[imanaccount247]

>instead of rallying behind one that was created to attack one woman for completely made-up crimes against journalism?

I've seen this statement quite a lot, where exactly are people getting this idea from? #gamergate was started by Adam Baldwin, specifically to address corruption in games journalism and the collusion of media outlets in trying to silence discussion of it. The roots of it go back to /v/ having been convinced game journalism is corrupt for several years. See their musical tribute to games journalism from a year ago for an example (or the dewrito pope meme): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr7u1tWsGBk&list=PLAX8JHUJcF...

>But it's not a problem that I've ever actually seen a #GamerGate fan attempt to address

Have you ever looked? They have tons of information, they organize out in the open (it was on github until their repo was removed due to complaints), where everyone can see and contribute. #gamergate supporters have been harassed and threatened and Milo was even sent a syringe full of something unknown. Why do people paint such a dishonest picture of this whole thing?

[PhasmaFelis]

> I've seen this statement quite a lot, where exactly are people getting this idea from? #gamergate was started by Adam Baldwin, specifically to address corruption in games journalism and the collusion of media outlets in trying to silence discussion of it.

The specific instance of "corruption" that touched it off was Zoe Quinn allegedly trading sex for good reviews, which was 100% bullshit.

But let's assume you're right and I'm wrong, then. Why cling to a name that is--perhaps wrongfully--heavily associated with vicious misogyny in the public perception? At best, that's terrible PR. Even the most polite and level-headed Gamergate fans seem to spend far more energy defending the Gamergate name than they do attacking actual corruption. It makes you look like you care more about a snappy name than about getting your message heard; frankly, it makes you look like dupes for a small group of misogynistic trolls.

[uchi]

Because you're effectively herding a group of cats, and coming up with a new name with a new cause every time someone tries to slimeball and gaslight you is a good way to lose momentum.

But here's the thing, while the original allegation of her sleeping with Nathan for reviews is bullshit, that doesn't clean up the fact she entered a romantic relationship pretty much right after Nathan published his piece.[1]

On March 31, Nathan published the only Kotaku article he's written involving Zoe Quinn. It was about Game Jam, a failed reality show that Zoe and other developers were upset about being on. At the time, Nathan and Zoe were professional acquaintances. He quoted blog posts written by Zoe and others involved in the show. Shortly after that, in early April, Nathan and Zoe began a romantic relationship. He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review.

Nor does it excuse the fact that she was actually covered by Patricia Hernandez, a close friend of hers, a long while back without disclosure either. The update at the bottom happened after the fallout.[2]

The harassment that she received that prompted her game to be taken down from Steam Greenlight in Particia's article was also proven to be false.[3]

Unfortunately, since Wikipedia's WikiProject Feminism is brigading the article (which is now locked) http://puu.sh/bZri1/121afb137b.png

The only other source of a decent timeline is KnowYourMeme of all places.[3]

The escapist at the very least decided to apologize for reporting on her original harassment on Steam Greenlight without doublechecking[4]

"But to explain is not to excuse. Our editor-in-chief, Greg Tito, having reviewed the facts at hand, concluded we ourselves have been imperfect in maintaining journalistic standards. A particularly problematic article, the one which generated his review, was about the alleged harassment of an indie developer by a forum community which denied the allegations but was itself victimized as a result of them. The article failed to cite the harassment as alleged, failed to give the forum community an opportunity present its point of view, and did not verify the claims or secure other sources. Mr. Tito has personally updated the article and spoken to all our editors about the importance of adhering to standards that will prevent such bad incidents from happening again."

[1]http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-time...

[2]http://kotaku.com/depression-quest-the-thoughtful-game-about...

[3]http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/quinnspiracy

[4]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/ed...

Even the most polite and level-headed Gamergate fans seem to spend far more energy defending the Gamergate name than they do attacking actual corruption. It makes you look like you care more about a snappy name than about getting your message heard; frankly, it makes you look like dupes for a small group of misogynistic trolls.

It's to be defended because the movement doesn't stand for misogyny, and changing the name is effectively admitting to something that it didn't do.

[imanaccount247]

>The specific instance of "corruption" that touched it off was Zoe Quinn allegedly trading sex for good reviews,

It was more the "lying about being harassed by a forum of depressed people to stir up publicity for her game about depression" really.

>Why cling to a name that is--perhaps wrongfully--heavily associated with vicious misogyny in the public perception?

What good would changing the name do? The media that they are against will continue to spread lies about them regardless of the name they choose. This sounds an awful lot like "stop calling yourself feminists because the name has been corrupted by radicals". No, people who oppose the group just want to dishonestly paint them in a bad light. They will continue doing so no matter what the label.

[throwawayGG]

Adam Baldwin also linked hashtag #GamerGate to the anti-feminism movement[1] when "when tweeting links to pre-existing misogynistic corruption conspiracy theory videos surrounding Quinn and Sarkeesian".

Maybe it meant something else for a week or two. But it's been associated with this for much longer than anything else.

[1] https://twitter.com/AdamBaldwin/status/504801169638567936

[2] http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/09/new-chat-logs-show-how...

[imanaccount247]

I'm confused. How does this address the claim that was made? The claim was that #gamergate was created to attack someone, and that therefore some other hashtag needs to be created for games journalism corruption. Now you are agreeing that it really was about corruption, but that it got associated with "misogyny" so that retroactively makes it not about corruption? Could you give a time for the misogyny in those videos? They are pretty long and neither had any in the first few minutes or at any of the random times I skipped to.

[uchi]

I'm struggling to see how Adam Baldwin's tweet is linked to an anti-feminist movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5-51PfwI3M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmy5OKg6lo&list=UUWB0dvorHv...

Those are the two videos he links to. There's nothing anti-feminist about them.

[BryantD]

Let's be clear about why Adam Baldwin is doing this: he's interested in spreading his brand of conservative thought.

"EveryJoe: I recently saw a tweet came down my stream: 'Ever since GamerGate started, I’ve been forced to completely reconsider what it means to be a left-leaning liberal.' So it’s causing second thoughts.

"Adam: Yeah, second thoughts are best! There was a famous former Marxist who met with Ronald Reagan. Reagan shook his hand and said to him, 'You know, I had second thoughts before you did.'"

Read more: http://www.everyjoe.com/2014/10/06/news/interview-adam-baldw...

[imanaccount247]

So, it is a problem that Adam Baldwin is "conservative" shares his opinions? You must realize most of the people attacking #gamergate and gamers are doing so to spread their "brand of liberal thought" too. Yeah, people have different opinions and different politics. For example, I disagree that people having different opinions is a problem.

[BryantD]

Nope, it's not a problem at all. However, if you say "#gamergate was started by Adam Baldwin, specifically to address corruption in games journalism and the collusion of media outlets in trying to silence discussion of it." I feel OK about pointing out that you're omitting some of Baldwin's motivations.

[imanaccount247]

His motivations were not the issue. The purpose of the hashtag and movement were. Nonetheless, your desire to point out that he is not liberal enough to meet your standards is still hypocritical. Why aren't you pointing that out all the "journalists" attacking gamergate have liberal politics and want to discuss them?