MaGo72: Aurini: I won't argue that Aurini sides with GG (probably uses it to get more resonance, as you implied, for his own goals), but he does not consider himself a part of GG as far as I know.
Vainamoinen: Irrelevant, unfortunately. GG figureheads very seldom consider themselves a part of GG, they consider themselves 'neutral'. Take a look at e.g. the list of "doxxed gaters" as compiled by gamergate supporters. Almost every name on there that evokes a picture of a person in my mind doesn't consider him- or herself part of the movement. But it still seems very, very clear to supporters where these people stand. Gjoni? Baldwin? Sommers? Yiannopoulos? Not gaters, right until they're doxxed.
http://static1.gamespot.com/uploads/original/90/908941/2784502-10616019_294491837424534_1351281559890374242_n.png Thanks for pointing that out, perhaps that should tell you something? So because the anti side picks them out for having a narrative they do not like that makes them part of GG?
Just because they have an opinion about GG which they express and which the opposing side does not like. Despite themselves saying they are not "members"? Interesting strategy.
MaGo72: The reason it is seems to be about SJWs this or that is because of the backlash GG/Gamers got. [...]
Vainamoinen: Yeah, yeah, I get it. Gaming journalists and feminist critics
are the corruption in the industry
because "SJW".
We've been there, it's a shit argument. And to the point,
it's Aurini's argument.
Gamergate has exhibited a pitiful knowledge of gaming journalism as it has developed, and an embarrassing stance on how an art critique actually has to look like. They expect their journalists to be industry insiders without industry ties, and are stupid enough to paint ties among vg journalists as collusion. Calling out for credible and versatile characters? Corruption, corruption everywhere.
Gamergate is a movement opposed to video game journalism, criticism and academic evaluation of the medium. And that's all of it, seriously. These journalist guys and gals have only just started to grow up from blatantly advertising video games 24/7 in the 80s and 90s to actually doing their job once in a while. Gamergate is the sledgehammer that doesn't let video game journalism grow up.
It must not be allowed that a game review constitute art critique. Obviously, games are not art. Objective reviews are not only possible, no, they are the only valid thing.
When I grew up and I didn't like a game magazine, I didn't buy it. Today, idiots drunk with power are only satisfied when they've put people out of a job. And boy, do they celebrate when a site goes down for whatever reason [link to gloating reaxxion article not provided].
I did not say - and you know it - that feminist critics are the corruption in the industry because SJW. So do not try to shift the discussion to that point, it never was about that and I give a fuck about Aurini's argument and as I said he is not part of the GG movement
he does his own stuff for years. Just because somebody says something against feminists, that makes him not part of GG, although it seems the opposing side uses this tactic a lot (look above).
Nobody says corruption in gaming journalism is everywhere, the initial complaints were directed against specific sites and a specific circle of people. That was before the all gamers are ... answer to that critique.
Surely an art critique does not encompass saying that art has to change, so that it fits into the moral/ethical/political framework of a specific group of people.
MaGo72: Collusion, political agendas, journalists meeting together behind curtains to talk which games to mention, which games to destroy which games to not talk about at all, which direction to take, which topics to write about.
Vainamoinen: Conspiracy theorist bullshit without a single idea how journalism even works. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about, at all. You're making up the agenda, the curtains (curtains? what curtains?!) and most of all the destructive intent. Video game journalists destroying video games? Ever heard about the hand that feeds and what not to do with it? This is all wildest conjecture based on nothing, nothing at all. And it all only makes the slightest bit of sense if you attribute at the very least fourty times the power to dirt poor game journalists than they actually have.
I hear this crap again and again, and it makes less sense each time.
I did not say that journalists destroy video games. I pointed out that GG started as a consumer revolt against specific practices that from a journalistic viewpoint are questionable.
Can you perhaps tell us here why you try to shift the narrative and try to escalate the topic into dimensions that this is not about?
MaGo72: nevertheless it still has not been proven that any of that did came from GG.
Vainamoinen: And it never will. After all, if a convicted suspect is proven to associate with gamergate, he/she hasn't really been representative of gamergate all along.
Well, it is a hashtag campaign, there is no hierarchy. There is no membership, which makes it easy to pick targets. Although there are some that identify themselves openly as GG members, but I guess most
of them do not have the weight to be useful for the anti side.
But I wonder, when you do not like the SJW narrative, why do you try to shift the discussion to the SJW narrative? Why do you try to escalate it to the anti-feminist-political level. The SJW stuff was the answer to
the critique, not the point of the emergence of GG. Perhaps you should see a psychologist.