Im not entirely sure I grasp the point that an argument can become corrupt and evil on the basis of negative activity. Its absurd.

Its framing the narrative, and controlling it. As I understand it gamergate began when a couple of journalists did a bad thing, and used personal connections to try and cover it up. To say that you cannot speak out about this, or campaign to against these sites without being a misogynist is absurd.

There are a million fucking stories, on popular media sites arguing that this thing is somehow about "women in gaming". Its not, and the fact that it needs to be framed as such in order to even have an argument is ridiculous. Arguing from a basis of "the other side are cyberbullies" is also ridiculous, when its perfectly apparent that foul behavior from the "sides" is mutual.

 

As an outsider to this I've got to wonder whether your argument for what gamergate is about is because you view the problem as being the corruption in the video game journalism business or because that is objectively the primary debate here.

As it is all I'm seeing is one argument about feminism after another, with the occasional person piping up about how video game journalists are corrupt, only to be smothered again by other people using that as a basis to attack Anita Sarkeesian and the other 'leading' feminists (and vice versa).

 

If you follow the more outspoken members of GG you'll see that the main focus is Gawker and its websites. This didn't get nasty until they dumped gasoline on it with their Gamers are dead articles. Until that point it was just Zoe Quinn drama. So when that exploded in their face they started pushing the misogynist angle to the hilt and the result is a lot of outsider confusion.

 

The problem is that those 'Gamers are Dead' articles were all about how gaming had become popular culture, that they weren't a niche thing anymore, and that this was a good thing. Then everyone exploded over the titles of the articles and didn't bother reading them, because knee-jerk reactions are perfectly reasonable. GG started claiming collusion and conspiracy with the whole Zoe Quinn debacle, the websites fired back with misogyny, and shit went south from there.

 

And we were right, they were coordinating their articles. The term Gamer is as dead as you or me. It applies to every person who enjoys playing video games. To call gamers an archaic stereotype was seen as painting their customers with a huge brush, which pissed off a lot of people. This was made worse by the censoring on Reddit, 4chan and other places as well. Then when the google group was found we passed a point of no return.

 

Yes, there were also about 7 of them all on the same day. This was what was exploded over. It was very strange.

 

Regarding Pro-GG people being harassed I can easily name Boogie at the top of my head. He has had his personal information spread multiple times, received death threats towards his family. Been blacklisted by people in the industry and had an almost breakdown on Video.

Leigh Alexander - Gamers are over.

"‘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."

"‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction and professional life works that they can concoct online ‘wars’ about social justice or ‘game journalism ethics,’ straight-faced, and cause genuine human consequences."

"Suddenly a generation of lonely basement kids had marketers whispering in their ears that they were the most important commercial demographic of all time."

"Traditional “gaming” is sloughing off, culturally and economically, like the carapace of a bug."

"These obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers -- they are not my audience."

And a general disdain for 'Angry White boys'.

-----

You can easily write about changing cultures and becoming mainstream without sounding like a hateful bigot.

 

This is something that no one has explained well, why were you offended by this? What's wrong with calling anyone that plays a game a gamer?

Last I checked, and this was a few weeks ago, but all that "censorship" had to do with Zoe Quinn and/or the more vitriolic gamgergate advocates.

I also find it ironic that people who are angry about "censorship" are doing their level best to censor their opponents.

Another thing no one has explained well to me. What was the point in getting angry over a google group? It's the equivalent of the break room or bar that everyone goes to once they clock out, why get pissed over that?

Probably the best description of Gamergate yet.

 

Gamers are games enthusiasts. The movie buffs of the gaming industry. You can watch a movie, enjoy going to the cinema, buy blurays and get excited for upcoming movies without being a movie buff.

To most, gamers are enthusiasts. They care about playing games - obviously - what sets them apart is they care about the minutia. Who made he game, how they're made, why they're made in a particular way, the platforms on which they're released, graphical fidelity, mechanics, how the game feels and a myriad of other topics that, if I were to start talking about with my friend who only plays GTA, would completely go over his head and not interest him.

These are the people that keep frequenting games media sites, because they want to be kept in the know on their beloved way of life.

You can then see why people would decry 'Gamers are Dead' articles on said websites as monumentally stupid, at best.

 

I really can't.

But then again, I've never understood the whole, "You're not a gamer! You play games? I LIVE GAMES!"

Gamers are people who play games. What you're talking about is people who are Video Game buffs. Similar to Film buffs, or Sports buffs, or any of the other hundred things that people get enthusiastic about and add the word buff too.

Let me be clear: the fact that all of those "Gamers are dead" articles came out at the same time? Slight cause for concern, and I can see why people would be mad about it. But the actual content of them? If you get upset, legitimately upset because of the content of those articles, then you either have lax reading comprehension skills, or you were just looking for something to be upset about.

I'm sorry. But I play video games. I enjoy playing video games. And what, just because I don't care about certain things as much as other people do, I don't get to call myself a gamer? No. A gamer is someone who plays video games. You can call someone who is super enthusiastic about all the different parts of gaming a gaming buff, gaming enthusiast, or whatever.

You don't call movie buffs, "filmwatchers", after all.

 

I find it fascinating that you somehow feel insulted by that.

Also 'I don't care...as much as other people do' implies you still care about the minutia more than most.

 

Not really insulted, more exasperated. I just can't stand that "I've been gaming since I was a child! You don't get to call yourself a gamer after a year" attitude. I've played them my whole life, but I know that the more people who identify as a gamer, the better. Might have come off a little aggressive. I got into an argument about this with a friend not even a day ago.

I originally had it as "don't give a shit about", but I changed it to "care less" because I thought it was too aggressive.

It just irritates me because it strikes me as a bunch of people going "we must protect the clubhouse!"

 

'After a year' is a pointless argument. There's no test to be recognized as a gamer (of which I'd probably fail. I hate Mario). You're either an enthusiast, or you're not.

My argument is a semantic one, that the term Gamer is short hand for Games Enthusiast.

 

For what it's worth this is the first time I've ever seen or heard someone ever use the term "video game buff" to refer to a gamer. Yeah, anyone who plays video games can probably be labeled a gamer, but what Hugplx is describing can be grouped with the hardcore vs casual gamer stuff.

 

That's not what they were doing. They were making a blanket statement that all gamers fit a certain stereotype, which was decidedly unflattering. Since it was untrue many would be stereotypes took offense to it and started calling them on it, which the press didn't like at all.

Try going on 4chan or any of Gawker's sites or sites that support Gawker and try for an objective discussion on the whole mess, like what happens here and you'll be banned before too long. Anti GG has got the narrative they want and their gonna stick to it until they crash and burn.

As for GG censorship, all GG wants are gaming sites that actually review the games based on merit and not because somebody's trying to peddle their politics. If, as is the case with these sites, they are giving bad press to good games just because they offend their agenda then they need to go.

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-destructoids-battle-with-abuse-lies-and-scandals-part-1/

http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-destructoids-battle-with-abuse-lies-and-scandals-part-2/

Try those articles, it's just one of the dramas caused by these people paling around with each other.

 

The way I'm looking at is that most of the people in the gaming industry and especially the press were gaming "enthusiasts" at one point. These people mostly have their jobs because there are "enthusiasts" in the world right now who care enough about this medium to read whatever crap that comes out of the "enthusiast" gaming press' mouth. These journalists who were and claimed to be gaming "enthusiasts" built their reputation on appealing to a core demographic of people who were like them. They built up a consistent readership over the years and stuck with that core group through various issues such as government trying to ban violent games. Gaming "enthusiasts" thought that the "enthusiast" press was always going to stand with them because they were both "enthusiasts" about the same thing.

Then the press goes and shits on their core demographic and basically says that their audience is dead in an incredibly stupid and reactionary way. It was a really stupid thing to say when there had been a problem rumbling about the lack of connection games journalists had with the gaming "enthusiasts" these days. Say something that dumb about your audience that already feels you don't give a shit about them anymore and you are going to have a problem.

It's a lot of hurt feelings aimed at people who traditional gamers once thought of as their friends and now feel like they've been excluded. To continue with the clubhouse analogy, imagine you and a few friends built yourselves a tree house to hang out in in your backyard. You have fun for years but suddenly, despite the treehouse being built with you and partially because of you, your friends decide you can't come in anymore because you aren't good enough for them.

GG is basically that kid being hurt and eventually getting pissed off enough to tell them to get the fuck out of the backyard.

 

At this point, I'm just mentally glazing over every one of your posts and replacing it with "The gaming media is staffed by perfect gods of perfect perfection, and any claim or evidence that they are not perfectly right in their perfect perfection is lies and base heresy!"

 

Sigh

No one is saying that. Perhaps you should stop glazing...

 

It's confirmed that Olympus has pulled out.