Merged Continuation - Feminist Bullies Tearing the Video Game Industry Apart Part II

[TeapotCavalry]

No, seriously, I'm inviting you to explain your position.

What do you think is the appropriate place, if any, for feminist criticism of games by women like Anita Sarkeesian? What about criticism of gamer culture?

So, let's get this out of the way: you think Sarkeesian is doing feminist criticism? That's just "feminist criticism", without qualifiers, not extreme feminist or radical feminist, just your garden variety feminist criticism? I have stated this before that I think she has done immense damage to the word "feminism" and we're unjustly grouping extreme nuts under the general label. Yet, I've done so as well for convenience sake and noone here seem to have opposed that. If asked for nuance, I'd say she's not your typical feminist nor is she doing just "feminist criticism".

You think she is?

Because I know feminists who would strongly disagree.

ETA: Your questions are fun, I'll hijack them for myself. Maybe they'll help to bridge some toxic assumptions certain people here hold.

What about criticism of gamer culture?

Criticism of gamer culture is a good thing. Every culture should have its critics.

Do you think Zoe Quinn did anything unethical, and if so what, and what should be done about it?

Well I think cheating on your SO is quite unethical, but that has nothing to do with GG nor journalism. Nothing should be 'done about it', it's none of our business.

ETA2: I forgot how she attacked TFYC and fabricated the wizardchan harassment. Yeah, that's pretty unethical too. What should be done? What can be done? Not much. Spread the awareness that she's doing this.

Why do you see gaming or gaming culture being threatened by women or feminism?

I don't. By the colloquial definition of feminism, I'm a feminist. I don't see myself as a threat. I also don't see a gender as a threat. What an odd question.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I was in the same position until a few weeks ago. I'll try to explain what I have found.

At the core of gamergate is revelations that several professional and semi-professional web sites that provide coverage of video games had close relationships with game developers and game marketers. It was perceived that game companies and indie developers were using these relationships to influence the review at these sites, or to influence judges of various gaming awards. The allegations of favoritism or commercial influence constitute the "ethics in journalism" aspect of gamergate.

In my opinion, the existence of these relationships should have come as no surprise, but some people are naïve.

I have to say you are still quite uninformed, but I can hardly blame, especially if one has no particular interest in the issue. Thanks for the attempt though, wasn't as biased as some other accounts.

This came as no surprise to people that there's behind the scenes collusion and corruption. What kicked GG into gear was the coordinated 'gamers are dead' attack against gamers and gaming culture, silencing of discussion related to journalistic corruption and then very selectively only covering their chosen narrative. That's what sparked GG.

Now, I said this was "at the core" of gamergate, but that doesn't mean that these discussions of alleged ethical lapses are the focus of actual activity. In fact, most of the activity associated with gamergate has been discussions of feminist influence in the gaming industry. For example, the title of this thread came from the title of a news article.

Do you want to take a guess why? It's because the most prominent gamergate detractors are self-identified feminists and call gamergate as a coordinated attack on women and a hate movement - mind you, with absolutely zero evidence. And the media is giving them a megaphone.

If you have a guy punching you in the face and calling you a rapist for days and months, while you try to build a house, you eventually start to address him, ask him to explain himself and try to get him stop punching you. It's quite unfair then to be be asked 'why are you concentrating on this guy? Aren't you supposed to be building a house?'.

Let's take a step back for a moment for a reality check. Does it seem like the gaming industry has been torn apart?

Are you seriously taking Beritbart's clickbait headline as the actual argument?

Does it seem like the gaming industry would be a hotbed of feminism?

And where did that come from? Seems like two straw men in a row.

The alleged provision of sexual favors by female game developers to male writers was cited as unethical behavior.

*deep sigh*

Sure that's unethical behavior, but that wasn't what it was about, at all.
You're talking about Quinn and Grayson. Their relationship was confirmed. Grayson did not disclose the relationship when he covered Quinn's work. Subsequent discussion of this ethical misstep was censored, an attack on the entire gaming community commenced, the angle they took was that it's all about the women. Breitbart revealed private mailing list between journalists (GameJournoPros), more collusion, cronyism and nepotism was revealed. Media ignored the topic of it being corrupt (what a surprise) and concentrated on the victimization narrative.

To this day I've been asking people what do they mean when they say GG harassment, and they either have no answer, sheepishly point to one of those articles "but they said so" or show me some tweet by some random arse trolling someone. I'm not saying people haven't been harassed, I'm saying it's nothing like the media is portraying it to be. It's not gamergate supporters who are harassing, it's trolls who either happen to use gamergate hashtag to stir **** up or who, yes, genuinely happen to support gamergate. So while harassers can be gamergate supporters, it doesn't mean gamergate supporters are by default harassers. And this simple generalization fallacy seems to be always ignored. You don't judge the whole group by what select few do, especially when the whole group actively and aggressively condemns said behavior. In fact, we have seen no indication that this is anything other than business as usual on the internet, where public figures get death and rape threats and ******** argue with each other. What makes this extraordinary is the biased media coverage.

As word of these antics spread around the internet, an awful lot of people seemed to take it almost personally, and the women involved received a barrage of harassing and threatening emails, tweets, and other forms of hateful communications.

By an awful lot, you mean what exactly? Relative to your usual trolls? Hateful communication is received all the time by all genders, the only remarkable thing about GG is that the media chose to amplify the coverage those troll get, making more trolls to come out of the woodwork.

In other words, angered by what they perceived as unethical journalistic practices, an awful lot of people lashed out at the women involved in what was said to be unethical behavior.

I don't think the trolls care about unethical journalistic practices. Or did you mean criticism = lash out. Then yeah.

Well, that's my take on it anyway.

And it's a very uninformed take, sorry to say.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Good lord, this is possibly the most ridicuous post from you yet, especially after everything that has been said so far. Apparently it really doesn't matter what anyone says to you because you clearly only hear what you want to hear.

May I recommended you get a sock, draw a face on it, and put your hand inside. Then you can pretend it is speaking by talking out the side of your mouth in a squeaky voice.

His response is so typical 'othering'.

When I said extreme feminists are tarring gaming industry, which is evidently true, all the narratives that spun SVU episode and dozens of articles are from self-identified feminists, although I'd prefer to call them radical, or extreme, feminists. Some call it third wave feminism or academic feminism. The narrative is in my opinion tarring the gaming industry and gamers and developers are starting to stand up against it. Then there's the successful and unsuccessful petitions to ban games, with the same vocabulary third wave feminists a la Sarkeesian is using. In another words, yes, radical feminists are actively trying to tar gaming industry.

And Kevin_Lowe's response was that I'm here only for "reactionary feminist-bashing".

(of course the irony that he's here for reactionary gamergate bashing is probably lost on him)

I'm a feminist in that I think men and women should have equal rights under the law and I oppose gender discrimination, yet I don't agree with Sarkeesian. I think her claims are unevidenced and dishonest and not reflective of majority of opinion what feminism is concerned about. But it sure feels good to 'other' me. It's easy to score points when you name-call people MRA and anti-feminist.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Speaking of NotYourShield, this is my favourite NotYourShield video from the Pro-Gamergate supporter "Lizzyf620".

The first time I saw it, I spurted coffee through my nose when she said 'man to man'.

 

[Meadmaker]

The first time I saw it, I spurted coffee through my nose when she said 'man to man'.

Huh? It seems like the core of this video is making fun of someone because they are transgender.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big transgender supporter. Overall, my views on sex, gender, marriage, and related "social issues" are slightly to the left of what I think mainstream America is. In other words, compared to the prevailing beliefs on JREF I'm a right wing extremist. This isn't the place to discuss transgender issues, but I'm just noting that my attitude toward the video isn't based on some offense taken at mocking a minority.

I just don't see what's funny. It seems like a "Shut up, transgender loser." sort of statement. Oh, well. My mom never got why I thought David Letterman was funny, either, and I don't like South Park. I guess it's an age thing.

One thing for certain, though, is that whatever else is true about that video, it has absolutely zero to do with ethics in journalism.

 

[Meadmaker]

HIn another words, yes, radical feminists are actively trying to tar gaming industry.

Sure. I can't see any doubt about that. But are they succeeding? Is anyone outside of gamergate taking them seriously?

There has been a little bit of positive response to Anita Sarkeesian's call for better female representation as "In game" characters, but I don't think anyone thinks that's a bad thing. It's just marketing to a wider audience. Ok. Those earrings are a little impractical on some bad-ass archer, but it's a game. We can forgive that. Her other complaints have gone pretty much unheeded.

 

[Meadmaker]

To this day I've been asking people what do they mean when they say GG harassment, and they either have no answer, sheepishly point to one of those articles "but they said so" or show me some tweet by some random arse trolling someone. I'm not saying people haven't been harassed, I'm saying it's nothing like the media is portraying it to be. It's not gamergate supporters who are harassing, it's trolls who either happen to use gamergate hashtag to stir **** up or who, yes, genuinely happen to support gamergate. So while harassers can be gamergate supporters, it doesn't mean gamergate supporters are by default harassers.

I don't get it. You keep asking what they mean when they say gamergate harassment, and they either have no answer or.........they have an answer. Yeah, those tweets. (and emails and whatever else in the same vein) That's pretty much it. What's the confusion?

Your logic seems to be that since not all gamergaters are harassers, and not all harassers are gamergaters, anything they point to when you ask doesn't count.

 

[Edx]

Huh? It seems like the core of this video is making fun of someone because they are transgender..

I still need to get around to replying to Kevin but I just had to respond to this before I sleep.

Are you trolling us? Seriously... because if not I have no idea how you came to the conclusion that she was mocking transgender people. Seriously, this is one of the most ridiculous interpretations I've ever seen. You are not new to this debate, you are not stupid, you definitely do know better.

She is mocking the claim that everyone who says they are women who support gamergate, or those who say people like Sarkessian, Wu and Quinn do not speak for them, are just sockpuppets created by men. She is drenching you in sarcasm saying she must be a man because they said she was and we must "listen and believe". It was not difficult to understand this, but the fact that you managed to read into it something so absolutely different says a lot. No wonder you guys are so damn easy to troll over and over again, because you just live in your own little worlds and it hardly matters what anyone actually says to you or what you read, your brain just seems to make up what it wants anyway.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So, let's get this out of the way: you think Sarkeesian is doing feminist criticism? That's just "feminist criticism", without qualifiers, not extreme feminist or radical feminist, just your garden variety feminist criticism? I have stated this before that I think she has done immense damage to the word "feminism" and we're unjustly grouping extreme nuts under the general label. Yet, I've done so as well for convenience sake and noone here seem to have opposed that. If asked for nuance, I'd say she's not your typical feminist nor is she doing just "feminist criticism".

You must be hard up for something to complain about if all you can find is that I used an unexceptionable term and you have decided that it's insufficiently specific for you. Here, I'll give you another, go nuts: Cats are mammals. Now you can have lots of fun saying things like "Let's get this out of the way, you think cats are mammals? Not felines? This clearly shows your agenda!".

I'll take this as agreement that #gamergate's main focus is and always has been attacking feminists. You'll just do everything you can to avoid it being stated in those terms.

ETA2: I forgot how she attacked TFYC and fabricated the wizardchan harassment. Yeah, that's pretty unethical too. What should be done? What can be done? Not much. Spread the awareness that she's doing this.

Not this again? There is zero evidence she fabricated anything. Just misogynist idiots claiming she must have fabricated it because she didn't post enough evidence to satisfy them. She claimed to have received a harassing phone call, for example, but can she prove it? No! Thus in #gamergate land she fabricated it because she is evil.

I don't. By the colloquial definition of feminism, I'm a feminist. I don't see myself as a threat. I also don't see a gender as a threat. What an odd question.

Well hang, on didn't you also post the following?

This came as no surprise to people that there's behind the scenes collusion and corruption. What kicked GG into gear was the coordinated 'gamers are dead' attack against gamers and gaming culture, silencing of discussion related to journalistic corruption and then very selectively only covering their chosen narrative. That's what sparked GG.

Is time travel involved here? GG started as an attack on Zoe Quinn, not in response to "gamers are dead" articles. Why people should be in any way butthurt about those articles is a whole different and equally inane issue.

Do you want to take a guess why? It's because the most prominent gamergate detractors are self-identified feminists and call gamergate as a coordinated attack on women and a hate movement - mind you, with absolutely zero evidence. And the media is giving them a megaphone.

More time travel has to be afoot here, if you are blaming #gamergater behaviour on "self-identified" feminists (and I don't know what that qualifier is supposed to mean) who called gamergate a hate movement and a coordinated attack on women. So the #gamergaters got outraged by these feminists comments, and travelled backwards in time to start a hate movement over those comments before they made them?

Sure that's unethical behavior, but that wasn't what it was about, at all.
You're talking about Quinn and Grayson. Their relationship was confirmed. Grayson did not disclose the relationship when he covered Quinn's work.

More time travel here, as Grayson must have boinked Quinn then travelled back in time to review her game before they were in a relationship.

Gamergate mythology really is fascinating as a case study of mass irrationality. They've apparently convinced themselves that every bit of backlash they have earned came before they started their harassment campaign and in fact justifies it.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Huh? It seems like the core of this video is making fun of someone because they are transgender.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a big transgender supporter. Overall, my views on sex, gender, marriage, and related "social issues" are slightly to the left of what I think mainstream America is. In other words, compared to the prevailing beliefs on JREF I'm a right wing extremist. This isn't the place to discuss transgender issues, but I'm just noting that my attitude toward the video isn't based on some offense taken at mocking a minority.

I just don't see what's funny. It seems like a "Shut up, transgender loser." sort of statement. Oh, well. My mom never got why I thought David Letterman was funny, either, and I don't like South Park. I guess it's an age thing.

One thing for certain, though, is that whatever else is true about that video, it has absolutely zero to do with ethics in journalism.

Did you watch the same video? It's a woman satirically responding to anti-GGers' claim that everyone in GG is white cis-male sockpuppets.

Sure. I can't see any doubt about that. But are they succeeding? Is anyone outside of gamergate taking them seriously?

They are succeeding to some extent. By tarring I mean damaging the reputation and public image. We haven't had that much negative media coverage on gaming industry in years. And it's not exactly hard to do it since gaming's been considered the black sheep of the entertainment family for years.

There has been a little bit of positive response to Anita Sarkeesian's call for better female representation as "In game" characters, but I don't think anyone thinks that's a bad thing. It's just marketing to a wider audience. Ok. Those earrings are a little impractical on some bad-ass archer, but it's a game. We can forgive that. Her other complaints have gone pretty much unheeded.

I don't think anyone's against better narratives and more female characters. That is not, however, what is the gist of her video series and critique. At least not exclusively.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

You must be hard up for something to complain about if all you can find is that I used an unexceptionable term and you have decided that it's insufficiently specific for you. Here, I'll give you another, go nuts: Cats are mammals. Now you can have lots of fun saying things like "Let's get this out of the way, you think cats are mammals? Not felines? This clearly shows your agenda!".

By your refusal to clarify your post, I take it you have no real answer. It's a tough one, I'll give you that. When you've defended a radical feminist so long, it's counterproductive to admit she's in fact radical, and not representative of the majority of feminists with her opinions and criticism.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

Not this again? There is zero evidence she fabricated anything. Just misogynist idiots claiming she must have fabricated it because she didn't post enough evidence to satisfy them. She claimed to have received a harassing phone call, for example, but can she prove it? No! Thus in #gamergate land she fabricated it because she is evil.

Exactly, she's provided zero evidence the harassment or the phone call existed or was done by wizardchan. To clarify, by fabricated I don't necessarily mean she made whatever posts or phone calls she think she received to herself, just that there's no evidence to support this happened. Her behavior supports the hypothesis that she'll happily deceive and manipulate when it benefits her. I'm in the habit of believing people when there's a reason to believe them, regardless of their gender.

time travel

Well, maybe you'll want to do some research into GG history, then we might have something to talk about.

"self-identified" feminists (and I don't know what that qualifier is supposed to mean)

Self-identification

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I don't get it. You keep asking what they mean when they say gamergate harassment, and they either have no answer or.........they have an answer.

They have a response, not an answer. What they give is not supporting of the claim that GG is harassing women.

Yeah, those tweets. (and emails and whatever else in the same vein) That's pretty much it.

"Those"? Which ones? If you want to pin an harassing tweet or an email to GG, you better have something concrete, not a vague "those tweets, emails, whatever".

What's the confusion?

No confusion - you haven't made a convincing argument GG is harassing women.

Your logic seems to be that since not all gamergaters are harassers, and not all harassers are gamergaters, anything they point to when you ask doesn't count.

No, that's not my logic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

You're welcome.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

@Kevin_Lowe

By your refusal to clarify your post, I take it you have no real answer. It's a tough one, I'll give you that. When you've defended a radical feminist so long, it's counterproductive to admit she's in fact radical, and not representative of the majority of feminists with her opinions and criticism.

ETA: If you find it hard to understand what's the relevance of the distinction I brought up - it ties in to your accusation that I'm here for reactionary feminist-bashing. I'm not reactionary - in the sense of the word where it means "extremely conservative", or anti-progress. I'm not bashing, I have explained and evidenced my grievances against Sarkeesian's video series. And I'm not against feminism. I'm against radical feminism.

ETA ETA: They've decreased the time we can edit our posts?

 

[Meadmaker]

They are succeeding to some extent. By tarring I mean damaging the reputation and public image. We haven't had that much negative media coverage on gaming industry in years. And it's not exactly hard to do it since gaming's been considered the black sheep of the entertainment family for years.

I don't think the negative coverage is due to anything Sarkeesian has written.



As for the connection between gamergate and the harassment of Sarkeesian, Wu, and Quinn (and others?), it's fairly obvious, but if you think it's false, you, personally, can do something about it. Light a candle instead of cursing the darkness.

What I mean by that is that you should limit your discussion of gamergate to issues of ethics in journalism. Sarkeesian, Wu, and Quinn aren't journalists, so there's no need to even bring them up. Feminism isn't an ethical issue, so there's no reason to discuss it in conjunction with gamergate. It's not relevant. Videos like the "man to man" one are on a completely different topic, so it need not be mentioned.

If someone else brings it up, politely decline to talk about such unrelated distractions that take focus away from the real issue. See how that works.

 

[TeapotCavalry]

I don't think the negative coverage is due to anything Sarkeesian has written.

I don't know the reach of her written or videorecorded work, but she's undoubtly one of the main ones, who's peddling the false and destructive narrative that women are unsafe and unwelcome in gaming (and tech?) industry.

As for the connection between gamergate and the harassment of Sarkeesian, Wu, and Quinn (and others?), it's fairly obvious,

It's easy to think something is obvious and common sense when media is telling you it non-stop. I think it's more productive to establish that this is in fact true, rather than claiming it's obvious. The majority of interaction between Sarkeesian et al and gamergate is that gamergaters criticize their tactics and their arguments, and they ignore the criticism and claim harassment.

but if you think it's false, you, personally, can do something about it. Light a candle instead of cursing the darkness.

What I mean by that is that you should limit your discussion of gamergate to issues of ethics in journalism.

Ignoring the bullies never helps. This has been a debated issues in KiA as well. Lots of threads about Wu and Sarkeesian drama. One side tells not to give them attention and hope they'll go away, the other side tells it's not gamergaters who are the audience or giving them the attention, they don't care about our attention, they're not interacting with us. We ignoring their bullying tactics does nothing to make them stop. I'm in the latter category on this issue. It's not like the SJW drama is the only thing we discuss, it's certainly in the minority of topics. We have many threads "discussing" ethics breaches. I put "discussion" in quotes, because what's there to discuss when there's an obvious ethics breach? Since you and banquetbear seem to advocate talking exclusively about ethics in gaming journalism, maybe you can help us out. What should follow posts like "See, clearly conflict of interests, no disclosure" - "yup, seems pretty obvious, should've disclosed the relationship" - "yeah, I agree." Your insistence to confine and restrict what we can speak about is counterproductive to trying to understand the bigger picture of how media works and how journalists interact with each other. Politics play a big part in their interrelationships, we can't ignore the fact that the most aggressive attacks on GG come from people with very similar agendas.

Sarkeesian, Wu, and Quinn aren't journalists, so there's no need to even bring them up.

See the analogy I made earlier of trying to build a house when someone's constantly punching you in the face. You don't tell the guy trying to build the house to "shut up and take it", you tell the person punching him to stop.

Feminism isn't an ethical issue, so there's no reason to discuss it in conjunction with gamergate. It's not relevant.

Feminism isn't. Radical feminism is. It's part of the SJW package, it's the mainstream narrative of what gamergate is. If you don't see that as relevant to GG discussion, you haven't read the mainstream articles.

Videos like the "man to man" one are on a completely different topic, so it need not be mentioned.

I don't think you still understand what that video was about.

If someone else brings it up, politely decline to talk about such unrelated distractions that take focus away from the real issue. See how that works.

This thread wouldn't exist without the feminism drama angle. It's funny to see now posters here trying to change the subject, and only when it's gamergate supporters talking. I've never seen the argument being made against anti-GGers in this thread.

 

[Meadmaker]

So, the really important thing is ethics in journalism, but no one is talking about that?

Do you see why some people might be a bit confused when it comes to what gamergate is really about?

And no one is preventing you or gamergaters from talking about anything. You can talk about whatever you want, and others can note what it is that you seem to want to talk about.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's fascinating to watch the #gamergater spin in action.

The pampered target audience for the total output of a multi-billion dollar industry, who produce torrents of abuse and threats when anything doesn't go completely their way, are "building a house" while "bullies" "punch them in the face".

What does this "punching in the face" consist of? Why, people daring to say that not all gamers are young males, or daring to say that games should take into account the interests and tastes of female consumers, or daring to say that the torrents of abuse and threats exist.

They do little or nothing about their claimed cause, ethics in games journalism, but that is not their fault, you see, because other people keep talking about the anti-feminist and terrorist aspects of #gamergate, so they have to talk about it, so it's not their fault they never achieve anything. It's the fault of those meanies always punching them in the face.

The fact that this story is wildly inconsistent with the actual history of #gamergate and makes no internal sense isn't a problem, you just have to keep talking in circles until it seems to make sense. Evil feminists punched poor innocent gamers which caused the poor innocent gamers to take up arms against unethical journalism which is totally unrelated to feminism, totally, but the poor innocent gamers can't talk about unethical games journalism because those totally unrelated evil feminists keep accusing them of harassing them, which makes it impossible to talk abut ethical games journalism somehow.

That harassment totally doesn't reals anyway, because feminists are liars, because the harassment never happened, which proves they are liars. Also if it did happen it was totally their fault and they asked for it and they wanted it and they are getting rich off it. But if it did happen it was definitely not #gamergaters who did it, because even though they are totally obsessed with Wu, Sarkeesian and Quinn they would never, ever do anything about it. It's totally unrelated Internet trolls who are doing it, and #gamergaters aren't trolls, they originated on 4chan, and nobody on 4chan would ever dox or troll. Never, ever. It is a thing that never happens. Anyone who says different needs to educate themselves about how #gamergate reals.

 

[Butter!]

I was in the same position until a few weeks ago. I'll try to explain what I have found.

At the core of gamergate is revelations that several professional and semi-professional web sites that provide coverage of video games had close relationships with game developers and game marketers. It was perceived that game companies and indie developers were using these relationships to influence the review at these sites, or to influence judges of various gaming awards. The allegations of favoritism or commercial influence constitute the "ethics in journalism" aspect of gamergate.

In my opinion, the existence of these relationships should have come as no surprise, but some people are naïve. Gamergate served to enlighten some gamers that not all reviews were always strictly about the quality of the game.

Now, I said this was "at the core" of gamergate, but that doesn't mean that these discussions of alleged ethical lapses are the focus of actual activity. In fact, most of the activity associated with gamergate has been discussions of feminist influence in the gaming industry. For example, the title of this thread came from the title of a news article.

Let's take a step back for a moment for a reality check. Does it seem like the gaming industry has been torn apart? Does it seem like the gaming industry would be a hotbed of feminism? Of course it isn't.

However, there have been certain feminist voices, most notably Anita Sarkeesian, who have been critical of the video game industry because of the way women are portrayed in typical video games. Meanwhile, there are other women in the game industry, especially one particular developer, who have been alleged to use a certain degree of influence derived from their gender to persuade writers to give favorable coverage to certain games.

The alleged provision of sexual favors by female game developers to male writers was cited as unethical behavior. As word of these antics spread around the internet, an awful lot of people seemed to take it almost personally, and the women involved received a barrage of harassing and threatening emails, tweets, and other forms of hateful communications. In other words, angered by what they perceived as unethical journalistic practices, an awful lot of people lashed out at the women involved in what was said to be unethical behavior.

Reality check #2, Gamergaters say that the movement is about ethics in journalism, but the women being targeted are not journalists.


Well, that's my take on it anyway. At its heart is a core of reasonable complaints about the influence of the industry itself on those who write about games and the gaming. Surrounding that small core are a whole lot of idiots ranting about SJWs, feminists, and promiscuous women.

Thanks a lot for the comprehensive analysis, Meadmaker!

 

[TeapotCavalry]

So, the really important thing is ethics in journalism, but no one is talking about that?

You're unwilling to read anything that is written? I get the sense you don't actually want to converse.