Telika: That being said, I vaguely suspect that the indirect enabler for this shift to okay radical reactionary, xenophobic and racist discourse, may be found in the gamergate warzone. It is just a supposition, as I didn't follow the gamergate tread, but for the little I glimpsed, there's been a certain amount of collectively-self-validating sexist and homophobic postures around these themes, and this may have encouraged other expressions of that ideology on other subjects. If that's the case, well, there could be an identifiable tipping point in GOG forum's history, with identifiable reasons.
Vainamoinen: That warzone has definitely led to more acceptance of hate speech. Even when some people are, in principle, opposed to reactionary-xenophobic-racist-conspiracist argumentation, they tend to just ignore the loads of hate as it's coming from a seemingly clear cut 'side' they happen to think they support.
http://www.gog.com/forum/general/the_gamergate_news_thread/post5241 This doesn't poison the entire forum, but it's definitely a source where this shit creeps in and spreads in it. People have pledged allegiance with a movement, they swore to protect it against any and all, particularly truthful accusations, so even when their instinct would be to speak out at length against this crap right there in their very middle, they'd rather not create in-fighting. Just desperately ignore and post five times in a row until the embarrassing post is on the preceding page... and this utter bigotry is indeed thread defining.
Not that downvoting would help in any way. Jesus, I hate the downvoting. The above thread is cliquey enough that dissenting voices, the life blood of honest discourse, are just drowned in downvotes. On the other hand, of course I personally reserve the right to downvote hate speech, particularly posts using pejorative cultural war terminology ("SJW"). If GOG just abandonned downvoting, however, I wouldn't shed a tear, obviously.
1.Isn't what one calls hate ''speech'' subjective? And wouldn't judging others based on one loose definition be a dis-service in case they may have raised actual points worth discussing?
2.Couldn't it be plausible that everyone there is just posting their opinion and not caring about what the other poster's say?
3.There have been no accusations at all to defend from. So why do you suppose people are willing to defend beyond reason?
4.Well infighting is avoided as much as possible when you're on a forum where users know eachother on an individual level, bu then again, a smart question of the validity of that opinion from the countering party can fix that. So don't imply we're more guilty of not questioning than you are ;D
5.No one could rebut the claims made. How is that the posters problem?
Vainamoinen: The 'gamergate' thread only acts as an entry point for extremists to this forum and really should be swiftly closed. And, please, don't insult my intelligence with the 'ethics in journalism' smoke screen. Two extremely gross actual violations of game journalist ethics have become apparent in August (uncovered by game journalists). They weren't discussed in this thread at all, and by 'gamergate' hardly ever. I had to discuss them elsewhere, because gamergate has no stake in this.
I'm sorry you're just saying your points were all 100% sane and calling anyone who disagrees an extremist? Guess we found the ''SJW'' term you like to use then :D
Which ones? The youtube non disclosure debacle? What is there to discuss? Evidence found, party punished. What more? Pray tell? Did you expect us to post to your liking? Also, to see what GG as a whole i stalking about. Visit the hubs at 8chan or reddit. That is where the bulk of it happens. If you want daily updates this obviously isn't and wasn't the place and thinking so would've been naive considering the few number of posters and you more or less dismissing all evidence. I recall you said the Honey Badgers were kicked out legally. How the the hell?Can they be thrown out of a paid convention for asking a question?