Do you know any kind of activists that like to be idle for a while?
I do not, they usually extend their topics when they haven't found something completely fitting for a moment (often while missing stuff for their initial focus while doing so), in this case the focus on journalism was extended to the manipulation and censoring of information because of several agendas in society in general.
In this case it was clearly intended by their enemies.

Coming to think of what the members of the local green party in my area are doing, I see that it can become way more chaotic, I still struggle to see you they managed to get from "saving nature" to what they are focusing on now.

You don't think activists enjoy holidays?

It was about "manipulation" and "censoring" of information from the start. Look back 100 pages, thats what people were complaining about.

Look, I don't think there is any point arguing about the origins, that's history now. Rather than saying, I was right all along, lets just say that, when I was arguing that it was less about journalistic ethics and more about SJW/feminists, I was doing so from a time machine from today.

i'm going to put it very harsh, but if you are triggered into episodes as easily as some of these people on the internet, you may be unfit to function in society until you have gone through some serious therapy.

and making a triggerless game is near impossible

we'd be left with only freddi fi- no wait hydrophobia.

the thing is, many/most people in GG don't mind more games with diverse characters. They mind shaming games for not having them.
FFXV got some shit for having an all male cast (as if bro-roadtrips don't exist. brotip: they do)
at this point you are censoring and forcefully altering an artists vision.

Mondrian you can't paint using only rectangles. Add some triangles there and there or else its sexist.

and about the pillars joke, i don't know about you, but if i were having sex with what i believed a girl and suddenly there'd be a second dick i would be pretty damn shocked too.

It stared as journalist ethics.

the the SJW kept crying NO ITS ABOUT MISOGYNY AND OTHER SOCIAL CRAP

after a while gg was like: actually, forcing your life views upon others and shaming those who don't share them isn't to good either yes

Actually I think most do not, since all I ever knew always had a bad conscience when they don't use any of their free time for at least raising awareness, annoying their enemies or whatever.

Yes, but initially only in gaming journalism since it was a central part of the lack of ethics although I too think that there is no gaming journalism since it ignores the most basic rules (to be found in the Reuters-scale) and should be named different anyway.

Yep.

BTW in regard to our new troll: I still think using the word "dick" as a synonym for a person acting like a total moron/douchebag is utterly sexist and insulting for everyone that has a dick, funnily enough most people with dicks don't really care about this and that is perfectly fine with me although I find this habit in the English language quite irritating since it's mostly gender neutral compared to others.

1. Ms. Wu

Perhaps it would help to differentiate between the individual, a group of people and a gender.

If you walk along a street, stop, take out a megaphone and start insulting people, saying they are racist, misogynists, idiots, use swear words for some specific people, threaten that you will make them lose their jobs for existing with a given mindset(which this person assumes they have, without knowing if it is the the case) and so on. Depending on where you are, you'll be ignored, will be insulted back or get a broken nose or worse and you will considered as an idiot and asshole.

In the Internet there is no specific region, so you'll reach all sorts of people and get all reactions like the above. Because someone reacts to the verbal expression of an individual it does not mean, that this person despises a group or the gender as a whole. Ms. Wu got what she called for and she made a lot of money with it.

2. Journalistic ethics and Gamergate

Gamergate is not a hierarchical structured, organized group with a membership. Gamergate is a hashtag, a collection of people which share a hobby - being a gamer. They saw the change in video games journalism from articles about games, developers, studios, conventions to political, ethical essays which condemn the consumer or praise some games, developers without objectivity, comparing the human behind the artistic work with political, ethical premises.

Furthermore several incidents indicated that there are networks and collusion, some journalists etc. of major media outlets promoted games of people they know in journalistic articles and if a developer/studio of a game did not know the right people or had different political views than the "network" decided was good, he would not be considered as worth writing about or the game would get only bad articles. Also intimate relations/ties of several journalists to people employed at publishers/game developing companies were revealed and it was also revealed that written articles were influenced by that or articles would not be written at all if they would be critical about a topic and cast a bad light on a company or a game.

Furthermore be aware that this collusion is probably not directed to a specific gender but more directed to knowing the right people and having/expressing the right political/ethical views. So a female developer, development studio with mainly female employees will also be condemned or will have no coverage in those media outlets as well.

3. Diversity

To close the circle, Gamergate as a hashtag does not have any entry barriers and gamers as a group are diverse - there are males, females, transgender, homosexual, heterosexual, disabled, diseased, invalid, children, adults, teens, democrats, communists, liberals, facists, socialists, racists, unemployed, employed, rich people, poor people, MRAs, feminists, criminals, delinquents, people from all professions, people from all continents/countries of the world from north america, south america to europe, africa, asia, australia - people of nearly all cultures and I am sure I forgot some in the list.

Gamers as a group are as diverse/multicultural as diverse/multicultural can get. And you know what, despite the grave differences most of the time they all and I mean all get along quite fine. Nowhere you will find a group of people more inclusive than gamers.

For example in MMOs you will see 25 people from all over the world meeting each week for several times for hours playing together, apart from that sharing a lot of more hours in the game together while they are doing other stuff. There a males, females, disabled all of the people mentioned above together getting along, having fun. You will see the nurse, talking with a lawyer, you will see the facist playing together with a communist, you will see a disabled person who says in a raid, well I need a pause or can somebody take over as my hand does not anymore what I want it to do and you know what, they switch roles, make a pause and wait for that person, while talking about other stuff on TS, Skype or Mumble. Or the 12 year old who does not like to talk on ts, well he will be in a guild raid too, playing his role as every other person does.

And yes, there are differences from time to time and yes, some people may not like other people and yes there may be insults from time to time as there are in the world when people interact with each other. There will be fights, tears, intrigues and even hate.

There are some places where you think, you are in the social ass crack of the world when you read the chat in a MMO on a specific server and you probably are, but what you have to consider is as stated above the diversity. The 15 year old girl sitting in a country which had a war 2 years ago where she lost her mother will have hate against a specific group and she will express that, will you call her out for that, will you call her a racist? The teen who has just been betrayed by her/his boyfriend/girlfriend talking bad in a chat about girls/men, will you call her/him a misogynist? The adult who has just had a divorce losing his children and some of his wealth, saying do never trust a woman - is he a misogynist too?

You will find every tragedy, you will find racist people, you will find what you want. Throw a stone into the water.

4. Throwing a stone into the water

What those "opposed" to the gaming culture do is mainly throwing a stone into the water of gamers. Call out for women haters throw the stone and you will find some. Call out for facists, throw the stone and you will find some. Call out for harassed people, throw the stone and you will find some. Call out for what you want, you will find it.

Basically whatever bad apple you want to find, you will find it as you will find it in every country on the world.

To say gamers are this or gamers are that is just idiotic. As is saying Gamergate is this or that.

Ironically, this is working so well on gamers because of the extreme diversity in this group indeed.

Indeed; when some idiots decide people are lesser to them because they have a different opinion; and use those people as scapegoats to reel in big money, that's what is low. The only shaming going on here is gamers being shamed for standing up to bullies that their slinkey spined journalists didn't have enough devotion to do.

We can have this conversation as many times as we want. Most of the people ''arguing'' against the values of #GG can NEVER address arguments against them and pretend to ignore them. They can't cite proof, can't stand it either. They can't accept objective studies; or have the mental capacity to entertain the idea that other individuals can be different from theirs. So calling this #GG thing a discussion isn't accurate by any means. More like SJWs finding something to be offended about and someone disproving their delusion that it has anything to do with ''oppression'' and then the hipsters moving on to something else so they don't have to argue with their underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex.

And to the downrep fucks : please continue; I regret nothing. But don't think ANYONE is gonna stop disproving the delusional feeble minded arguments you support because you exercised your downrep power. Its normal for people who can't control themselves to try to control others. But again; don't think you ever can; because armchair activists do less for the world than the chair they sit on.

Thats possible, but its also possible that some gg'ers didn't even realise themselves what they were arguing against. I say that because it was blindingly obvious at the start of this that many here weren't able to articulate it themselves. I am happy that now they can so there can be a legitimate discussion about those issues.

I forgot the quotation marks around gaming culture as I put them around opposed. Scare quotes used to mean "so-called" or to express irony: Your "car" doesn't actually have any wheels. What you say is exactly my point.

While the hashtag gamergate was in fact formed as a consumer revolt against collusion in and for ethical standards in gaming journalism, the answer to that critic was throwing stones in the water.

It is the same with some occurrences of the past here in Germany where persons expressed their discontent(one can argue if the chosen action to express the discontent was appropriate) with the current state of journalism and the media and they were literally obliterated by a combined effort of the newspapers/media.

PS

I am sure there are also Agenda pushers, money makers on the GG side who use/exploit GG for their own purposes and they even do not need to be gamers for that. They intentionally shift the the goalpost and try to marginalize and escalate. If you look how those SJW critics pop up on youtube every day holding out their patreon hand...

Ill read the article in a minute. I'm super happy you're finally being explicit about the other disagreement we have implicitly 'agreed to disagree over'. To me it's been long obvious your egalitarian ethics lead you to mission journalism being good, whereas my libertarian ethics lead me to objective journalism being good. Do you realize it's taken me to call you flat out anti capitalist before we got here?

Now you clearly are unwilling or unable to grant the validity of my outlook. You wrongly box me as being against freedom of speech - to do which you must be wearing huge blinders, and you consider only equality of outcomes rather than that other equality... basically you keep seeing the ethics in journalism as being unrelated (you said "opposed") to the political ideologies, whereas I keep trying to tell you the two are connected - there's no opposition. My libertarian ethics do not oppose a call for journalistic objectivity in any way. You just won't or can't follow the logic of the other side. My side: which is anti totalitarian, obviously.

Anyway, NEITHER of our ethics are universal, yet the fact that objectivity is (was?) a common requirement for professionally ethical journalism is kind of historical and pretty much undeniable. You may say mission journalism is progress and I can point at pizzerias being burned, students at each other's throats, and communities torn over entertainment (ain't GOG a perfect example?) and say that does not look like progress, tolerance, etc... at least to me. How many eggs will get broken to make this social justice omelette?

Have a look at when I joined this community mate. Do you think I am coming here to discuss politics because I'm some libertarian missionary? I rem arguing IP and property rights, an area of libertarian philosophy much trickier than opposition to basic fascism, and the shit never hit the fan like this. This back and forth is maximum 2 years old, which is when the ideological push into gaming really hit its stride. To you that's all to the good, maybe because of art, or diversity or social justice, which are nice names for omelettes, but just because you believe it, doesn't make it true. I mean objectively true, obviously. Which means it's not objectively good, ergo ethical.

Bottom line, your argumentation with me is a huge form of begging the question, because you just don't see anything to disagree on at a deeper level. The fact I keep trying to get that across only proves I'm an idealist... Of course the fundamental disagreement is political, but it's also ethical. When we look at a specific front in the culture wars, the ethics have not suddenly disappeared, they're there if only you'll actually engage them. Obviously your side doesn't want to engage at that level. I can tell you why. Because it would legitimize the opposition. Why give them a fair chance when dehumanization and ridicule got you so far in achieving progressive goals in the past century? That's what counts right, achieving the goals... Eggs and omelettes...at what point do you cross the ethical line? Or do you really think there is no line at all?

Edit: After reading the article it demonstrates my point perfectly. The "progress" is so obviously pure to your side that you see your enemies as causing the war. When those enemies tell you said "progress" caused harm and that's what caused the war... crickets. Much better to demonize the enemy ;) Thanks, it fits perfectly... glad I only read it after posting the above or I'd be tempted to give it a thorough fisking rather than make the meta level argument.

And starting a ruckus then playing the victim to boot. Also my comment was not a slight against her gender, it was a slight against her sheer craziness and self loathing.

I mean imagine hating yourself enough that you thought a drastic surgical procedure was the best thing to do. Some people have major issues and apparently highlighted just one of them made me the evil oppressor dude.

Which would be an assumption too, how do you I am a dude. Maybe I'm a one of those green chicks from Star Trek.

I try to avoid participating in this thread these days, but just wanted to say that these are both great posts. Have a +1.

If a cause can only be about one thing, then your side loses intersectionality as a casualty. Can't have it both ways.

Oh, there are 'moderates', definitely. Problem is, they sound like this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bboIk6w0hFA

Its not anyone's fault they see proof. Not that they aren't supposed to; even if you find proof offensive.