I Canceled my Publisher's Club Subscription Today

[Jux]

I thought I wasn't supposed to get quote notifications from people on my ignore list. Anyway, now that I'm here, the inconsistency is that gg'ers are fine with 'blacklisting' websites that host contributors that speak out against gg or are accused of 'toxic' views (a charge I've seen leveled at Chipman by gg'ers many times), yet the escapist gets the blind eye.

I have 6 posts making nothing but calm neutral statements, how am I already on someones ignore list?


I don't even know what to say to this, this is the source of so many problems with this whole fiasco and is incredibly counter intuitive to resolving it, it's mind numbing to see such a blatant example of it.

Eh, I don't think they were talking about you. XD

To be fair, I was. It may be completely arbitrary, but when I see a pro gg poster that joined around the time of the flood of new posters, low post count and (this is the big one for me) generally low content, I just throw them on ignore along with the posters I actually find very offensive, just because there is so much to sift through now every time I wade through the off topic forum, it's just too much for me. They probably won't be posting in R&P, and because it's low content, there's no thought provoking discussion to be had, so I figure there isn't much being lost out on.

The noticable laxation of enforcement on the 'low content' rule since all this started is primarily to blame in my eyes, but since I'm not a mod (and rightfully so, since I'm hardly unbiased), this is my only recourse.

 

[xPixelatedx]

Why are the GamerGate folks blasting the OP for blacklisting a website for expressing a perspective he profoundly disagrees with? I thought you guys were all ABOUT blacklisting websites for expressing perspectives you profoundly disagreed with. It's sort of your raison d'etre, isn't it? Or at least one of the fifty?

I completely agree with you, hence why I didn't blast him. I am not surprised some other gamergaters attacked him though. If anything this controversy has been a good indicator of who's genuine about their cause and who isn't. I've seen GGers doing as you say before, and I've seen an anti-GG showing a startling degree of sexism and/or racism directed at women and minorities that don't agree with them. None of this is ok.

Some people have lost perspective, and are just fighting for the sake of fighting now. I'm afraid things will only get worse from here as both immovable objects continue to collide.

 

[Fox Pocket]

False Equivalence. I know what a consumer blacklist is. The option left to you is the option left to everyone...don't consume the content if you don't like the content. Saying "This is not for me" and walking away is very different from publicly posting a list, and putting pressure on advertisers to withdraw. One is "voting with your wallet" or "putting your money where your mouth is". The other is deliberate action undertaken with the desired result of ending the thing you dislike.

No one said they were. I'm not saying you can't do this. I'm saying the action itself is an act of censorship.

Correct. The sites in question do not endorse or support your viewpoint, so you'd like their sponsors to withdraw and their funding to stop.

Writing advertisers letting them know that the site they advertise with reflects poorly on their product is just more talking, the counterpoint to be made when these place forbid or shut down discussion. These sites have the right to write whatever they choose which no one has infringed on, however the ads on their site are a privilege earned. Remember, it was these companies decision to pull the ads, not ours. The email campaign merely informed them of grievances in regards to smear articles and questionable ethics. These are large multi-million dollar companies, they did their research and ultimately saw a reason to pull before pulling.

It is not censorship for the masses to threaten to boycott the companies that advertise with (and by extension endorse) sites that promote these these messages and breaches of ethics.

-snip-

And again, this dismissive attitude and willingness to just shut out opposing points of view when challenged on anything is exactly why this will take so long to resolve. Hell, even the OP leaves because the escapist dared to publish something that could be viewed as a counterpoint after publishing articles on a number of views on the issue and allowing open public discussion.

It's just a very concerning reaction to have to anything that I have seen far too much of as of late. Its just not healthy.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

The email campaign merely informed them of grievances in regards to smear articles and questionable ethics. These are large multi-million dollar companies, they did their research and ultimately saw a reason to pull before pulling.

The entire point of the email campaign was to have them pull.

It is not censorship for the masses to threaten to boycott the companies that advertise with (and by extension endorse) sites that promote these these messages and breaches of ethics.

How is it not censorship? I mean, I'm using the colloquial employment of the word, as frequently employed by GamerGate, as opposed to the proper employment, which means regulation by a government body.

Sites shutting down commentary on their own privately held websites = Censorship
Criticism of games from a "socially progressive" viewpoint = Censorship
Petitioning sponsors to withdraw funding so websites you disapprove of go out of business = Not Censorship

Again, people can do what they want, but there's an inconsistency of position I'm having difficulty with.

 

[irishda]

Why are the GamerGate folks blasting the OP for blacklisting a website for expressing a perspective he profoundly disagrees with? I thought you guys were all ABOUT blacklisting websites for expressing perspectives you profoundly disagreed with. It's sort of your raison d'etre, isn't it? Or at least one of the fifty?

"But when we do it, we don't post it on the forums! We go to a new website, create the most bloated thread that site has ever seen with like minded people, then proceed to try to remove advertisers from the sites we blacklisted for the purpose of 'purging the cancer.' See? Much better."

Most bloated? Really?

Well, let's check the "Most Comments for All Time". Top 4. Oh look at that. Two of the top 4 are about ZQ and Gamergate. And let's see the third is "Old games you can't remember the name of", that has 17000 replies. Wow that's a lot. It started in....2010. Wow, 4 years to get to 17000. Now let's look at Gamergate and the ZQ thread. 28000 replies for ZQ and it went from August 17th to September 25th for a grand total of 717 comments a DAY for 39 days. The GG thread has 22000 comments over a mere 26 days, making for a nice average of 846 COMMMENTS A DAY. So yeah, I'm gonna say it's the most bloated.

And if your argument is "well they didnt insult me!", then clearly you dont see Gaming as part of your Identity.

No I don't. Maybe we should talk about whether or not it should be for other people.

what if they had said "All people with Martial Arts Avatars are dead" would you be totally fine with that, even if they never specifically meant you but "all the other people"?

I'd be fine with that, because my avatar isn't part of my identity either.

 

[Negatempest]

The email campaign merely informed them of grievances in regards to smear articles and questionable ethics. These are large multi-million dollar companies, they did their research and ultimately saw a reason to pull before pulling.

The entire point of the email campaign was to have them pull.

It is not censorship for the masses to threaten to boycott the companies that advertise with (and by extension endorse) sites that promote these these messages and breaches of ethics.

How is it not censorship? I mean, I'm using the colloquial employment of the word, as frequently employed by GamerGate, as opposed to the proper employment, which means regulation by a government body.

Sites shutting down commentary on their own privately held websites = Censorship
Criticism of games from a "socially progressive" viewpoint = Censorship
Petitioning sponsors to withdraw funding so websites you disapprove of go out of business = Not Censorship

Again, people can do what they want, but there's an inconsistency of position I'm having difficulty with.

Ah, that is because context is everything. Context is what you are ignoring. Remember. They call themselves video game journalists. They do not call themselves video game bloggers. That word, "Journalist" actually comes with a set of responsibilities if you wanna believe that.

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

There is such a thing as a code of ethics for journalists.

If you wanna ignore that, than simply do not call yourself a journalist.

Now your censorship list.

1. Doesn't work the way you think. Again, they call themselves journalists. Even though their site may be privately owned, it is still publicly available with all but personal information. You speak, expect criticism.
2. What the media did is not adding to games. They want to change it. There is a difference. Gone Home is not goty contender by a long shot. Games with similar atmosphere and mechanics were done in the past, but better. Myst, 7th Guest, Professor Layton, Phoenix Wright would be games that would of been touched by God himself under their own rules.
3. Looks like a solid argument, but flawed. Let me use ESPN. If big sites similar to ESPN put out articles that calls their fans women haters, women beaters, testosterone filled apes. How quick do you think those sites would lose ads and sponsors? The only reason GG is not as severe is because video games are not that big in the eye of society compared to sports. You wanna get views for your site? Do not take a dump in the living room of the people supporting your site.

Regardless of what you think about ads and subscriptions paying those sites. Those sites only get that money to begin with because the sponsors believe enough of the video game audience will someday become their consumers. So if you attack the sponsors consumers there is no reason for said sponsor to support the sites.

Remember, the key word here is journalists, Journalists. It is expected and highly recommended that comes with ethics and professionalism. They drop that title and chances are lots of GG will not take them seriously anymore. So how about you realize that word "Journalist" actually comes with responsibilities.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Ah, that is because context is everything. Context is what you are ignoring.

No, I'm not "ignoring context". I'm calling attention to very evident hypocrisy.

That word, "Journalist" actually comes with a set of responsibilities if you wanna believe that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial

If this is about the "journalistic ethics" as regards actual review scores, shouldn't I be seeing a glowing review of Depression Quest as GOTY? If we are concerned about review scores, why isn't the focus of GamerGate on publishers exerting pressure on "journalists", as opposed to "SJW journalists" terrorizing the industry with their sinister liberal agendas?

Secondly, the OP straight up accused The Escapist of indulging in yellow journalism, which is why he withdrew his support. Again, I disagree with the OP, but I also understand how the OP came to that conclusion. The "journalistic ethics" you describe did not seem to be in high supply in at least one article.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puff_piece would be the term we're looking for.

Doesn't work the way you think. Again, they call themselves journalists. Even though their site may be privately owned, it is still publicly available with all but personal information. You speak, expect criticism.

Who voted to disallow criticism exactly?

What the media did is not adding to games. They want to change it. There is a difference. Gone Home is not goty contender by a long shot. Games with similar atmosphere and mechanics were done in the past, but better. Myst, 7th Guest, Professor Layton, Phoenix Wright would be games that would of been touched by God himself under their own rules.

Ohhhh. So there are OBJECTIVE standards for what constitutes a GOTY now? It's not subjective? Reviews are not subjective? Gotcha.

Looks like a solid argument, but flawed. Let me use ESPN. If big sites similar to ESPN put out articles that calls their fans women haters, women beaters, testosterone filled apes. How quick do you think those sites would lose ads and sponsors? The only reason GG is not as severe is because video games are not that big in the eye of society compared to sports. You wanna get views for your site? Do not take a dump in the living room of the people supporting your site.

So, yeah...again. If I'm the head of a conservative religious organization, and I don't like violence on television, it's okay for me to actively seek to get those shows removed from the air. That's NOT censorship, according to your definition here. Or is it only not censorship when gamers do it to opinions they dislike?

So how about you realize that word "Journalist" actually comes with responsibilities.

Out of curiosity, I went to RPS, one of the sites on your black list, and checked the "About Us" tab. Number of people self-identifying as journalists: 0. Number of people self-identifying as bloggers: 2.

 

[Negatempest]

Ah, that is because context is everything. Context is what you are ignoring.

No, I'm not "ignoring context". I'm calling attention to very evident hypocrisy.

That word, "Journalist" actually comes with a set of responsibilities if you wanna believe that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editorial

If this is about the "journalistic ethics" as regards actual review scores, shouldn't I be seeing a glowing review of Depression Quest as GOTY? If we are concerned about review scores, why isn't the focus of GamerGate on publishers exerting pressure on "journalists", as opposed to "SJW journalists" terrorizing the industry with their sinister liberal agendas?

Secondly, the OP straight up accused The Escapist of indulging in yellow journalism, which is why he withdrew his support. Again, I disagree with the OP, but I also understand how the OP came to that conclusion. The "journalistic ethics" you describe did not seem to be in high supply in at least one article.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/puff_piece would be the term we're looking for.

Doesn't work the way you think. Again, they call themselves journalists. Even though their site may be privately owned, it is still publicly available with all but personal information. You speak, expect criticism.

Who voted to disallow criticism exactly?

What the media did is not adding to games. They want to change it. There is a difference. Gone Home is not goty contender by a long shot. Games with similar atmosphere and mechanics were done in the past, but better. Myst, 7th Guest, Professor Layton, Phoenix Wright would be games that would of been touched by God himself under their own rules.

Ohhhh. So there are OBJECTIVE standards for what constitutes a GOTY now? It's not subjective? Reviews are not subjective? Gotcha.

Looks like a solid argument, but flawed. Let me use ESPN. If big sites similar to ESPN put out articles that calls their fans women haters, women beaters, testosterone filled apes. How quick do you think those sites would lose ads and sponsors? The only reason GG is not as severe is because video games are not that big in the eye of society compared to sports. You wanna get views for your site? Do not take a dump in the living room of the people supporting your site.

So, yeah...again. If I'm the head of a conservative religious organization, and I don't like violence on television, it's okay for me to actively seek to get those shows removed from the air. That's NOT censorship, according to your definition here. Or is it only not censorship when gamers do it to opinions they dislike?

So how about you realize that word "Journalist" actually comes with responsibilities.

Out of curiosity, I went to RPS, one of the sites on your black list, and checked the "About Us" tab. Number of people self-identifying as journalists: 0. Number of people self-identifying as bloggers: 2.

Hypocrisy would work. If any anti-gater comment was deleted while pro-gater threads and comments were not. So unless you have been living under a rock for the last month. Gater discussion was censored here and every location but some Chans, Twitter and Youtube until about a week or so ago. Considering the GG thing been going on for nearly 3 months. That is 2+ months of pro-gater discussion being deleted or censored. Which is what help start this whole thing in the first place. So no, Hypocrisy did not happen.

Subjective is not some catch all word a person can use to dismiss objectiveness. Again, calling yourself a journalist you are to have some responsibilities for that title. Same thing with Doctor. "Journalist" for a fact is not a title that any writer can just have.

And yes a crazy preacher can have his say about how sports and it's fans are the devil. You know what you won't find on his site? Sports related items to sell. Because sponsors know better than to support someone who hates the audience he is after. No one will censor the preacher but ignore him. You know what else will not happen? Have that crazy preacher as a legitimate source as a journalist on ESPN.

Jesus. Were you just not there during Doritogate? You know how long video game journalists had to push at the audience to be seen as Journalists instead of bloggers?

https://web.archive.org/web/20100325014238/http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/about/

Right there at the top, Game Journalist. They claim to have 4.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140307172419/http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/about/

This one march of this year. Again they call themselves games journalist.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/about-pc-gaming-rps/

Your recent one. After Gamergate. They call themselves critics now. I wonder why?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Hypocrisy would work. If any anti-gater comment was deleted while pro-gater threads and comments were not. So unless you have been living under a rock for the last month. Gater discussion was censored here and every location but some Chans, Twitter and Youtube until about a week or so ago. Considering the GG thing been going on for nearly 3 months. That is 2+ months of pro-gater discussion being deleted or censored. Which is what help start this whole thing in the first place. So no, Hypocrisy did not happen.

Who did you think I was leveling that charge at? I was leveling it at the people who scream "CENSORSHIP" or "TRYING TO CONTROL THE MESSAGE" when voices they approve of are quieted, and "JUSTIFIABLE CONSUMER REVOLT" when voices they disapprove of are quieted. One of the few things GamerGate seems genuinely united on is shutting up people they disagree with in the form of their black list. OP is personally "black listing" the Escapist, and I see a lot of "Oh boo hoo someone disagreed with you" or "This is the exact wrong way to deal with a dissenting opinion!" thrown up. As someone else pointed out, the double-think is incredible.

Either you think boycotts are "censorship" or you don't. If you don't, what's everyone's problem with the "social justice warriors" again?

Subjective is not some catch all word a person can use to dismiss objectiveness. Again, calling yourself a journalist you are to have some responsibilities for that title. Same thing with Doctor. "Journalist" for a fact is not a title that any writer can just have.

So, hand-waved then. Explain to me the objective reasons why someone could not pick a game as their personal game of the year. Explain to me the objective process by which we judge a game to merit that distinction.

And yes a crazy preacher can have his say about how sports and it's fans are the devil. You know what you won't find on his site? Sports related items to sell. Because sponsors know better than to support someone who hates the audience he is after. No one will censor the preacher but ignore him. You know what else will not happen? Have that crazy preacher as a legitimate source as a journalist on ESPN.

So your argument is that anyone bringing pressure to bear on any industry for any personal cause is perfectly reasonable, and if they are successful it just went to show they represented a majority audience? That is good to know, thank you for clarifying that.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100325014238/http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/about/

Right there at the top, Game Journalist. They claim to have 4.

Ha! My bad. You are correct, it is right there at the top. Those nerds.

Remember when RPS used to write awesome, hilarious articles like OnionBog or Captain Smith? Neither do I. Site has leaked too much talent. I guess Pippa's DOTA 2 stuff has been okay, but it's not the same.

They call themselves critics now. I wonder why?

Because they are video game critics, and because colloquial use of the term "journalist" gave fertile ground for people demanding their website be burned to the ground?

I should probably clarify a few things before we continue.

1) I am using the "Gater" definition of censorship here, which is "Discussion of X was not allowed at Y", and not the proper definition of censorship, which is uh...quite a bit different. When I say things like "The Escapist can post whatever they want", even if I find the content of a particular article disagreeable, I extend the same privilege to other websites, such as GamaSutra and Leigh Alexander's absurd screed, or RPS and their endless proselytism, or even Brietbart and their articles. It's their fucking websites, right? They can do what they want. It would never, in a million years, occur to me to "blacklist" or form a grassroots movement to tear down or silence any website or voice that I disliked. I don't desire life in an echo chamber, and I'm quite capable of thinking critically about things I read, including criticism of my hobby.

2) I am very, very much against publisher/media collusion when it comes to gifted scores. Unlike a vocal majority of GamerGaters, however, I do not trace the source of the problem back to "Social Justice Warriors" or uppity feminists. In fact, I find that entire line of thinking to be distasteful in the extreme, and one of the primary polarizing factors in the debate.

3) I think the OP saying "Nyah I have made up my mind, and no one will ever change it!" to be childish. However, I also think there are a great many people in this debate who have made up their minds, and will never change them. Unlike the OP, they are completely oblivious to this, and present themselves as icons of rationality whilst being utterly polarized and encamped.

4) I don't think video gaming media are "journalists" in the traditional sense of the term any more than I considered Roger Ebert a "journalist". They are individuals expressing their opinions on entertainment software. That does not mean I do not expect a certain degree of ethical transparency. However, I think this particular incident was the spark that ignited the blaze for very different reasons than "journalistic integrity". There have been far more blatant and egregious and DOCUMENTED issues than a bunch of editorials criticizing gaming's rampant asshole demographic, which we're all perfectly fucking aware of.

5) You want to get mad at something, let's get mad at this thing about Ubisoft pressuring YouTubers to doctor up fawning videos for Shadow of Mordor. THAT sounded pretty sinister. That's something to get up in arms about if you're feeling like getting up in arms about something in game space. However, it's not attached to feminism or "social justice" so no one seems to give a hoot. Maybe Anita Sarkeesian can do a dopey video about it and that'll get everyone's attention.

 

[EternallyBored]

5) You want to get mad at something, let's get mad at this thing about Ubisoft pressuring YouTubers to doctor up fawning videos for Shadow of Mordor. THAT sounded pretty sinister. That's something to get up in arms about if you're feeling like getting up in arms about something in game space. However, it's not attached to feminism or "social justice" so no one seems to give a hoot. Maybe Anita Sarkeesian can do a dopey video about it and that'll get everyone's attention.

You mean Warner Bros. interactive, and more specifically their contract with Plaid media labs, the ones who authored the youtube contract. Ubisoft has nothing to do with Shadows of Mordor.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You mean Warner Bros. interactive, and more specifically their contract with Plaid media labs, the ones who authored the youtube contract. Ubisoft has nothing to do with Shadows of Mordor.

Oh.

Well let's get mad at Ubisoft anyway. It's Ubisoft! I'm sure they're up to something.

 

[Caiphus]

Oh.

Well let's get mad at Ubisoft anyway. It's Ubisoft! I'm sure they're up to something.

I'm totally down to cancel my Publisher's Club subscription because Ubisoft. Who's with me?

 

[Negatempest]

Hypocrisy would work. If any anti-gater comment was deleted while pro-gater threads and comments were not. So unless you have been living under a rock for the last month. Gater discussion was censored here and every location but some Chans, Twitter and Youtube until about a week or so ago. Considering the GG thing been going on for nearly 3 months. That is 2+ months of pro-gater discussion being deleted or censored. Which is what help start this whole thing in the first place. So no, Hypocrisy did not happen.

Who did you think I was leveling that charge at? I was leveling it at the people who scream "CENSORSHIP" or "TRYING TO CONTROL THE MESSAGE" when voices they approve of are quieted, and "JUSTIFIABLE CONSUMER REVOLT" when voices they disapprove of are quieted. One of the few things GamerGate seems genuinely united on is shutting up people they disagree with in the form of their black list. OP is personally "black listing" the Escapist, and I see a lot of "Oh boo hoo someone disagreed with you" or "This is the exact wrong way to deal with a dissenting opinion!" thrown up. As someone else pointed out, the double-think is incredible.

Either you think boycotts are "censorship" or you don't. If you don't, what's everyone's problem with the "social justice warriors" again?

Subjective is not some catch all word a person can use to dismiss objectiveness. Again, calling yourself a journalist you are to have some responsibilities for that title. Same thing with Doctor. "Journalist" for a fact is not a title that any writer can just have.

So, hand-waved then. Explain to me the objective reasons why someone could not pick a game as their personal game of the year. Explain to me the objective process by which we judge a game to merit that distinction.

And yes a crazy preacher can have his say about how sports and it's fans are the devil. You know what you won't find on his site? Sports related items to sell. Because sponsors know better than to support someone who hates the audience he is after. No one will censor the preacher but ignore him. You know what else will not happen? Have that crazy preacher as a legitimate source as a journalist on ESPN.

So your argument is that anyone bringing pressure to bear on any industry for any personal cause is perfectly reasonable, and if they are successful it just went to show they represented a majority audience? That is good to know, thank you for clarifying that.

https://web.archive.org/web/20100325014238/http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/about/

Right there at the top, Game Journalist. They claim to have 4.

Ha! My bad. You are correct, it is right there at the top. Those nerds.

Remember when RPS used to write awesome, hilarious articles like OnionBog or Captain Smith? Neither do I. Site has leaked too much talent. I guess Pippa's DOTA 2 stuff has been okay, but it's not the same.

They call themselves critics now. I wonder why?

Because they are video game critics, and because colloquial use of the term "journalist" gave fertile ground for people demanding their website be burned to the ground?

I should probably clarify a few things before we continue.

1) I am using the "Gater" definition of censorship here, which is "Discussion of X was not allowed at Y", and not the proper definition of censorship, which is uh...quite a bit different. When I say things like "The Escapist can post whatever they want", even if I find the content of a particular article disagreeable, I extend the same privilege to other websites, such as GamaSutra and Leigh Alexander's absurd screed, or RPS and their endless proselytism, or even Brietbart and their articles. It's their fucking websites, right? They can do what they want. It would never, in a million years, occur to me to "blacklist" or form a grassroots movement to tear down or silence any website or voice that I disliked. I don't desire life in an echo chamber, and I'm quite capable of thinking critically about things I read, including criticism of my hobby.

2) I am very, very much against publisher/media collusion when it comes to gifted scores. Unlike a vocal majority of GamerGaters, however, I do not trace the source of the problem back to "Social Justice Warriors" or uppity feminists. In fact, I find that entire line of thinking to be distasteful in the extreme, and one of the primary polarizing factors in the debate.

3) I think the OP saying "Nyah I have made up my mind, and no one will ever change it!" to be childish. However, I also think there are a great many people in this debate who have made up their minds, and will never change them. Unlike the OP, they are completely oblivious to this, and present themselves as icons of rationality whilst being utterly polarized and encamped.

4) I don't think video gaming media are "journalists" in the traditional sense of the term any more than I considered Roger Ebert a "journalist". They are individuals expressing their opinions on entertainment software. That does not mean I do not expect a certain degree of ethical transparency. However, I think this particular incident was the spark that ignited the blaze for very different reasons than "journalistic integrity". There have been far more blatant and egregious and DOCUMENTED issues than a bunch of editorials criticizing gaming's rampant asshole demographic, which we're all perfectly fucking aware of.

5) You want to get mad at something, let's get mad at this thing about Ubisoft pressuring YouTubers to doctor up fawning videos for Shadow of Mordor. THAT sounded pretty sinister. That's something to get up in arms about if you're feeling like getting up in arms about something in game space. However, it's not attached to feminism or "social justice" so no one seems to give a hoot. Maybe Anita Sarkeesian can do a dopey video about it and that'll get everyone's attention.

I do agree with quite a few of your points. I also agree that gaters (I'm a pro-gater and do not find that word offensive in anyway, shape, or form) can be seen or act childish. But you also have to remember the context of it all. 2+ months of being threatened with bans, deleted comments or threads. Not saying that it is done here specifically. I am saying that the sites that did attack their audience plus Reddit and now 4chan did not allow discussion of it. 2 months of that. While people that were anti-gaters were free to spout what they wanted to for months. That isn't right in anyway shape or form and that is what riled up many gamers.

Now the anger for journalists that attacked their audience can be a bit muddy right now. And that is where the context comes in. Before everything blew up the Journalists called themselves journalists. Now that they riled up their audience they go by Critics as to justify there stance on attacking their consumers. That switch also added fuel to the fire. Especially when I showed you that link where just a few months back they still went as journalists. So they went from Journalists who were willing to give both sides of a debate so everyone can get as much info as they can. To critics who are known to give their own point of view without responsibility behind it. That is just so twisted to do to justify your actions.

Ubisoft is a great target. Always has been. With their lazy programming and exploitative DLC. But you cannot split attention suddenly or else focus starts getting lost.

Now here is a little info for you if you wanna look it up. For all the high stance on morality of the sites that attacked their audience. Why did there never promote TFYC (The Fine Young Capitalists) or congratulate their success on Indiegogo? And TFYC did try to get the bigger websites to help promote them.

http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/09/6977/truth-gaming-interview-fine-young-capitalists

You could say it's hearsay. But what I found is that Kotaku never said the article was a lie.

EDIT: One more thing. GameGaters do not see SJW as feminists. SJW are seen as extremists. If you noticed. GameGaters highly praise Christina H. Sommers who is for a fact a second wave feminist. Giving her the title of Base Mom. So for Gamergaters who hate feminism and women. Don't you consider it odd one of the pro-gamergate speakers and highly respected woman is a feminist?