I haven't been following it much, but it seems to be a stupid, misguided, ill-informed mess. The bulk of it seems to be people using "journalistic integrity" as a plausible-deniability cover to shit-talk women in the video game industry and video game journalism.

It's not surprising that an industry-centric journalism that is still in its early days and has quite a bit of overlap between writers/reviewers/editors and videogame developers is going to have some conflict of interest issues as well as some issues with being an intellectually and financially incestuous environment. Calling for greater transparency into the process of what games and developers get press on what sites and why is great, because otherwise its easy to see how up-and-comers with great game ideas could have a hard time getting press, while the old hats end up with the bulk of media coverage because of their connections.

But all I see any time "gamer gate" is discussed - let alone used by someone as a self-identifying hashtag - it's in a weirdly angry, personality-directed way.

It's using a legitimate (if not super important...) issue as cover for weird, misdirected anger.

Just read these if nothing else:
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/17/Exposed-the-secret-mailing-list-of-the-gaming-journalism-elite
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/18/The-emails-that-prove-video-games-journalism-must-be-reformed
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/09/21/GameJournoPros-we-reveal-every-journalist-on-the-list
"In emails seen by Breitbart London, Ben Kuchera repeatedly pressures other journalists and editors to take down material on their websites that is critical of Zoe Quinn and to close down debate about her role in the video games industry by removing comments and forum posts by members of the public asking questions about journalistic propriety."
This conspiracy shit even goes so far as to include Associated Press, CNBC and USA Today. Not just gaming news blogs. So I hope yawl will forgive me for telling someone railing against GG to fuck entirely off.

>The bulk of it seems to be people using "journalistic integrity" as a plausible-deniability cover to shit-talk women in the video game industry and video game journalism.
I had to edit this down to a short version (heh. short. i'manass), but this is the gist of it (sorry for length, language and lewdity, other people):
You and people like you are provably (see links) trying to twist GG into some feminist bullshit (see industry-wide coordinated articles crying "Gamer is dead") where anyone that plays games is a horrible misogynist when that is not only false, but has nothing to do with gaming. The fact that the current journalistic ethics void was brought to everyone's attention because a woman literally whored around for positive press is the only thing I've seen people talk about even involving a woman. And I say that if she did that (which time-stamped evidence indicates), then she deserves some shit for being a terrible person.
And that's what I think your kind miss: it's not that she's a woman in games, it's that the people game buyers trust for information outright lie and manipulate everyone for their personal profit. You notice how I didn't talk about her? Because she's not the real problem. The problem is that most people don't know where else to go for info, so how can they know when they're lying? They're the only ones giving out any information.
There is a literal video game "journalist" conspiracy to push only the stories they want pushed in the way they want them pushed. These people are using their positions of authority to shove their political agenda into gaming. So while people like you are part of the problem (and what you're spewing was one of the hook/line/sinkers they put out), what you're complaining about never has been.
You want mysogony? How's this: She tried to use Robin Williams' suicide as a cheap marketing ploy for her game. How evil am I?

I actually just cam here to talk about movies. Oh well.

>>628
>The bulk of it seems to be people using "journalistic integrity" as a plausible-deniability cover to shit-talk women in the video game industry and video game journalism.

OP here. Considering the amount of girls who've rallied behind GG, I'd say that's false. I haven't seen anyone in GG who hates women in video games and the whole thing of GG being an issue of women in games has so far been nothing but the narrative spun by the same clickbait journalists we've been trying to get rid of.

The only time girls have been at the receiving end of shit with #GamerGate is when they've been talking shit and people have criticised them for it, the same goes for guys too. Nobody is exempt from criticism.

The anger you're detecting from GG discussion is the result of this being an issue that's been bubbling up for years combined with the fact the opposition has consistently tried their damned hardest to silence any and all discussion of this issue which doesn't fit within their predetermined worldview. You haven't been following this much which is why you don't understand just how truly frustrating the people who oppose us are. It's difficult to explain in words, but just try to argue with these people from an opposing viewpoint and you'll understand the kind of dirty tactics they engage in. They pretty much rely on logical fallacies because they don't have any facts to argue with.

To me the whole thing is just pathetic and sad. I mean people are complaining about the journalistic integrity of an industry which is PURELY FOR ENTERTAINMENT. I could understand if there was some big huge plot to misrepresent world events and politics, but people are freaking about because "journalists" are lying to them about their toys. It's just pathetic.

This is one of those things people are horribly confused about and don't understand. The "gaming journalist" industry exists solely because consume it as entertainment. Yet these people think they can change it by bitching and complaining, when the real solution is to just stop being so angsty about it and stop being a terrible consumer. When I want to know if a game is good I ask my friends about it, or I pirate it and try it out. "Gaming journalism" shouldn't be a vitally important part of anyone's thought process or life. If it is, that is a sad person.

>>633
Well it's a little more than that. I'm not sure if you've noticed but the offending sites have been pushing this "social justice" agenda for a few years now and people have long suspected that there's something fishy going on.

>The "gaming journalist" industry exists solely because consume it as entertainment. Yet these people think they can change it by bitching and complaining
We've been sending emails to advertisers, spreading information via social media. We might not be doing anything IRL but you'd be surprised what can be done over the internet. Look at the success we've had in getting advertisers to pull away from sites, all the while the opposing camp proves their toxicity by attacking these companies as they pull out. Hell, even Gawker launched a scathing attack on Intel and Adobe:

http://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-1649496579

>So let's say it now: Intel is run by craven idiots. It employs pusillanimous morons. It lacks integrity. It folded to misogynists and bigots who objected to a woman who had done nothing more than write a piece claiming a place in the world of video games. And even when confronted with its own thoughtlessness and irresponsibility, it could not properly right its wrongs.
>....
>Brands like Adobe and Intel, willing to distance themselves from independent publishers over the spurious claims of a limited but dedicated group of misogynists and trolls, share an important core value with Gamergate: Misogyny. Kidding! Kidding. The value that defines both Gamergate and brand response is cynicism.

You can read more about the shit Gawker's been getting up to here: http://adland.tv/adnews/gawker-toxic-brands-who-partner-them/1291467968

>when the real solution is to just stop being so angsty about it and stop being a terrible consumer.
Again, that's what we're doing. In addition to the emails, we've also boycotted the sites, encouraged other people to do so and have been promoting alternative sites that match what we're looking for in games news.

>>634
>Again, that's what we're doing. In addition to the emails, we've also boycotted the sites, encouraged other people to do so and have been promoting alternative sites that match what we're looking for in games news.

Looks like I'm on your side and ten steps ahead of you then! I haven't ever gone to ANY websites related to "video game journalism" and never plan to either. I've boycotted it so much I barely know what gamergate is at all. I don't even know who the belligerents and defendants are. The little I do know is that it involves "gaming journalism" and the lack of ethics in it, feminists somehow, and people on both sides are being incredibly stupid cunts to each other for reasons they probably don't even remember anymore.

>>635
Well if you're looking to get up to speed on the issue, check out a list of good articles here:

http://gitgud.net/gamergate/gamergateop/blob/master/Good-Articles-and-Blog-Posts.md

And I don't mean to shill for other imageboards but the central place to discuss this issue for anons is on 8chan.co /v/ and /gg/ boards if you want to see what other anons are talking about.

>>629, >>630 cont.
>>633
People want their fun. It's one of, if not the, primary reason to earn money after food/housing. The prohibition showed just how far people will go for it.

>To me the whole thing is just pathetic and sad.
Yes, that's why you had to go onto an anonymous imageboard and tell everyone how pathetic and sad they are. You beacon of amazing propriety and culture or something. I bet you're proud or trollin. I'm fine either way while you remain shitty.
>This is one of those things people are horribly confused about and don't understand.
As you are showing quite well.
>When I want to know if a game is good I ask my friends about it
What if no one has bought it? Then you ask random people on the internet? Wouldn't it be nice if there were people that you could trust to give an honest opinion about it instead of anonymous trolls and kids? Maybe find someone with tastes like yours that gets review copies specifically so they can tell you if they think it's good or not? Especially if you didn't want to spend 4 hours looking into a 40 hour game. Yeah, that would be nice, huh?

>or I pirate it and try it out.
Oh, you're an entitled asshat. Right, gotcha.

>>637
Hey relax bro, did you not read >>635 ?

That anon is not on the pro-corruption side, he was just out of the loop and misinformed as to what was going on.

>>636
yeah how about another source that's not infested with putinboys?

It's split away from it's original counter-SJW/femnazi roots into a more general critique of gaming "journalism" as a whole now, so with that one also has to split their opinions.

For the SJW bit of it, I generally just find those people to have been a growing cancer over the past few years and I'm wholefully glad that the bucket of popular opinion has finally split over against them. It's an inexact gross mess of a spill like any other popular unguided movement, but I think sometimes that's necessary too and I'm glad it's happening. If at least a significant chunk of gamers hold a latent aversion to shitty game blogs like Kotaku and exploitative personalities like Zoe Quinn, then it's been a success as a whole.

As for the general gaming journalism sucks thing it's turned into, ehhh, is this really a shocker for anyone? The majority of gaming news and review sites are nothing more than advertising platforms and anyone who hasn't been able to recognize this before is rather ignorant in my opinion. That being said though, it has had the benefit of making the sites that do actually try to take themselves seriously check themselves a bit and remove the chaff that has been bringing them down. Escapist for example has fired many of it's worst writers (namely that twat Andy Chalk) and has improved tremendously. So as a whole I suppose I support this movement too, I just find unsurprising.

As a whole I think Gamergate was necessary and it's job has been largely completed. People should care less about it now.

>>644
yeah but too many people are traumatized by the censorship and white washing that happened on their favorite websites

>>648
I don't think anyone has been "traumatized" by policy issues on video game websites.

>>653
or being called a white male for supporting gamergate?

I enjoyed this critical deconstruction very much:
https://medium.com/@FoldableHuman/gamergate-and-base-assumptions-transcript-ab8f91074ad7

.gif symbolically related

>>664 My pic in this post was in his and was supposed to prove his point. Haha, did I say point? I meant his whinging generalizations.
"it is difficult to summarize the cumulative impact of hundreds of messages implying you are liar or obnoxiously asking for “proof” of well-proven facts"
It's difficult to prove, but it is well-proven so I don't need to provide proof. In other words: circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because . . . Wheee! I love it.

He writes in a way that I think is meant to convince you of his English Mastery and keen insight, but this guy is full of shit start to finish. There none of "This leads to that, and this is because of that". He just makes statements and doesn't back them up ("This is not a new phenomenon") and bases everything on an assumption that he was duped into having by an actually provably orchestrated conspiratorial lie (unlike him, I have evidence).
GG was actually started to point out how shitty the "games journalism" business is and how they are too close to the gamemakers they cover (often too physically close, if you catch my meaning). Not once does he mention the gamemakers being literally in bed with people who make them money. Not once does he even mention journalism itself. No, in his mind, GG is and always has been solely about eeeeevil gaming boys wanting to keep out the icky girls. He even says that a 4chan drawing is supposed to be of their ideal woman because she can't talk and he then claims it as proof that he's right.
Not only does he not actually explain why what he says is true (just that it is), but he provides no sources for his assumptions. He just rambles about it. No sources, no interviews, no videos, no anything. Well, actually, here is his evidence: "look at GamerGate as a text[a whole], look at their message boards, their IRC channels, their blog posts, YouTube videos, claims, priorities, and target selection" Seriously, that's it. No mention of how to find this info or whom its from or links or anything, actually. The entire thing is just an overlong rant of one sentence: guys think girls and misc are invading their hobby.

THIS IS THE BEST PART! :D The only reason SJW is even mentioned in relation to GG at all is because there was an intentional and directed effort by those same journalists it accused. They sough to deflect it by condemning GG as being against women and whatever else (see links in >>629 and/or google "gamer is dead"). Unfortunately, it worked. All those people that say GG is about women were duped into deflecting the journalists' accusations for them, but they're too self-righteous to realize that they are just patsies. Gratz, you're the new sturmtruppen, Dan. Bet you feel clever now, eh?

Oh, and the minority of people claiming to be part of GG that is actually making the threats and such? Well the other people, the ones that say "That's not what we're about, we don't like those harassers" are just enabling them according to ol' Dan here. How dare they say that the harassment is bad!
This guy is a fool that thinks he's smart. I say that he is not clever and nowhere near as insightful as he believes. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you white-knighting at its purest.

"Gamer is dead" alternate conspiracy link
http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/09/gamergate-games-journalism-secret-list/

>>665
The only point that pic proves is that maleness is seen as the default and that if one is female one must keep this a secret otherwise one is just after attention for deviating from the (male) default. Which is a strange assumption on which to base a "rule" of the internet or gaming or whatever when a slim majority of the world is female.

In other words: why must it be "tits or gtfo" instead of "cock or gtfo"?

>>667
>a strange assumption on which to base a "rule" of the internet or gaming or whatever
That sentence is exactly why I wrote a wall on that "guy". Because of the phrase "internet OR GAMING or whatever" when you and I both know "ToGTFO" is not about gaming and it is definitely not used by GG. What you are doing is dishonest at best. Shame and fie upon you.
My point was that Danny boy is using that image (from 4chan?) as proof that gamergate is about evil boys being mean to girls when it proves literally nothing.

Additionally, you completely misunderstood the picture. It is trying to change the phrase "no girls on the internet" from literal to "you don't get special treatment for being a girl". Why doesn't it mention boys? Because they would not even have the tits option, just GTFO.

I think it's great. Really warms my heart to see vidya enthusiasts finally standing up after years of bullshit to defend their hobby against something. I started following it from the hilarious drama unfolding on its Wikipedia page and eventually ended up getting more involved myself.

>>672
That's probably why I got so long-winded about this. It's rare for people being taken advantage of to fight back, and for the takers to be caught red-handed. So I just hate it when some "I want to matter" "activists" try to turn it into a gender war fustercluck.

>>667

Read the fucking screenshot you fucking idiot.

>I did

He answers your question in post. It really is that simple.

>>681

This. Most of the "activists" never actually engage with the semantics of the case at hand, just using the bandwagon as a vehicle through which to reaffirm an identity.