GamerGate's Image Problem

[entelechy]

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This thread is specifically about if and how the gamergate movement could improve its image. Revelations about developments in the scandal should be placed in the big thread. Given the rancorous and flag-happy tone of that thread, this discussion topic would likely go south very quickly if placed in the big thread. That said . . .

In the big thread, runic knight wrote an interesting post asking how pro-GG folks could possibly distance themselves from their more toxic supporters. As an anti-GG poster, I feel these questions are a good starting point to a detailed discussion of gamergate's image problem. Here is the key part of runic knight's post for reference:

How would you recommend the movement go about improving in order to be seen as more legitimate, be taken more seriously by you yourself or progress more directly to the goals that formed it?

Do note that doesn't include:

Changing the name - a name change will sap momentum, divide people, confuse the people who are part of the movement and have no gaurentee of actually changing anything in how we are treated or viewed. Keep in mind that for the longest time, they would not even address the movement, instead merely sweeping it under a broad, offensive stereotype. So such a move would be unwise and unproductive.

Removing and distancing yourselves from the "misogynist" element - the association to misogyny was very largely manufactured to begin with. Because the narrative told by the people being investigated was the one to make the assumption that "criticizing a woman = attacking her because she is a woman", it is a dishonest suggestion that we can do anything at all to separate or remove ourselves from it. We are not misogynists, sexists racist or anything of the sort as a movement. We never were any more the any other group. It would be no different then saying moviegoers are misandrist for hating on Michal Bay and should distance themselves from that. It is a dishonest assertion made in the first place and one made by those being called out for journalistic impropriety to begin with. As an ad hom tactic, we can not "distance" ourselves from it since it was a manufactured and painted on insult to begin with.

Removing/distancing yourself from harassers - see above. The assertion that we were abusers and harassers was one meant to slander that was painted on gamergate by journalists. Very many of us already decry harassment publicly, but given that we are not organized and have no actual criteria for joining, we can do nothing more then that individual level of decrying harassment. Furthermore, even such an organized move will not change that the painting of gamergate as harassers was dishonest to begin with and will likely continue regardless.

So yeah, aside from those three very often cited avenues mentioned and explained why they wouldn't work above, I am curious people's opinions here.

First off, I do think it's fair to say that outside of these three actions there is little gamergate could do. It is possible that some kind of public statement could be crafted, but I doubt language could be agreed upon by a substantial number of prominent supporters and there would be serious risk that the final statement would include language that undercut the message. This is particularly true if any of the MRA-types in the movement got to weigh in.

I should point out however that not all pro-GG people categorically rule out these three options. A change of name has been proposed more than once. There are some pro-GG people who exercise caution when circulating material from the more toxic posters and/or those who have cheered on harassment. So, it's not like these things haven't been tried, they just never seem to quite catch on.

Part of the reason for this is contained in the post above (a sentiment not limited to runic knight, of course). It seems that many pro-GG people think that addressing this problem involves "admitting a lie." I think I can zero in on some of the confusion here.

Let's take a trip down memory lane and recall the actual sequence of events in the scandal:

In mid-August, the Zoe Post went up and the attacks on Quinn began. At this time, the #gamergate hashtag did not even exist, and the vast majority of the hobby was totally unaware of it. To be fair to pro-GG folks, and in the interest of temporal clarity, I will refer to gamergate prior to the advent of the hashtag as the anti-Quinn movement. It is important to note that while nearly all anti-Quinn people are also now in gamergate, that many if not most of pro-GG people were not a part of anti-Quinn.

Now, what caused the hashtag to come into existence? The anti-Quinn movement suddenly ramped up in visibility due primarily to Adam Baldwin re-posting some of their videos (8/27). Several editorials on the issue appeared shortly thereafter. This seemingly "coordinated" revulsion at the anti-Quinn movement soon became Exhibit A for gamergate folks. This has had an unfortunate effect on how gamergate supporters view their movement. Because they see themselves as reacting to media "hit-pieces" rather than being a part of the slimy anti-Quinn movement, they take umbrage at the suggestion that they are bad people.

The problem with that understandable attitude by pro-GG people who came along after the birth of the hashtag is that it is totally unreasonable to condemn journalists' reactions to the anti-Quinn movement. At the time they wrote, there was only the extremely toxic anti-Quinn movement. So, essentially, current pro-GG people are really upset that journalists condemned a movement that they want to distance themselves from.

So, what's the scandal then? See the problem? You can't be mad at gaming journalists for condemning a movement you don't support. So, when pro-GG people continue to harp on the "coordinated" attack on "all" gamers, you are implicitly signaling your support for the earlier anti-Quinn movement. Otherwise, what are you so upset about? The gaming journalists agree with you. Problem solved.

That's the fundamental image problem that non-misogynist gamergate supporters are struggling with -- that you are criticizing the media for largely agreeing with you. Which is kind of weird, when you think about it.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Been a gamer for 23+ years. At the end of the day, this entire thing started because a woman had sex with someone, and people got angry. In my mind, that's always going to be what I associate Gamer Gate with, and all the negative connotations that comes with it (as well as the stupid name, Gamer Gate? Seriously? It's fucking video games for christ's sake).

A gross simplification perhaps? Maybe, but I find a movement is only worth as much as what sparked it in the first place, and anything that uses the term SJW unironically isn't something I want to associate with, or be associated with.

 

[JoJo]

As a neutral observer, one thing that might help is avoiding mentioning Anita Sarkeesian in the context of GamerGame. I've seen her name crop up quite a bit when browsing the super GamerGate thread (old or new), she's even appeared in the banners some people have made, and yet as far as I can see she has nothing to do with this other than being another feminist a lot of people here don't like. Regardless of people's intentions, it does give the impression that they have an axe to grind over feminism rather than journalistic integrity.

 

[Zontar]

Been a gamer for 23+ years. At the end of the day, this entire thing started because a woman had sex with someone, and people got angry. In my mind, that's always going to be what I associate Gamer Gate with, and all the negative connotations that comes with it (as well as the stupid name, Gamer Gate? Seriously? It's fucking video games for christ's sake).

A gross simplification perhaps? Maybe, but I find a movement is only worth as much as what sparked it in the first place, and anything that uses the term SJW unironically isn't something I want to associate with, or be associated with.

Your comment just reinforces the fact that GamerGate has an image problem. After all, you skipped the part where every video game website bar the Escapist tried to censor anyone talking about Quinn, as well as Reddit and, somehow, 4chan. That is the crucial missing part between "her sleeping with people" and "people getting angry", and rightly so.

 

[runic knight]

Been a gamer for 23+ years. At the end of the day, this entire thing started because a woman had sex with someone, and people got angry. In my mind, that's always going to be what I associate Gamergate with, and all the negative connotation that comes with it.

A gross simplification perhaps? Maybe, but I find a movement is only worth as much as what sparked it in the first place, and anything that uses the term SJW unironically isn't something I want to associate with, or be associated with.

That would be like saying that all World War 1 was only about a duke being killed. Or a massive forest fire was just about a stray match. At that point you are boiling it down so far, you are making a claim that the only thing that matters is the event that started it, not the whole series of events after. It is insultingly dismissive and comes off more dishonestly representing things just to have an excuse to dismiss it wholesale.

Yeah forget about how the peasants were staving, the ruling class was corrupt and the entire system was broken. The French Revolution was just about a woman telling people to have cake.

The change from it being about Quinn to it being gamergate itself happened not because of Quinn's actions, but the response the gaming media had to it. In a media where they willingly ran stories at the drop of a hat, including false rape allegations slandering a man, and even relating to Quinn herself where they ran a story with zero fact checking that lead to harassment of forum goers, the sudden refusal to cover the story was protest worthy to gamers who wanted to know why this was suddenly sacrosanct compared to the other "click bait" articles they were willing to run. This is especially true since it concerned a journalistic conflict of interest and was something they had to, as a repected publication, actually openly address to retain integrity. The open scorn, shaming and misrepresentation though is what fueled this entire conflagration into the drive to clean out the corruption that was seen from the response of them scratching each other's back on the issue. That was the birth of gamergate, not because of Quinn's actions, but the response to the implications of those actions by the media itself.

I can understand journalists condemning a movement, but the way they dismiss the concerns, motivations and the very humanity of those involved is not right for a professional and regardless how people wish to scoff at the term, they ARE treated as journalistic professions when it comes to the privileges such a position entails, they should have to adhere to the standards of acting like one. Hell, They should at least hold to the standards of a simple grocery store bagger, as much of what they spam over twitter and beyond would be enough to get fired if they had any other job then the one they do.

As such we are not criticizing the media for not agreeing with us, we are criticizing it for not actually discussing what the movement is not and instead refusing to even address that the movement is more varied then the stereotypical caricature they painted it as to begin with.

Go back and look through the 800 page thread if you don't believe me. You will find people promoting stories that cover both sides and praising them, even if they aren't pro-gamergate. The problem is that this has gone on so long and the collusion is so obvious now that polarizing is going to happen and it is stuck. Furthermore, as explained in the OP, the three most common complaints against the movement can't actually be dealt with since 2 of them are falsely insisted upon slanderous labels and the first is shooting the movement in the foot in a vein attempt to appease a group who falsely insisted upon slanderous labels in the first place and continue to do so.

 

[Zontar]

As a neutral observer, one thing that might help is avoiding mentioning Anita Sarkeesian in the context of GamerGame. I've seen her name crop up quite a bit when browsing the super GamerGate thread (old or new), she's even appeared in the banners some people have made, and yet as far as I can see she has nothing to do with this other than being another feminist a lot of people here don't like. Regardless of people's intentions, it does give the impression that they have an axe to grind over feminism rather than journalistic integrity.

The reason she keeps getting brought up by both sides is because she forced herself into this whole issue by making another video to capitalize on this controversy, then went on a social media blitz. It's hard to not have her dragged into all this when she dove right in by her own intent.

 

[runic knight]

As a neutral observer, one thing that might help is avoiding mentioning Anita Sarkeesian in the context of GamerGame. I've seen her name crop up quite a bit when browsing the super GamerGate thread (old or new), she's even appeared in the banners some people have made, and yet as far as I can see she has nothing to do with this other than being another feminist a lot of people here don't like. Regardless of people's intentions, it does give the impression that they have an axe to grind over feminism rather than journalistic integrity.

Anita is a weird on in this. On one side, she really isn't related to the journalist people are mad at, but on the other she is the poster child of the tactics, behavior and collusion that is being called out. Her promotion in articles, her connection to those involved and implicated and her tactics of dismissing and deflecting criticisms are all very relevant to gamergate's protest of such things in the larger media. Her being a feminist, well, that doesn't matter in the least. Honestly, "feminism" is just the color of paint slapped atop the dishonest tactics and defensive bullshit. You could replace her arguments with suitable McCarthyism era ones and they would be exactly as dishonest and manipulative. Hell, even feminists have said Anita is not a feminist but rather a talking head that likes to use feminism like a shield which undermines it.

so yeah, she is tangentially related, and is an example, but her personality and personal ideology isn't really, if that makes sense?

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Been a gamer for 23+ years. At the end of the day, this entire thing started because a woman had sex with someone, and people got angry. In my mind, that's always going to be what I associate Gamergate with, and all the negative connotation that comes with it.

A gross simplification perhaps? Maybe, but I find a movement is only worth as much as what sparked it in the first place, and anything that uses the term SJW unironically isn't something I want to associate with, or be associated with.

That would be like saying that all World War 1 was only about a duke being killed. Or a massive forest fire was just about a stray match. At that point you are boiling it down so far, you are making a claim that the only thing that matters is the event that started it, not the whole series of events after. It is insultingly dismissive and comes off more dishonestly representing things just to have an excuse to dismiss it wholesale.

Yeah forget about how the peasants were staving, the ruling class was corrupt and the entire system was broken. The French Revolution was just about a woman telling people to have cake.

The change from it being about Quinn to it being gamergate itself happened not because of Quinn's actions, but the response the gaming media had to it. In a media where they willingly ran stories at the drop of a hat, including false rape allegations slandering a man, and even relating to Quinn herself where they ran a story with zero fact checking that lead to harassment of forum goers, the sudden refusal to cover the story was protest worthy to gamers who wanted to know why this was suddenly sacrosanct compared to the other "click bait" articles they were willing to run. This is especially true since it concerned a journalistic conflict of interest and was something they had to, as a repected publication, actually openly address to retain integrity. The open scorn, shaming and misrepresentation though is what fueled this entire conflagration into the drive to clean out the corruption that was seen from the response of them scratching each other's back on the issue. That was the birth of gamergate, not because of Quinn's actions, but the response to the implications of those actions by the media itself.

I can understand journalists condemning a movement, but the way they dismiss the concerns, motivations and the very humanity of those involved is not right for a professional and regardless how people wish to scoff at the term, they ARE treated as journalistic professions when it comes to the privileges such a position entails, they should have to adhere to the standards of acting like one. Hell, They should at least hold to the standards of a simple grocery store bagger, as much of what they spam over twitter and beyond would be enough to get fired if they had any other job then the one they do.

As such we are not criticizing the media for not agreeing with us, we are criticizing it for not actually discussing what the movement is not and instead refusing to even address that the movement is more varied then the stereotypical caricature they painted it as to begin with.

Go back and look through the 800 page thread if you don't believe me. You will find people promoting stories that cover both sides and praising them, even if they aren't pro-gamergate. The problem is that this has gone on so long and the collusion is so obvious now that polarizing is going to happen and it is stuck. Furthermore, as explained in the OP, the three most common complaints against the movement can't actually be dealt with since 2 of them are falsely insisted upon slanderous labels and the first is shooting the movement in the foot in a vein attempt to appease a group who falsely insisted upon slanderous labels in the first place and continue to do so.

TIL that game journalism = war and fire and death.

Strawman I know, but this is the kinda thing that grates me about the entire movement.

I love video games, I've been playing them for decades, at no point during this entire thing did anything effect my ability to play games or anything to do with how games are reported, so what's this whole thing for?

Why is it called Gamer Game when there's a distinctive lack of anything game related going on? Why is Vivian James someone who 'just wants to play games' when everything she's supposed to represent is doing everything but playing games?

 

[runic knight]

TIL that game journalism = war and fire and death.

Strawman I know, but this is the kinda thing that grates me about the entire movement.

I love video games, I've been playing them for decades, at no point during this entire thing did anything effect my ability to play games or anything to do with how games are reported, so what's this whole thing for?

Why is it called Gamer Game when there's a distinctive lack of anything game related going on? Why is Vivian James someone who 'just wants to play games' when everything she's supposed to represent is doing everything but playing games?

No, it doesn't affect your ability to play games, you are right.

What it does effect though is the sort of games made
The inclusivity of gaming itself
The patterns we see in game tropes, design decisions and policies
The sort of games that get promoted over the sort that do not.

My general thoughts on why this brand of gaming journalists are poison to getting more women into gaming are roughly summed up here
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sabhp0

The long and short of it is though, that by doing as they have, they influence and control the sort of games that are made and released. Not fully, but enough that it is a detriment to everyone. And I don't even mean that in the strawman of "you only want CoD" crap, I mean they actively harm the very causes of inclusivity and equal representation and participation.

Also, there isn't a distinct lack of people trying to do stuff with games on the gamergate side.
We had TFYC actually get the funding they deserved because of this.
We have people being pulled in for future projects.
We have developers long through dead getting new life like the Orion guys
We have pulled in new players, like Milo himself, which helps change his perspective on what gaming was and can lead to a more understanding news media from a political view point that usually demonizes the hobby.

No, the problem here is none of that is being reported so people, such as yourself, assume it isn't there. And that right there, that lack of coverage so it must not be the case, is one of the biggest damn things we are fighting in the end.

Sadly I must run for now, but I look forward to continuing this discussion.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

TIL that game journalism = war and fire and death.

Strawman I know, but this is the kinda thing that grates me about the entire movement.

I love video games, I've been playing them for decades, at no point during this entire thing did anything effect my ability to play games or anything to do with how games are reported, so what's this whole thing for?

Why is it called Gamer Game when there's a distinctive lack of anything game related going on? Why is Vivian James someone who 'just wants to play games' when everything she's supposed to represent is doing everything but playing games?

No, it doesn't affect your ability to play games, you are right.

What it does effect though is the sort of games made
The inclusivity of gaming itself
The patterns we see in game tropes, design decisions and policies
The sort of games that get promoted over the sort that do not.

My general thoughts on why this brand of gaming journalists are poison to getting more women into gaming are roughly summed up here
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sabhp0

The long and short of it is though, that by doing as they have, they influence and control the sort of games that are made and released. Not fully, but enough that it is a detriment to everyone. And I don't even mean that in the strawman of "you only want CoD" crap, I mean they actively harm the very causes of inclusivity and equal representation and participation.

Also, there isn't a distinct lack of people trying to do stuff with games.
We had TFYC actually get the funding they deserved because of this.
We have people being pulled in for future projects.
We have developers long through dead getting new life like the Orion guys
We have pulled in new players, like Milo himself, which helps change his perspective on what gaming was and can lead to a more understanding news media from a political view point that usually demonizes the hobby.

No, the problem here is none of that is being reported so people, such as yourself, assume it isn't there. And that right there, that lack of coverage so it must not be the case, is one of the biggest damn things we are fighting in the end.

Sadly I must run for now, but I look forward to continuing this discussion.

I'm on board with all of that, so where did all this 'angry woman hating misogyny' shit come from? Because I have no idea whether that was a smoke screen or if it actually has any roots in anything.

 

[entelechy]

As a neutral observer, one thing that might help is avoiding mentioning Anita Sarkeesian in the context of GamerGame. I've seen her name crop up quite a bit when browsing the super GamerGate thread (old or new), she's even appeared in the banners some people have made, and yet as far as I can see she has nothing to do with this other than being another feminist a lot of people here don't like. Regardless of people's intentions, it does give the impression that they have an axe to grind over feminism rather than journalistic integrity.

It certainly does, and this is reinforced by the fact that the original Quinnspiracy videos that were included in Baldwin's initial #gamergate tweet are made by a one Internet Aristocrat. Prior to the anti-Quinn movement, nearly all of IA's content was videos attacking advocates for social justice issues with a special focus on feminism. Even his Quinnspiracy videos are full of slut-shaming and wild unsubstantiated accusations.

I don't think it can be reasonably denied that the anti-Quinn movement was led by assholes. But the gamergate movement seems to be borne out of consternation that gaming media uniformly pointed out that those people are assholes. This is why the subject of distancing comes up, and why it persists.

 

[Psykoma]

Arguing that gamergate isn't wholly and intrinsically intertwined with exhorbitant degrees of misoginy based harassment is one of the stupidest comments of the millenium.

 

[Harpalyce]

Been a gamer for 23+ years. At the end of the day, this entire thing started because a woman had sex with someone, and people got angry. In my mind, that's always going to be what I associate Gamer Gate with, and all the negative connotations that comes with it (as well as the stupid name, Gamer Gate? Seriously? It's fucking video games for christ's sake).

A gross simplification perhaps? Maybe, but I find a movement is only worth as much as what sparked it in the first place, and anything that uses the term SJW unironically isn't something I want to associate with, or be associated with.

TOO LATE, I'M A SJW AND I AGREE WITH YOU the only recourse now is to set yourself on fire sorry mate v:

Seriously though, I agree with this.

Succinctly put, it started with people delving into a woman's sex life and harassing her for it. Everything else is, as DA Adam Schiff on Law and Order would say, is fruit of the poisoned tree. There might be some really swell things and interesting revelations out on those branches, but the bedrock is still made from pure unadulterated ugliness and misogyny. Maybe they were stealing really interesting stuff from the DNC, but Watergate still brought down a president and left a political party gutted by shame and guilt. Just like its partial-namesake, GamerGate has been built on something nasty.

The only way for GamerGate to reform its reputation is to stop being GamerGate. Dump the misogynists and conspiracy theorists and those that are for some reason pulling Sarkeesian into this for being a feminist, dump the anti-equality and pro-MRA rhetoric, acknowledge that the bedrock GamerGate is standing on is seriously gross and full of gross people.

Then get a new name. Be honest about origins, and condemn those who are asshats. But, get a new name.

GamerGate's only hope at legitimacy is to chop off the gangrene as soon as possible.

 

[Panda Pandemic]

As a neutral observer, one thing that might help is avoiding mentioning Anita Sarkeesian in the context of GamerGame. I've seen her name crop up quite a bit when browsing the super GamerGate thread (old or new), she's even appeared in the banners some people have made, and yet as far as I can see she has nothing to do with this other than being another feminist a lot of people here don't like. Regardless of people's intentions, it does give the impression that they have an axe to grind over feminism rather than journalistic integrity.

It certainly does, and this is reinforced by the fact that the original Quinnspiracy videos that were included in Baldwin's initial #gamergate tweet are made by a one Internet Aristocrat. Prior to the anti-Quinn movement, nearly all of IA's content was videos attacking advocates for social justice issues with a special focus on feminism. Even his Quinnspiracy videos are full of slut-shaming and wild unsubstantiated accusations.

I don't think it can be reasonably denied that the anti-Quinn movement was led by assholes. But the gamergate movement seems to be borne out of consternation that gaming media uniformly pointed out that those people are assholes. This is why the subject of distancing comes up, and why it persists.

Well the thing is those anti-Quinn assholes didn't just up and leave that I know of. The Quinn stuff started it and then more people came over. Don't think those that started it all left.

And of course the harping on Sarkeesian, complaints about feminism, and stuff like that give the impression it remains a part of it.

It doesn't have to be *about* misogyny to contain it or other issues.

 

[Panda Pandemic]

Been a gamer for 23+ years. At the end of the day, this entire thing started because a woman had sex with someone, and people got angry. In my mind, that's always going to be what I associate Gamer Gate with, and all the negative connotations that comes with it (as well as the stupid name, Gamer Gate? Seriously? It's fucking video games for christ's sake).

A gross simplification perhaps? Maybe, but I find a movement is only worth as much as what sparked it in the first place, and anything that uses the term SJW unironically isn't something I want to associate with, or be associated with.

TOO LATE, I'M A SJW AND I AGREE WITH YOU the only recourse now is to set yourself on fire sorry mate v:

Seriously though, I agree with this.

Succinctly put, it started with people delving into a woman's sex life and harassing her for it. Everything else is, as DA Adam Schiff on Law and Order would say, is fruit of the poisoned tree. There might be some really swell things and interesting revelations out on those branches, but the bedrock is still made from pure unadulterated ugliness and misogyny. Maybe they were stealing really interesting stuff from the DNC, but Watergate still brought down a president and left a political party gutted by shame and guilt. Just like its partial-namesake, GamerGate has been built on something nasty.

The only way for GamerGate to reform its reputation is to stop being GamerGate. Dump the misogynists and conspiracy theorists and those that are for some reason pulling Sarkeesian into this for being a feminist, dump the anti-equality and pro-MRA rhetoric, acknowledge that the bedrock GamerGate is standing on is seriously gross and full of gross people.

Then get a new name. Be honest about origins, and condemn those who are asshats. But, get a new name.

GamerGate's only hope at legitimacy is to chop off the gangrene as soon as possible.

To be fair, I think that would require an amount of organization not really feasible. It's not like there are membership cards.

Also that kind of thing seems like it would lose momentum. And is it really big enough and supposed to last long enough that something like that would make sense? They ought to do something about those people but that sounds a bit unreasonable

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Once I discount the genuinely shitty actions of certain individuals involved as not being representative of the whole movement (which I am more than prepared to do at this stage), what I want, more than anything, is for gamergaters (or the ones I've talked to at least) to get off their damn high horse for five minutes.

Again, discounting everything that came before #gamergate was itself coined, this all started because a handful of columnists, pundits, and twitter commentators teased you, or more accurately the group that you identify with. Can we all just stop for a second, please, and be introspective enough to admit that this is far from the most egregious injustice to ever befall anyone on the internet, or in the gaming community, or in journalism?

In return, I will also concede (not that I really ever said otherwise) that the articles and comments in question were misguided at best, and deliberately inflammatory and unhelpful at worst. It's never good form for a journalist, or even an entertainer, to treat their own audience with contempt, even when you do think they're wrong about something.

As for the often touted positive measures that have sprung up from Gamer Gate, in my opinion it's, currently, a mixed bag. Yes, reform of journalistic standards on sites such as this one is progress very much for the better. A long time coming with or without Gamer Gate, but so long as it's change that's finally being implemented I'll get behind it without making a fuss.

When it's comes to stuff like TFYC though... a lot of it seems to lack substance from where I'm standing. Don't get me wrong, I like the sound of a lot of it, but so far that's all it is. It's people talking about what they're going to do, and after so many crowd funding campaigns that have failed to produce the goods, my response is "I'll believe it when I see it." So, calm down about them. Maybe don't ram them down my throat so much and demand that they be given more coverage just for making promises? You might find, if you do that, that they become less of an emotionally charged issue, and outlets such as the escapist might feel that they're then able to approach the subject. Then, if and when something actually comes of TFYC efforts, and I like what I see, then I'll be right there with you singing their praises in future.

On a less serious note, but in the same vein, until she is something more substantial, Vivian James remains nothing more than a doodle. Again, stop waving her in front of my face, acting like you're an authority on what she represents and how significant she is. Because, until she's an actual character who can tell me what she's about for herself, she means and represents nothing.

It would also be helpful, the next time somebody wants to accuse somebody else of slander, or corruption, or fraud, that they realise they are making serious accusations, and that if they want to be taken even remotely seriously by anyone else, they'd better come out swinging with some God-damn hard evidence, or else they just make everyone look ridiculous.

So, in conclusion, GamerGate's image problem for me has a lot less to do with anything they've done or are trying to do (apart from perhaps that I don't feel that they've accomplished half as much as they think they have), and more to do with the manner in which they conduct themselves. Anecdotal evidence it may be, but almost everyone I've spoke to who specifically identifies as a gamergater, does so with an inflated sense of self-importance, and displays a lot more of the 'professional victim-hood' themselves, than the people who they are so fond of accusing of the very same. If you could stop being so damn holier-than-thou about it all, that'd be a fine start.

 

[Panda Pandemic]

To be fair, I think that would require an amount of organization not really feasible. It's not like there are membership cards.

Also that kind of thing seems like it would lose momentum. And is it really big enough and supposed to last long enough that something like that would make sense? They ought to do something about those people but that sounds a bit unreasonable

The thing is, if a movement isn't serious enough to be willing to organize in a way that they can control their image, message, and represent themselves without anonymous people jumping in and discrediting them all, then they are not a legitimate movement worth being taken seriously. They deserve to be represented by the lowest common denominator, the very worst and loudest of their group, because the mentality that "without them, we won't have enough support or momentum to keep going" is an explicit admission that they need those people in their movement, that their movement would actually die without them. And if their movement truly would die without the misogynistic assholes who think it's funny to harass and threaten people who disagree with them, without the support of "journalists" who have proven they have absolutely no journalistic integrity (you know, that thing they keep claiming their movement is "really" about) like Breibart, so long as they help justify their attacks on women like Anita, then their movement fully deserves to die, because it's not a movement that any self respecting person should want to be part of, no matter how good or agreeable the side issue of their movement (that they don't actually embrace, because they only accuse those who don't support them of it while ignoring the lack of integrity from sources that agree with them) might be.

In short, if this is the mentality that's being used to excuse not addressing the problems with gamergate, then there's no reason to believe gamergate wants to fix their image problem, because they are in abject denial that they even have an image problem, or simply recognize that that the problems with their movement are the very things that define their movement, and they wouldn't even have a movement without them.

The thing is they do not seem like a long term thing. The kind of things you're asking for sound like long term things. Things an actual organized movement would do, not something short term. I think criticisms should be made with that in mind. That's not a matter of seriousness.

Also I didn't suggest they could not survive without them. I mean that with a group of unorganized people who care about a short term issue you can't just slow them all down and divvy them up and expect them to keep going. I think something like this would require more immediate issues and results to keep going. And please don't take that as me speaking for them, they may disagree.

Though yeah, bringing Brietbart in on a journalistic integrity thing was stupid of them I think. Even if Milo gets some news it kind of taints it when they don't mind a site with some more serious journalistic integrity problems.