Jux said:
That was somthing that struck me a couple of days ago. And I had meant to bring it up in another thread, but got distracted and forgot about it. How is it that a movement so vocal about not being anti women is completely fine with renaming two women in a very dehumanizing way? 'Literally Who?' and 'Literally Who 2?'. Those women have actual names gg'ers, it doesn't asuage anyones concerns that ya'll have issues with women when you 'literally' dehumanize women.
Well, when Gamergate began, people kept complaining that it wasn't about journalism but just about hating women, and kept coming back to Quinn (and Sarkeesian after she released her video).
The "literally-who" was basically a reaction to that, to show that actually Gamergate was moving way beyond the initial anger at "Quinnspiracy" and didn't specifically care about these specific persons (my personal opinion is indeed that they're at best a small part of the whole thing). In other words, it was a (probably botched) attempt at demonstrating it wasn't about women but other issues.
Just goes to show you can't win and people will complain, whatever you do. Still, I understand how confusing or weird it looks to people coming in late.
As for me, if anyone is bored enough to check my last 6 weeks posting history, I've never used that label and stuck to "Quinn" or "Sarkeesian" - or at times "ZQ" and "AS" -, because I wasn't convinced by the replacement label, though I understand a bit the reason it came up. I still always prefer to mention people by name rather than indirectly, personally, whatever others think - both GG crowd who'd like to just not having to talk about these 2-3 persons anymore and wrongly think the label will be enough to convince others of this intent, and Stop-GG crowd who will think I indeed am a misogynist pig since I've mentioned Quinn and Sarkeesian a few times.
