Yeah sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you or anything, it really was a different situation back then and hindsight is easy. I guess that's all I'm trying to say, that at this point it's all about looking back, and when you look back and lay all the events and motivations out there was a lot more going on than just GG vs anti-GG, consumer vs press.
hi
Hey what?
You wanted to meet someone who's a feminist and also pro-GG. Ask me anything?
I mean those two things aren't exclusive to each other. Gamergate was about ethics in games journalism.
Qwerty Bastard your argument is that everyone was arguing in bad faith because you, personally, were arguing in bad faith
Do I really need to explain why that's a logical fallacy?
My logic is that I was just another product of the circumstances at play, I was as you and other pro-GGers are now, still under the sincere belief that it was all about ethics while simultaneously guided by a predisposed bias against "SJWs." There's a reason Zoe Quinn's scandal in particular was the straw that broke the camel's back and I only ask anyone who's unsure to investigate why that is.
How were you involved in Gamergate at the time if you don't even know what started it
Because it was an egregious scandal and very public, mostly because the public likes a good breakup story. Doesn't help that it was conclusive evidence that game journalists were having secret meetings and giving favorable reviews to their friends and people they slept with.
Or it's because she has a vagina. Let's go with that.
No you’re lying again.
Randi Harper foxes multiple people
Was Five Guys not what started it?
So you're essentially saying you did some pink-pill awakening or some shit? "Saw the world for what it really is, man!"? Am i getting this right? You've got to be a special kind of dense to not see why the world went apeshit at Zoe Quinn and you've got to be some kind of special egocentric to literally write off the majority's view AND the verifiable facts surrounding all of this. That or you're willfully deluding yourself... or trolling.
That's not what started it. That was its own scandal that would have fizzled out after a few months. What TRULY started Gamergate, as in, the event that prompted the creation of the hashtag itself, was the Gamers are Dead articles.
Which came on the heels of that shitstorm as well as other parallel shitstorms revolving around Wu and Sarky. That was the entire point of the shitstorm. Collusion for friends over impartial coverage.
And to think if they never made those articles we wouldn't have ASparkle
Wu became involved later, she wasn't "parallel" by any definition.
The "Gamers are Over" narrative was the start of gamergate proper, without it everyone would've dispersed within a few weeks. That narrative was at least in part a response to the 5 guys scandal, but it wasn't a cover-up or anything, just retaliation against anyone that was talking about it.
You're not asking for discussion or 'examples' of differing and varied that share your points of view, you're asking for your preconceived opinion to be justified by someone whom isn't you and has a position of "social or academic authority", and whom you're already predisposed to like to echo what you posted around this topic years ago. You're also saying someone should magically subsscribe to your flavor of feminism without even putting forward what that actually is.
For the record I represent me, and I don't desperately need anyone else to represent me or my particular beliefs, secondly you're flat ass full of shit on what's factual about the conflict, and I have no idea what a 'doxxed nude' is, but if you'd done any research that wasn't the hunt for confirmation of righteous bias, it's kind of hard to lift nude media off a person who's being actively denied access to the internet, especially in light of the actual media incident you're talking about occurring before gg was ever a thing, and b being perpetrated by a repeated celebrity stalker offender associated with /b/ and /pol/, two places many people associating themselves with gg weren't and aren't particularly fond of.
though it did start with Quinn in the sense that they decided to make her their "front-facing victim" in their subsequent coverage. She was placed front and center and much like with Kavanaugh right now, the narrative got blown wide open and much like him, she was revealed for the trash person she was.
Thing is. It wasn't about any of that before those articles. They successfully manipulated and maneuvred the issue into an angle where GG was somehow had to involve her personal life to discredit the narrative. It was a trap and it sprung gloriously! That was when the SJW and anti-SJW discussion entered the shitstorm and it was another opportunity to weaponize. Because if you take those two separate issues and conflate them disingenuously, you've got an easy angle to just write it all off as sexism and woman-hating. so they did. Shitposters like Asparkle can't to this day figure out that there were two separate issues.
He was already drawing attention for the same type of behavior along a much more predatory venue.
This is what i mean. They're deliberately taking two separate issues and making them seem like they're the same. "gamers were in an uproar because a woman was a polygamist!". Of course, that headline made gamers really go into an uproar. because they tried to pass off her sociopathic attitude to people as some kind of elevated moral platform LMAO.
Both sides are to blame for the rise of Trump.
While this wasn't necessarily related to the conflict itself, each side's members have long-suffered from "oppressed elite" syndrome where they claim persecution from a vague enemy demographic that encompassed a huge chunk of the global population (straight males or non-gamers, respectively) - most of whom in both cases are innocent people who couldn't care less - while in the same breath preening and smugly implying their own superiority over that same hyper-encompassing demographic. That's actually part of why I've always submitted that something like the aGG camp needed to happen sooner or later to give gamers a kick up the ass, but the problem is that rather than seeing the worst parts of themselves in each other and coming to a realization, both sides only became more insufferable and self-important as the conflict went on, giving rise to the ego-driven, post-truth zeitgeist you mentioned. And rather than admit defeat, both sides escalated GamerGate to the level of actual politicians getting involved and getting the attention of genuinely evil people (neo-Nazis and the Russian mob), who then infiltrated and fractured the GG side, splitting off a huge chunk into what would become the alt-right, which then became their main channel into getting Trump into power.
The ultimate "oppressed elite". Every word out of his goddamn mouth. "I'm the best, folks, simply the greatest human ever, also WITCH HUNT! DEEP STATE! PROTECT YOUR GOD-EMPEROR!"
And the biggest irony is that while we (not entirely unfoundedly) will blame baby boomers as a major contribution to Trump's rise to power, both SJWs and gamer militants are primarily from our generation. The groups that became GG and aGG will even team up to deflect all the blame towards our parents' generation, rather than swallow their pride on anything.
GG is not responsible for Trump. Stupid SJW's are not responsible for Trump.
Trump is the result of 40 years of Republican maneuvering, democratic back room deals, and the long term effects of defunding education, which started under Reagan in earnest. The result of that is stupid people who were failed by a school system systematically destroyed by the republican powers that be, who are incapable of applying critical thought or theory to anything, compounded by a lightning fast growth of Fox News and their propaganda's reach.
We all want to feel important, but laying the blame of Trump at the feet of GG or SJW's overvalues them and us too much. GG may have been a local example of "Fake news", and it certainly demonstrates the power of narrative manipulation and no doubt created a wave of people who refuse to just fall in line to clearly fake news for the sake of ideology, but that's an issue that has yet to fully bubble over. We're going to get there, and it'll be worse than now.
I can't speak for every article but I think the one on Gamasutra is absolutely dead-on and says how I view the whole debacle a lot more than I could in this thread. I don't care if you think it's part of a narrative, I believe the points remain true. The reason I keep listing myself as an example of the typical GamerGate mindset (although I admit it could be projection) is because I was like many people who reacted to these articles, they made by blood boil and feel like I was being accused and called out. But reading them years after the dust has settled has been illuminating. I think that's the keystone to where you really stand, how you feel about the Gamers are Dead articles. If you (and I mean the broad 'you', not just you specifically Helix) don't understand the obvious issues being called out then I can only read claims of being an impartial feminist as totally disengenuous.
The one on Gamasutra is the most egregious of all of them
I often say I�m a video game culture writer, but lately I don�t know exactly what that means. �Game culture� as we know it is kind of embarrassing -- it�s not even culture. It�s buying things, spackling over memes and in-jokes repeatedly, and it�s getting mad on the internet.
It�s young men queuing with plush mushroom hats and backpacks and jutting promo poster rolls. Queuing passionately for hours, at events around the world, to see the things that marketers want them to see. To find out whether they should buy things or not. They don�t know how to dress or behave. Television cameras pan across these listless queues, and often catch the expressions of people who don�t quite know why they themselves are standing there.
It starts out in the first two paragraphs shitting all over anyone who dares to be passionate about video games. You don't see why people have a problem about this?
This says a lot about you as a person
Sorry man, you can feel however you want, but re-reading a poorly written hit piece only made me remember exactly why I got mad so many years ago.
Hey look a no true scottsman fallacy.
Like if you want Qwerty, I'll go down that thing line by god damn line and show you why claiming it's "Feminism" is stupid.
It's a shallow attack on games culture as a media form and as a product. She attacks it as an idea, from the standpoint that anyone who ever goes to a "gaming event" is a young man too incapable of social interaction to be aware of how incapable they are.
It's literally an attack piece on several different areas of the games industry/market/niche, without anything to do with feminism. It was written by a woman, yes, but it has categorically, almost nothing to do with that and that's Leigh's fault because she wrote it as a vapid fucking hit piece.
If you, and I mean this in the broad you, don't recognize this, then you failed to comprehend the actual writing and words used in the piece you link.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
