Depends on who you ask. I'd like huge sweeping changes to journalism ethics and everyone to realize you don't fuck with the consumer. I'd like journalists to not get so buddy buddy with each other in secret and ESPECIALLY publishers/PR folk.aliengmr said:What is "winning" to GG? Is it a mass boycott or something else?Thorn14 said:See, its posts like that convince me there those who are convinced that nothing we say will convince them anyway of what we mean and they firmly believe the image problem stays no matter what we say or do.
We aren't abandoning the hashtag because it has made the most amount of noise and momentum. Stopping it would only let those we are fighting go "See, they didn't win" and continue to be unethical, and even if we did make a new hasthag, it won't be nearly as popular and harrasers would latch on it anyway / be lumped into the movement by the journalists anyway.
See GG has spent a lot of time creating for itself an "opposition", in the form of "anti-GG". This doesn't exist in any real form. There are those who "oppose" the themes and agenda and will debate that, but that isn't real opposition. GG wants to debate its image without realizing there's a reason many haven't jumped on the bandwagon, and its what I, and many others, tried, and failed, to get across.
Jim Sterling made a really great point when this really started to pick up. He saw a GG blacklist and tweeted, that before he said one word his "side" was chosen for him. That happened a lot, to a lot of people. It only got worse and worse.
This is the problem with the GG hashtag, its burned too many bridges to be effective. GG is just a loud angry mob at this point. It can boycott and rant about the vast SJW conspiracy but what else?
You do bring up an excellent point, there are people you can't convince to jump on board, even though so many have similar goals. That's an image problem.
Others want a "burn it to the fucking ground" philosophy which, at times would be nice to see Kotaku in flames, I don't see feasible.
It would be a lie to say there is not an angry mob element to it, but I believe the movement itself and its message holds merit, so I support it. Would I run it differently? Hell yes, but you fight with the army you got.
I'm not going to just go "Welp, oh well!" and just let everything go back to the shitty status quo we have. For once I feel like we have some sort of power and voice to get some change done, and I'm not going to just drop it because it has aspects I hate.
And no, I do believe there is an anti side out there. How about the people who called the job of the #NotYourShield guy who got fired? How about the guy who's job was threatened and saved by a good boss because he DARED to make a pro #GG video?
Lets not pretend that this is some sort of "Angry mob with moderate voice vs well intentioned good guys" thing going on. There is nastiness everywhere, but I don't see people going "Well we do have people giving death threats to #GG guys, lets just let them win."
As for the whole "Too many burnt bridges" thing? There are those who would argue thats a good thing. They want this to be a leaderless mass of consumer anger where no leader can influence it for their own gain.