You're entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts. The movement that would become Gamergate did in fact originate somewhere, and all the evidence I've seen points to the burgersandfries crowd. That might not be why any individual person joined - but that's where it started, and that set the tone for what followed.
Even if that's true - and I can't say whether it is or isn't, I can't say I've had the time or inclination to do an in-depth study on it since it had kinda passed by the time I got curious about it, and finding reliable narratives about Gamergate that are relatively free from bias is almost impossible at this point in time, so I am working off of second hand information - "setting the tone" doesn't equal guiding it. As it is, they may have made up a sizeable portion of the initial group, but that doesn't mean that everybody who identifies as a pro GGer agrees with them.
Which is why there's so little overlap between the early anti-Sarkeesian crowd and Gamergate, right?
Didn't say that there wasn't an overlap, just that they weren't initially linked.
Unless you have respect, recognition, and a degree of deference from a significant core part of the movement, and a forum or three where these people gather, and a habit of organizing and directing specific campaigns...
That still doesn't equal guiding the whole movement. That just describes the sub-groups. Some of them will work together, others won't. It wasn't and isn't a unified group that has a dedicated manifesto and aim. Different sections of it have entirely different objectives.
I'm talking about the roots here. The movement has recognizable roots that predate the tag - and it was characterized by a small fervent core that met in a few specific places.
I'm not denying that the roots stretch back before the tag - of course they do - I'm just saying that calling it a "Hate Group" misses the point that it wasn't a unified entity and had several different groups each pursuing their own agendas. Sometimes some of them aligned, sometimes they didn't. Calling it a "Hate Group" is overly simplistic since it implies organisation that wasn't really there.
If you sign on to it, you've made it clear that women don't matter much to you (and you don't know much about journalistic integrity).
And that's - to use a word I found I rather like - Poppycock
a fun word). It doesn't have a set meaning or a set "This is where we create Gamergate, and the manifesto is THIS!" moment. It's a Hashtag that can be used by anybody for any reason, hypothetically speaking. Because I agree with the Gamergaters calling for superior ethics in games journalism (not always their methods, but the spirit of the thing) then...I automatically hate women. Because that's a logical conclusion...? Why can't I agree with the "moderate," reasonable GGers who are genuinely wanting a discussion and condemn the harassment (which I've already one, even in regards to people I personally dislike/disagree with).
Funny, I've seen a lot of political activism hashtags that didn't immediately go to shit - even if their message was actively hated by the gamergate crowd. So clearly it is possible to not have your message hijacked, if hijacking is actually the problem. Moving to a new hashtag would 1) set a new tone out of the gate, which makes a difference, 2) make the trolls an actual minority, allowing for better policing, 3) shed a lot of the trolls, who won't want to switch from a high-profile tag to an (initially) lower-profile one, and 4) Make it clear to outsiders that you don't stand with toxic assholes.
This is a fair point, but the problem is also convincing the amorphous mass that changing tags is a good idea, and since GG IS a high-profile tag, it might be difficult to do that. I agree that it would be desirable if it were possible, but it remains to be seen whether a new tag can catch on. Nature of hashtags is that they have to be catchy, recognisable and easy to remember.
Quick, do me a favour: Ctrl-F for "nothing but". Notice that none of the hits are in my posts. What I've said is that it was about and defined by hatred from the beginning.
Nope, you're completely right on that. I misread the original post, and apologise sincerely. It wasn't my intention to misrepresent what you said. I inferred from what you said that you were labelling it as "just" a Hate Group. I still think that doing so is massively oversimplifying the issue, but since I did initially accidentally misquote you, I'm going to "back down" on this aspect simply because continuing an argument that stemmed from a misreading of your post is both dishonest and pointless. So, my sincerest apologies. *bows*
No day one? So Gamergate is eternal? That's... an odd claim.
I didn't mean that it was eternal (but that's a good idea for a parody...suddenly I see a group of hooded figures standing in a circle with the letters "GG" in the centre all talking about The Judgement Day when The Eternal GG will be fulfilled, or something. What? It's 2am where I am, my brain isn't working properly and I have a weird imagination, leave me alone), just that there wasn't a specific "This is where we're starting GG," it was more of a gradual process and evolution that snowballed over time. Like, there is
a specific date where Feminism was created (mid-late 19th century, as we would recognise it, though I can't remember the specific date. I think it was in or around New York, though I can't be certain). That's all I meant, haha.
Walk into a crowded room and loudly say something horrifically racist. (Disclaimer: Don't actually do this.) Invite discussion of your statement. Watch the reaction. Then tell me again how it's impossible for a disorganized band of complete strangers to reject you.
Damn! I was gonna try that as well! (Not really, I'm not that
But anyway! That's my point; GG isn't all in one place. They're in hundreds of different places. It's like...walking into a crowded room, shouting something horribly racist, getting beaten up and thrown out, then walking into the pub down the street, shouting the same thing and the people there happen to agree with you. Some GG "Pubs" would reject that person, others would accept them simply because of the amorphous, largely disorganised nature of GG as a whole.
My point there is that the vast majority of unethical influence comes from AAA studios - indies just don't have the money and influence.
Weeeeeeell, I wouldn't say that Indies lack the money or influence to be corrupt. Just take a look at what happened to Jim Sterling. Like him or not, the developers that tried to shut him up by DMCA'ing him were utterly in the wrong. But that's more of a nitpicky thing than anything actually relevant to the discussion, heh.
The rest of that is interesting and I wish I could respond properly, but the simple fact of the matter is I can't for three major reason:
1) A lot of them are responses to comments I made in response to a misquotation by me, and I already backed down on that point because you're right; I did misquote you and continuing that line of discussion when it's been demonstrated that I started on a faulty premise is dishonest at best and obtuse/arrogant at worst. I can be thick-headed and stubborn at times, but not to the point where I can't admit when I fucked up and am largely "in the wrong."
2) They're about topics I didn't want to discuss in the first place but couldn't resist commenting on (I need to learn to stop doing that, for my own sanity if nothing else)
3) You're right, I don't have the statistics necessary to prove my assertions, so continuing to just assert them would be stupid at best. I'll try to hunt some down in my spare time, but since I don't think it likely that such statistics actually exist, I won't hold out too much hope, haha.
I really appreciate your participation here - I want to argue against the best opposition I can. So... thanks.
Haha, I highly doubt that I'm the best
opposition available on this topic...you obviously have looked into it far more than I have and have obviously thought about it far more than I have (which is one of the reasons I'm "backing down," as it were, since it's obvious that going on any further would just risk me starting to talk out of my arse and I try to avoid debating subjects I don't have sufficient knowledge in), but I appreciate the compliment.
As it is, I don't identify as a GGer...I wasn't around on the interwebz in the areas it was going on (I only grudgingly got a Twitter account last month. It dragged me there kicking and screaming, but it got me there regardless
) and only heard about it second hand, so I kind of align myself with - from what I've seen, anyway - TotalBiscuits camp of "Loosely aligning myself with the GGers who want a civil discourse about Gaming Journalistic Ethical Integrity." (A new # perhaps? #GJEI? Can you think of a better acronym, because my forte is Haiku's and freeform poetry rather than creative word puns
Quick, not in-depth review: Never heard of WAM!, so they bear further investigation, but... they're missing the point. They're looking at block lists and reports; I'm looking at what GG was actually doing, which is what's relevant here. Also, their stats are terrible - they open by stating that most of the autoblocked accounts aren't gamergate, then when it comes time for the flashy "Only 0.66 of gamergate were harassers", they literally define Gamergate membership as "appears on the block list".
Well, that's why I didn't use it in support of my "argument;" I hadn't read it yet. I just saw what they claimed it was and thought "Eh, maybe they'll find it interesting."
I'll read it when I get a chance - the study, that is, not the article; I think the study is looking at a broader subject than just GG (from the looks of it, at least). The article is obviously bias, so I'm just gonna ignore it and look at what the study ACTUALLY says - but I didn't cite it simply because I hadn't read it, and I wouldn't want to look like even more
of a jackass on this thread.