Current Events > Gamergate was almost a decade ago.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Antifar posted...

I believe you are looking for an argument and I don't want to have one tonight. Enjoy your evening.

Case and point

Proves everything I just said.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Not one word on crunch periods, not one word on lootboxes or programmers having no job security, not one word on dodgy businsess/review practices.

Sites like Kotaku, which Gamergate specifically targeted extremely heavily, reports on these things.

That doesn't mean that they always write good content. Far from it. They have a big issue with clickbait.

But I learn far more about crunch from outlets like Kotaku than I ever did from Gamergate reactionaries.

Punished_Blinx posted...

All sounds pretty correct to me. Why are they mad again? How are articles like this 'corruption'

One article isn't. The issue is when a dozen other people post the same thing at the same time, even across different websites, implying there could be some background intluence compelling them all to push an agenda.

When people click on an op-ed they expect it to be the author's individual opinion, not the voice of a shadowy clique. (which ended being exposed as a real thing, "GameJournoPros", about a month after the article dump)

A_Good_Boy posted...

When we attempt to do the same to gamergate all you see is them saying racist, sexist, and all around just bigoted shit. If the worst thing you can do to the gamergate movement is report on their direct quotes then the issue isn't the media, it's Gamergate.

Or at least it would be. You guys keep on saying that gamergate space isn't a reliable source for gamergate info.

The reasonable people have long since stopped operating as Gamergate, since the hashtag is a non-starter for being taken seriously.

In the past plenty of them outright denounced toxic behavior, pushed the group to stop talking about Zoe Quinn or any of the other specific industry members being harassed, and donated to pro-diversity gaming initiatives.

wanderingshade posted...

I get it. Some are trying to save face and act like it was hijacked.

Some acknowledge it was bad from conception. The premise was a lie and the guys who started it (Eron Gjoni, Adam Baldwin) have admitted to ulterior motives.

But we're just saying that regardless of the bad origins and actions of the group, some of the later recruits had legitimate reasons for being there, promoted some positive ideas, and didn't actually harass anyone themselves.

Hoodroar posted...

One article isn't. The issue is when a dozen other people post the same thing at the same time, even across different websites, implying there could be some background intluence compelling them all to push an agenda.

When people click on an op-ed they expect it to be the author's individual opinion, not the voice of a shadowy clique. (which ended being exposed as a real thing, "GameJournoPros", about a month after the article dump)

This 'shadowy clique' had the hide to...talk about how the gamer label has become toxic and there was a harassment movement against them?

That was worth all of this?

Is it really shocking that people (in an overall small industry) have a chat group amongst themselves?

My favorite part of it was when that Paper Mario game came out around that time with the "Shufflegate" incident involving the "Five Fun Guys".