Essay talk:Gamergate: my thoughts

Most of the editors you’ve singled out left the site years ago. Christopher (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry. 20:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Mentioning David Gerard specifically is more weird. He may have edited four days ago but he’s hardly active, and you two have never interacted. Christopher (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

One hell of a claim
"The gaming journalistic establishment, aligned to radical SocJus policies like the majority of the media". No way it is. The establishment may sometimes engage in mild wokeness, a far cry from "radical SocJus policies" (without any further specification from this essay, I'm lead to guessing this means "woman in fictional war game!?), but they've turned a blind eye to pressing issues such as representation (in both games, target audience, workplace especially at higher end), workplace harassment, executive makeup, hostile gamer culture (voice chat), income inequality, and much more. Accusing the general media of pandering to "radical SocJus policies" is extremely common criticism by the right-wing types, I daresay reactionaries, but the depth of that extends to just a game with a gay or black or a woman in a notable role and not much else. If you can differentiate between that and a more in-depth explanation at what that claim means, as well as support with good examples, then I'll reconsider my very negative impressions with this essay. 20:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Another one: "but nonetheless was a giant FUCK YOU to the corrupt game journalistic establishment." What did GamerGate accomplish? This movement was toothless. Even if it was designed to be some sort of protest for games journalism (it started as a harassment campaign, let's be clear here), the harassment campaigns were the most highly visible part of it and completely undermined the message by distracting the actual problems with establishment journalism to that some people, predominantly women, received a barrage of extremely ugly messages. The discussion, whatever that was, then turned into abuse of social media, targeting not the establishment but whoever is most vulnerable and anonymity hiding behind a thin veil of "accountability". Because of GamerGate, their targets are famous, receiving much support, because their targets are accurately perceived as victims. Sarkeesian got support from media. What exactly did GamerGate accomplish? Nothing. It is not a "FUCK YOU". The establishment is unscathed. Journalism is still subpar with little accountable for the games industry barring a few articles on workplace abuse. CEOs are still making record profits. People are still suffering from crunch. Kotaku has recently published a piece defending lootbox gambling kids can participate in as fun surprises. Oh, but some women had their internet lives ruined. That's not something worth celebrating, even barring the ugly parts of it. 20:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * While I would argue that the downfall of Gawker Media did lead to Kotaku's standards marginally improving, Gawker only collapsed because of its atrocious handling of the Hulk Hogan lawsuit (which itself was entirely preventable). The fact that Gamergate cost them a few million in ad money a year or two beforehand is inconsequential. --24.228.242.185 (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's GamerGate in general (except for seriously hurting some women). Ineffective. If they apparently achieved something, it was only because it was crumbling beforehand. In fact, that the industry did nothing to protect these women should be an example of the games industry deserving to be scrutinized and journalism not holding them accountable enough for such inaction. 21:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

0.5/5
This is one of the most asinine and superficial "hot takes" on the GG debacle I've ever seen, and I read the original screed. 20:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They linked to Encyclopedia Dramatica in response to Leigh Alexander, and a claim accusing a figure of being a "pedophile" (should this even be in an essay in our wiki!?!?) .... That probably sums up everything. 20:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't, unless the person was convicted. Linking to a libel is, in itself, libel. Avida Dollarsher again 20:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The source with the "most integrity" that "confirmed" these pedo allegations is Breitbart, who is on Wikipedia's "too shitty to even consider as a source for ANY article" list. From there, it's a slide to the ED and Kiwi Farms level. So there's a high probability that this allegation is bullshit and should be removed. On the mainstream news level, Sarah Nyberg (aka Sarah Butts) got one article from NYMag for apparently making a Twitter bot to honeypot trolls, so they can endlessly "debate" and shitpost without bothering anyone. Which frankly is a better summary of Gamergate than anything in this essay. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We can't have potentially litigious statements, not on essayspace either. I do motion to remove the problematic statement, but do we keep those revisions? 21:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the author this essay is still under construction. I agree that we should remove problematic statements, but I don't think we need to remove the revisions at least for now. GeeJayK (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, clicking on that link sure reminded me why I usually don't click on links to ED...-Flandres (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * [EC]Too late, I’ve just removed the link and suppressed all the revisions that included it. Only the link was removed, so although it may be overkill I don’t see anyone complaining. Christopher (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For future clarity; not a bad move, but I want to point out that we are protected from libel under section 230. IRonman however isn't. 21:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (ec)Might want to suppress the revisions on User:IRonMan that contain the link, as this essay was copypasted from there. Plutocow (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that’s excessive, but I won’t stand in the way of anyone else with the rights who wants to do it. Christopher (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

...
I'm not changing my stance on GamerGate, but I'm seriously considering deleting my essay, for LeftyGreen's sake.
 * On GamerGate, I think we can agree to disagree, but I hope that this matter can be resolved without any acrimony. I wish you the best.


 * ,, , , , , : If I had known that the Sarah Butts stuff constituted criminal libel, I would not have posted it on my userpage or this essay. I wish you all the best, most especially Christopher and Plutocow, even if we've had our differences in the past.


 * @GrammarCommie: I could give a damn what you think about it.

12:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Couldn't give a damn". Learn to swear properly, since you just said that you do in fact care what my opinion on your delusions are. 17:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Disregard the first sentence of the above topic
Nope. I'm putting the essay back up. This is what I believe about the matter. If I have to fall on my sword for this thing, then it's only a matter of choosing the intercostal gap for the blade to slide through. 20:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What you support is ultimately a horrific harassment campaign against vulnerable women coated by lies to try to jusitfy real harm and then provide the games industry an actual defense and distract from the real abuses the industry is guilty of. 17:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The essay is still shit, still delusional, and your convictions that it isn't doesn't change those facts. 17:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This "essay" got to be one of the worst pieces of immature drivel ever seriously posted on this wiki. The link to ED is especially egregious. It cheapens and reflects very poorly on the author. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 18:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The author's user page stated that "Encyclopedia Dramatica is the greatest comedy site on the web. If you disagree, I encourage you to visit their "Offended" page and slowly scroll down." So their apparently citing ED with a straight face in this essay checks out. 18:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how you could have less of an issue with Comicsgate. Conspiracy theories and social media harassment are just as integral to Comicsgate (if not moreso) as it was for Gamergate, but it's not even trying to be about anything more than getting undesirables out of comics. Plus, they're leaking into film and television. And Gamergate barely made it past 6 months before it fizzled out, whereas Comicsgate has been going for years and there's no sign of it stopping. What part of all that is less objectionable? 24.228.242.185 (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * IRonMan is in high school, immaturity is expected. I don’t have an opinion on any of this, as I’ve managed to avoid ever learning what gamergate is. Christopher (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If ComicsGate is as bad as GamerGate, if not worse, then we should probably have an article on it. I also think it's probably worth learning about GamerGate even superficially because it has strong associations to far-right politics and radicalization infestation that leads to real harm, and while GamerGate is generally dead, it still has dangerous consequences about the way the internet can be used. 18:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My impression is that "Comicsgate" largely has stayed in-fandom, peaking in 2018 or so. The BoN is largely correct that, post Gamergate, the alt-right "fuck diversity" assholes largely have dropped any pretenses like that "ethics in gaming journalism" bullshit, and are proud to flaunt their racist bigotry while conducting harassment campaigns. It's not as bad as Gamergate IMHO in that it's obvious that these guys are Nazi punks from the start, so few non-fandom types are willing to give the alt-right side much oxygen in the media. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comicsgate is connected to film and television primarily by way of youtube videos about the MCU and DCEU (or whatever Warner Bros. calls it) and there's a very large overlap with the anti-SJW Star Wars fandom.24.228.242.185 (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify what I meant by "I don't have as much of an issue w/ Comicsgate." Unlike Gamergate, I do not think that the folks at Comicsgate are in the right. While it is true that there's been a big push for diversity in comics and the resulting product might suffer slightly, that's only a small price for more representation of groups who up until now haven't gotten as much representation. And anyway, I enjoy the new characters as much as the old. 20:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, with regards to me enjoying Encyclopedia Dramatica, comedy is subjective. I don't know why I think ED's funny, but that doesn't change the fact that when I peruse its contents, I often end up on the floor choking on my own laughter. I don't hold to the views they claim to espouse, but I still find their articles hilarious. 20:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)