people whipped into a panic because they're confronting their first realization that other people see the world differently.

You know I read that, and then use google for 2 seconds to check things and I see stuff like this

http://www.theesa.com/facts/

saying that the average age of gamers is 31. Average age of most frequent game purchaser (read:core demographic) is 35.

You are saying the average comic book reader is in their 50's?

But please, do continue to dismiss gamergate as opposing feminist and not just, you know, what they actually have been claiming from the start in being opposition to a lack of ethical and professional behavior in gaming journalism itself by use of ideological bias and dishonest McCarthyism-like tactics to dismiss, discredit, deflect, defame and outright demonize in order to avoid addressing the very real concerns of their audience. Though I suppose fairness would dictate you could add "by use of feminist ideology in particular".

 

[aliengmr]

See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.

We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.

What is "winning" to GG? Is it a mass boycott or something else?

See GG has spent a lot of time creating for itself an "opposition", in the form of "anti-GG". This doesn't exist in any real form. There are those who "oppose" the themes and agenda and will debate that, but that isn't real opposition. GG wants to debate its image without realizing there's a reason many haven't jumped on the bandwagon, and its what I, and many others, tried, and failed, to get across.

Jim Sterling made a really great point when this really started to pick up. He saw a GG blacklist and tweeted, that before he said one word his "side" was chosen for him. That happened a lot, to a lot of people. It only got worse and worse.

This is the problem with the GG hashtag, its burned too many bridges to be effective. GG is just a loud angry mob at this point. It can boycott and rant about the vast SJW conspiracy but what else?

You do bring up an excellent point, there are people you can't convince to jump on board, even though so many have similar goals. That's an image problem.