SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Brianna Wu, head of the independent gaming studio Giant Spacekat, was the target of a series of tweets containing death threats on Friday; one published her home address (since redacted). The poster's Twitter account has been disabled.
Wu responded on Friday night with the tweet:
Brianna Wu @Spacekatgal
The police just came by. Husband and I are going somewhere safe.
Remember, #gamergate isn't about attacking women.
GamerGate supporters denounced the threats and "doxxing" against Wu and disavowed the poster. However, several suspected that the tweets were a false flag created by anti-GamerGate forces:
Sun Knight @SunKnightO
@Sen_Armstrong @Spacekatgal @chatterwhiteman It's clearly either a troll or false flag shame that people actually think its legit.
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:34PM
I've been noticing a few articials here on Gamergate, but none of them explain what IS the conversity surrounding it? (note emphasis on "IT")
Hmm...maybe gamergate is big enough to get a wiki page....*goes off searching for it....*
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:46PM
Blah....need edit....IT should have been IS....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:14PM
There is a Facebook page [facebook.com] dedicated to the topic that seems mostly populated by the "against" side. There's *lots* of stuff there, though, and it is active.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:05PM
apparently some chick who makes games had a relationship with some guy who writes articles for Kotaku. he mentioned that Steam greenlighted her game along with 49 other games greenlighted at the same time (it was included in a list! OH NOES!), and now a bunch of assholes are trying to claim that that as proof that she fucked a bunch of game reviewers to get good reviews for her games. basically its just a bunch of misogynistic, abusive, sociopathic assholes using whatever petty bullshit they can find to justify their being misogynistic, abusive, sociopathic assholes.
oh, apparently some other chick wrote an article saying the term "gamer" was outdated, although she was only considering the assholes mentioned above as "gamers" since they're a very vocal, abusive minority, but i'm not sure how that fits in except as a smokescreen to cover for the abusive little fucktards to distract people from the real problem.
i'm predicting a bunch of AC comments will attack me with a bunch of denialist bullshit full of logical fallacies and lies, so know i'm going to ignore them all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:35PM
Damn, I am worried for you. There is a lot of anger in that post. At the end you used a conversational poisoning technique and claiming to refuse to even listen to any other viewpoints. That is an extremist level of investment and defense.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:45PM
work on your reading and comprehension. i said i would ignore all attacks and denialist bullshit, because its a waste of time talking to somebody who just plugs their ears and yells "NUH UH! LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!" civil discussion is welcome, but judging from the former "gamergate" article here, its not possible. i'm counting the minutes until i get called a "white knight" and see the burden of proof fallacy used. that you even think "other viewpoints" would be considered attacks or denialist bullshit shows that i called it right; after all, when you're at the pool and the lifeguard yells "No running!" you don't go up to him and say "But I wasn't running!" guilty conscience much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:55PM
You're not doing a very good job of "ignoring" the alleged "attacks" against you if you keep on replying to them!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:08PM
I wasn't attacking. Just pointing out the extremist position. It is really unhealthy to simply claim whatever you believe as to be true and unwilling to talk about it unless it is to attack or defend against other people. Either a thought can stand up to rational scrutiny or it can't. If that is something someone is unwilling to do, then they have lost all cogent judgement.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:24PM
i wanted to comment to say something like that, but couldn't word it right. i'm definitely up for debate and discussion, but looking at all the other posts in this article, its not happening; its all just the same old bullshit from the previous "gamergate" article, people blatantly ignoring facts, using strawmen and red herrings to support their pre-made conclusions. its stupid, and its a waste of time responding because they'll just continue to repeat the same bullshit or move goalposts when they have to (denialist tactics). i'm hoping i prevented the worst of it by calling it out preemptively.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:44PM
I don't really know much about this incident, nor do I really care to. It all seems unnecessarily dramatic and stupid to me.
But there is one thing I've noticed whenever I accidentally run across any discussion of this matter: those in the "social justice warrior" camp, such as yourself, come across as extremely hypocritical.
Let me give you an example, using your very own comment. So you're apparently against people who attack others, yet you engage in the exact same behavior yourself.
Describing those you dislike as "a bunch of assholes", or "a bunch of misogynistic, abusive, sociopathic assholes", or "the assholes", or "the abusive little fucktards" are abusive attacks, plain and simple.
It's strange that you label them as "sociopathic", while your entire comment comes off as such.
It is really, really hard to take you seriously when you and others come off as so blatantly hypocritical. For all of the preaching you do about equality and tolerance, you guys seem to be the most spiteful, intolerant folks around!
(Score: 2, Informative) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:49PM
stopped reading right there. that you even think such a thing exists shows you're an idiot, and if thats not enough, you're using it as a strawman (which also proves you're an idiot) so there's still no reason to read past it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:52PM
Now you're arguing against your own existence?
That may be the ultimate form of hypocrisy: claiming that you don't even exist when you clearly do, because you're in front of us trying to make the argument that you don't exist!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:57PM
I prefer "Social Justice Magic User" but for special days I play a "Social Justice Rogue" on the net. That's because I got mad social justice skillz!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @01:25AM
On another site I lurk on someone suggested that they would be going with "Social Justice Bard". I kinda like that one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:57PM
It's real [reddit.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:12PM
Why is tathra's absolutely dumb comment modded up to 3, Informative? It's asinine. Of course there are people called 'social justice warriors'.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:27PM
Both sides come off as hypocritical. I'm sure there's some truth and some just position, but it's not worth my time to dig for it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:39PM
How? That does not make any sense. It just seems that you are speaking for the sake of speaking, not caring about the issues presented and claiming both sides are the same without willing to understand either.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:14PM
telling somebody that smoking is bad for them while lighting up a cigarette is extremely hypocritical, but that doesn't mean its bad advice. calling somebody a hypocrite as a method to undercut their message is purely an ad hominem though. whether or not somebody is a hypocrite is merely a red herring, at best.
the problem isnt hypocrisy, its that the only "side" i've seen doesn't actually have a message, just a bunch of abusive namecalling towards everyone who disagrees with them or points out the flaws in their arguments or calls them out on their outright lies. if you can't figure out which 'side' that is, here's a hint: they use terms like "white knight" and "social justice warrior".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:43PM
It's not ad hominem to call a hypocrite, such as yourself, a hypocrite when you've clearly demonstrated extremely hypocritical behavior.
If I call you a human, and you are a human, it's not an insult. It's a statement of fact.
If I call you a hypocrite, and you are a hypocrite, it's not an insult. It's a statement of fact.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday October 13 2014, @04:51AM
You can pretend brown people don't exist, don't make it so. would you like an example of a social justice warrior? be happy to help, here ya go [osnews.com]. Notice that anybody that disagrees with him supports rape, THAT is the perfect example of a SJWer, you see there is no difference of opinion allowed, you support X or you are Y, end of story. its ironic that these same people in the 50s would have probably been screaming "nigger lover!" at those that disagreed with them but now its words like "rape enabler".
Personally I don't give a fuck about your politics, what your genitals look like, or what sex you want to call yourself, hell be a Klingon for all I give a shit. But what I DO give very much a shit about is free speech and social justice warriors are totalitarians which can all go burn in hell as far as I'm concerned. ANY group, be it left or right, libertarian or communist, that refuse to allow or broke ANY dissent by using straight up attacks? Are the asscancer of the net. You can pretend they don't exist, pretend Jews don't exist, hell you can pretend I don't exist and the world is but a dream...again won't make it so.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday October 13 2014, @05:39AM
so why not just call them that instead of making up some special word that "coincidentally" gets used to label everyone who disagrees with you? why make up some special, brand new pejorative that gets used exactly the same as every racial slur ever? if the people who used that term cared about anything except wanting to be able to attack people, they'd tear apart their arguments, pointing out their fallacies instead of using fallacies and propaganda techniques themselves (specifically, ad hominems, name calling, labeling, and demonizing the enemy). if they ignore those and continue repeating the same old bullshit over and over again, there's already a word for that - denialist.
everyone who uses any slur, including "social justice warrior", is just outing themselves as a bigot.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday October 13 2014, @08:37AM
Because there are totalitarians that are NOT SJWers? Your argument would be like saying "Because SOME Muslims are black then ALL Muslims are black" when that just isn't the case, there are capitalist totalitarians, communist totalitarians, even religious totalitarians but you can bet your last buck that NONE of those groups would stand in the same room with a SJWer, which you will find is typically an ultra leftist white upper middle class with a MASSIVE dose of white guilt. When in doubt the correct answer to a SJWer is to blame anybody white with a penis, anybody white with a vagina gets a pass UNLESS they are in ANY way religious or conservative, then see white penis.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday October 13 2014, @06:07AM
and by the way, now that i've read that link, i notice that doesn't show what you claim it does. the closest i can find is this one:
Oh boy! People who disagree with the distraction narrative must obviously support rapists, and an implication of misogyny thrown in for good measure.
Way to prove the point...
which is just sarcasm and hyperbole (did you get poe's law'd by that?), i don't see anything that even gives a feeling of "everyone who disagrees with me is a rapist!" almost everything can be claimed to be something its not when taken out of context, especially when used by somebody with an agenda.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday October 13 2014, @08:29AM
Then you obviously have trouble reading because no matter what anybody else said his ONLY response was "ZOMFG they are gonna rape Zoe you bastard penis holders!"
You will see this is SOP of the SJWers, its a classic "derail the thread" tactic, no different if in the middle of an Apple iOS versus Android discussion I interjected "Did you know Apple is loved by niggers"? Does their users being black have fuck all to do with a discussion about iOS versus Android? Nope just as what kind of threats (if any, I have seen enough of her act to know this woman loves to troll for flamebaits, helps plug her products) that Zoe Quinn had in the past had to do with the discussion, which was "did the game reviewers secretly conspire to control the narrative?"...BTW if you are curious the answer is yes, since somebody leaked their hidden Google Group emails.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday October 13 2014, @03:55PM
i'm honestly trying to figure out where you see that, so i'm going to paste in every quote from that link so you can point exactly to it.
It begins with simple threats. You know, rape, dismemberment, the usual. It's a good place to start, those threats, because you might simply vanish once those threats include your family. Mission accomplished. But today, many women online - you women who are far braver than I am - you stick around. And now, since you stuck around through the first wave of threats, you are now a much BIGGER problem. Because the Worst Possible Thing has happened: as a result of those attacks, you are NOW serving Victim-Flavored Koolaid.
And Victim-Flavored Koolaid is the most dangerous substance on earth, apparently. And that just can't be allowed.
'congratulations on having thick skin, but you probably have a persecution complex'
The fact that I have to turn off comments on articles about the systematic abuse women receive from these low-life idiots on a small site like OSNews is all the proof you need. Until I no longer receive abusive comments for pointing out this issue, comments will remain closed.
'comments are turned off because i keep getting threats, threats which prove widespread...' (misogyny i assume?)
All of the allegations against Zoe Quinn were fabricated, made up out of whole cloth, but it's cool, feel free to continue absolving these dicks of any wrong doing.
There may be wide spread corruption in the game journalist community, but nothing about gamergate shows any of that.
They drove that woman out of her own home, using threats of sexual and other typed of physical abuse, published her person details to the net, they tried to destroy her.
What's pervasive is the misogyny that seems inherent to parts of the internet.
repeats the opponent's position, and then gives a description of what happened, and from what i understand about the situation its not even exaggeration. nothing like what you claim though.
Oh boy! People who disagree with the distraction narrative must obviously support rapists, and an implication of misogyny thrown in for good measure.
Way to prove the point...
the only one close to what you claim, but its Poe's Law in action if that's it.
It does prove the point, it's not a distraction, it was the entire operation, the whole "controversy" was nothing more than an excuse to harass somebody to the point they had to flee their home.
In real life, adults are suppose to investigate wrongdoing, and then deal with it appropriately. Are you saying that threatening a person with rape and death, committing slander and massive privacy violations, to the point they need to run from their home, is a just punishment for some sort of nebulous corruption in gaming media?
Really?
arguing with each other
I'll invoke Godwin's Law: It's like saying "I support National socialists(Nazi) because they had proof that store-owners manipulated certain market, but focusing on attacks on jews is distracting the narrative"
However off-topic this is, it's in that lane.
An no matter how good the ethics in journalism struggle is, you will have to defend against accusations of misogyny and will be attracting misogynists to #GamerGate. It's an empty name that is just a sack of s**t.
starts off saying he's invoking godwins, then points out that misogynist are the voice of the "gamergate" "movement"
I would like to point out that a lot of the bad behavior is NOT misogyny. They hate people pretty equally in my view with men getting as much crap from these people as women.
Do they make things up about these men in order to fan the flames and then reveal their personal location/contact details?
Would a male journalist get the same crap if they wrote that misogyny doesn't exist in the community?
which, exactly, is the example of "you're disagreeing with me? YOU RAPIST!" because i'm not seeing it. is there another post that you were trying to link to and gave me the wrong link? or are you just exhibiting a perfect example of a straw man, projecting and putting your words into other people's mouths, intentionally misconstruing what they say in order to justify your bigotry?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:33PM
Describing those you dislike as "a bunch of assholes", or "a bunch of misogynistic, abusive, sociopathic assholes", or "the assholes", or "the abusive little fucktards" are abusive attacks, plain and simple.
The problem you are grappling with is a difference of definitions. You think the people you call SJWs are against name-calling when they are really against is undeserved name-calling. Sure there are some people in gamergate who are not abusive fucktards. But (a) gamergate membership is 100% voluntary and (b) there are lots and lots of actually abusive fucktards in the group. The saying, "you are known by the company you keep" applies here.
So they are definitely hypocrites if they are against name-calling. But since that's not their actual position, they aren't really all that hypocritical.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cafebabe on Monday October 13 2014, @08:18AM
I thought that gamergate was the name of the controversy. Is there some sleight-of-hand by associating the term with one faction only?
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @09:30AM
(Different AC here.)
Short version: maybe we should call it the "GamerGate controversy controversy". ;-)
#GamerGate is the Twitter hashtag used for the discussing accusations of breaches of journalistic integrity in videogame news sites as of a couple months ago. The anti-#GamerGate side claims the accusations of journalistic integrity under the #GamerGate banner were a fabricated controversy to attack women, due to #GamerGate appearing to have started in response to a blog post by a game developer's ex-boyfriend trying to get back at her for breaking up with him. This article is referencing the latest woman to be driven out of her home due to threats organized under the #GamerGate banner.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday October 13 2014, @12:54AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:05PM
I'd stay away from the wiki page for it. If you do read the wiki page also read the talk section and the dispute resolution for it. It's heavily bias and there are a lot of editors that are trying to put their own personal spin on it. They made the mistake of connecting it to the wiki feminist portal project who seem to have a vested interest in this being a smear against the women that was connected in several ways in the beginning. Since it involved allegations a women was trading sex for positive coverage it quickly turned into an assault on women. Had it been started by a man paying journalist off, it'd be called bribery rather than misogyny. It probably wouldn't have even been a foot note in the issue.
GamerGate put together a resource page [giz.moe] if you're interested in checking it out. I won't deny it's likely bias, but it's pretty easy to find information on the other side since, well, they other side is writing about it.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:14PM
Okay, which sounds more neutral:
1) Site that can be edited by anybody (including both sides in a conflict), requires any statements of fact be backed by acceptable evidence (articles, books, etc.) and demands relatively balanced coverage to reach an overall neutral point of view.
2) Site written by people on one side of a conflict.
I think I'd have to go with Door Number One. ;-)
(Score: 1) by GoonDu on Monday October 13 2014, @09:55AM
>The neutrality of this article is disputed.
The article is locked because of edit disputes so it's not exactly neutral as you think. Granted, one can think that it's pro-gamergate people doing vandalism but one could also easily consider that the other side is doing it as well. If not, why would this topic be brought to Jimmy Wales' attention? http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/840952-gamergate [knowyourmeme.com] . Bot sides are guilty.
Seriously, the reason why this issue had been hotly debated is because both sides share some wrongs and rights at the same time. The whole thing would have subsided if not the 'gamer is dead' article which had been written for maximum sensationalism and the mishandling of idiotic journalists who would not know how to PR and damage control. Now they are simply burning from the acts they have committed.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday October 13 2014, @10:59AM
Except there are more on one side, and they've been undoing and having the other side topic banned from editing. The anti side gets the article locked, waits for the unlock jumps in makes a bunch of unfavourable edits, undo the favourable ones, has the article locked again. That's part of the reason it went to dispute resolution. The anti side is weaponizing wikipedia to influence opinion and spread misinformation.
It has been getting better since the dispute resolution, still on going I think, but like I said just read the talk page and you'll see pretty quickly there are issues with the article being one sided. I suspect it's only getting better now because IF no progress is made it'll go to mediation, which could unpredictably end up bad for either side.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by tnt118 on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:42PM
This was the article I first came across that tried to break it down:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/6/6901013/whats-happening-in-gamergate [theverge.com]
As for my thoughts, extremist opinions on any subject are rarely constructive. Both sides are "led" by a core that does not represent the group as a whole. They're both using labels to group people together and denouncing the entirety of said group without regard to the merits of their arguements. Extremists in the gamergate camp have more than their fair share of trolls. Extremists among the SJH's are denouncing bullying/abuse/threats with... bullying, abuse and threats.
In the bigger picture there are valid points of concern from both sides. But that's not what they are arguing about anymore. Gamergate is no longer abourt gamergate, it's about people's reactions to gamergate. And nothing constructive can ever come from that.
I think I like it here.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:18PM
I read through the Wikipedia article and did quite a bit of research out of curiosity to see what had really happened. As far as I can tell, it's pretty much factually correct (if confusing at times due to missing info. Here's my own summary, from memory:
1) Developer starts a Steam campaign for their game. She's harassed by trolls (including quite a few focused entirely on her gender) until she folds and ends the campaign. At some point, her relationship ends.
2) Developer re-starts the campaign, determined to ignore the trolls this time. This time they spread her personal contact/location info, harass her via every available front, one of which includes at least one letter detailing her being raped by them. They also dox & harass her friends, relatives, and acquaintances, including revealing that some are trans. She stays silent.
3) A community moderator & fan of a 'Mega Man' series game makes a public post with fan art asking for the option of playing as a female robot. A group searches her Twitter history, find that she nodded along with a couple of "feminist" tweets (their term for it) and shared a link to a popular video about women being portrayed in games; they post those as "evidence" claiming that her "feminist agenda" will destroy the game, demand that she be fired and that they be given full refunds. The earlier developer finally speaks up in her defense, revealing the harassment she had also experienced.
4) The earlier developer's game is Greenlighted. Her ex, still angry/bitter over the relationship's end, spreads lies on his website claiming she supposedly cheated on him with a game journalist. She and the journalist deny the allegations, and (from what I can gather) evidence of some kind backed their statement.
5) A subgroup of gamers begins aggressively trolling/harassing/threatening her, claiming that she had sex with every journalist that gave her game a positive review and that it's the only reason her game was greenlighted. They spread the lies wherever possible, hack into her accounts, as well as one of a well-known male developer that tried to defend her. They claim to be angry at the lack of ethics in journalism, but don't bother harassing the actual journalist. They press for media coverage of the "controversy" and are enraged further when the coverage doesn't resemble their narrative, so they pass around manifestos like this one [returnofkings.com].
6) Months later, articles start being written about the term "gamer" broadening to become as meaningless as "TV viewer," rather than applying primarily to a subgroup of young single white guys. Some writers point to how common sexism, racism, homophobia & misogyny are in the "gamer" community, and conclude that while there are "good" gamers, it's probably for the best that the identity fade away.
7) A subgroup of enraged gamers takes the above as a personal attack full of racism & misandry. They pressure Intel into pulling its ads from one site that had a particularly blunt article on the topic...and here we are.
(Score: 1) by MostCynical on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:06PM
Thank you for this.
It matches my understanding of some of the key events.
Reading through reams of arguement, counter-arguement, and many, many biased, ranting drivel (from both "sides") is quite difficult.
Interstingly, when the main protagonists are vocal minorities, many want the "majority" to "speak up".
This applies to militant extremists claiming to be the true believers of a religion as well as computer game and game development, and now journalism. Has anyone asked for journalists to "speak out" against "Fox News", just so we have a full circle?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:24PM
well said. thats pretty much what i found from digging through various sources to find wtf this was all about, and much more politely stated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @12:28AM
No one ever hacked her accounts, there was never any proof.
Why is it always a subgroup of gamers? Apparently the media blames gamers for so much these days we're just comfortable with it being their fault. Tommy didn't do drugs until after he played Max Payne, therefore video games made him do it!
Did any of you ever consider it's easier to attack gamers than to address the real world inequality issues?
Stop saying gamers did it, the only common trait of people that harrasse women isn't video games.
Gamers and Video games are tired of being your scapegoat.
On behalf of gamers everywhere, Fuck off, we don't give a shit about you anymore!
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday October 13 2014, @11:30AM
You're actually pretty far of base with this and confusing several different events that were partly resulted from GamerGate. The Mighty Number 9 project got spun into the issue BECAUSE the community manager, who had been in dispute previous for other reasons, started banning people from the forums for talking about GamerGate. It wasn't about her wanting a female character included in MN9, it was how she got involved in the project. I'm not going to elaborate because it's not relevant to GamerGate other than she started banning people from the MN9 forums for talking about GamerGate. At which point people went on a charge back campaign to get the hundreds of dollars they spent to be part of the forums back.
Here's a page that has what GamerGate is actually about [giz.moe] to GamerGate people, but because of all the misinformation that's being floated around GamerGate can't get people talking about the actual issues because people comment excessively pushing relevant information out of view, throws in irrelevant information, and screams misogyny. Then all discussion is shut down. Just read thorough the comments on this story. It's the same tactics used by PR companies for reputation management for Microsoft when Windows 8 was released... Well except for the misogyny part, we were called nerds in a negative context instead.
Anyone here from /. knows all about reputation management.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday October 13 2014, @01:52AM
I've been noticing a few articials here on Gamergate, but none of them explain what IS the conversity surrounding it? (note emphasis on "IT")
Depends on who you ask. Media coverage is skewed heavily toward "gamers are misogynists" and focusing on threats against specific people, while others are claiming it's about the unethical nature of gaming journalism and its general decline. It's hard to get an unbiased view considering the media itself is under fire, and most gaming publications have been reluctant to call out themselves or others.
I find this skewed media presentation interesting, so I've been following it from the sidelines. You've got claims of unethical practices on one side, while the other side seems to be using its narrative control to only focus on a specific part, glossing over most of the ethics complaints and downplaying the claims.
It's not comprehensive at all, but I attempted to explain some of what's going on in this comment [soylentnews.org] the last time it came up on SN. I tried to keep it as neutral and factual as possible while covering the parts that are generally being left out of the media coverage, though I'll admit it's focused primarily on the media control aspect, since that's the part I find interesting.