Maybe you really managed to miss it somehow although people here tried to transfer this message multiple times already:
It's exactly the opposite. SJW is mostly used as a term for people seeing themselves as the "Herrenrasse" with the ultimately higher moral ground looking down upon others (like you do all the time here) and since this is quite asocial the term is mostly used very ironically, meaning people who see themselves as warriors for social justice while being the exact opposite.
Indeed I see more fighting for social justice in some of the people you count among your hated "gaters".
The problem is seeing objectively, it's simply impossible for people blinded by hate and influenced by circles with very strong herd mentalities, since I'm in some ways old-school but also vegan and somehow left-minded I know those circles in several political directions quite well but simply can't support hive-minds no matter in which direction they are running or what they actually believe they are doing. They are always destructive.

Oh Jesus Christ, there is a Gamergate thread on GOG?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkyskI13KOs

the first one sounds (to me) like Ragnar Tørnquist,while seeing that there are decent people on the GG side has fallen for the Overall AntiGG vision of GG. I see no "GG slighted me" in that tweet though.

I get the the feeling he's trying to troll both sides as he sees it in the second one, could be interesting but I'm not familier with him or his work.

No, I think he considers GG to be a trojan horse for misogyny. Which I think is a fair evaluation, given that the "ethics in journalism" angle is such a canard that it beggars belief that it alone hurt people's butts so bad that they were then motivated to stalk and harass someone (let alone multiple someones, most of them women) for months on end. To wit:

- What realm of entertainment media has journalists who do not meet and befriend the people they cover?
- What indie scene, in any art form, is large enough that the people who make small-scale art and the people who write about small-scale art do not actually come in contact with each other and become friends? Let alone crash on each other's couches when traveling, or perhaps diddle each other's fiddles (be it ethical or not). There are more words to be written here, about building communities and what the point of evaluating any piece of work is, but suffice to say that this dream for a purity of evaluation is inane bullshit. You either trust and agree with a person's judgements, or you don't. IS Depression Quest a good game that is worthy of coverage? I didn't think so, and so I felt free to not care. That said, I dislike all sorts of shitty shit that other people seem to like, and have managed to come to peace with the idea that maybe people like things for realsies, and not because they had sex with someone. Or maybe they did have sex with someone, or maybe they felt a personal connection for some other reason, and so nevertheless there is a valid reason for why worthless games like any given CoD, Borderlands, et al continue to get coverage.
- What kind of neutrality does GG want? Surely it isn't for the "journalists" to cover something more substantial than whatever CoD 20's graphics engine can do, or how many lines of dialogue the new Elder Scrolls will have, or anything else they ripped straight from the press release. Which is to say: surely they don't want their journalists to stop being industry middlemen. Then what DO they want?

I hate to end this with a reference to the world's most accurate encyclopedia, because I know you'll accuse it of being part of the media conspiracy, but well... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy#Debate_over_ethics_allegations

If by accurate you mean written by people with agendas who mob certain listings and rewrite them to their own pleasing...
I.e. lying and distorting. This is in fact rather well documented and for a lot more topics than Gamergate.

The fact you call it the "most accurate" just shows how little you know about it.

I really find it strange how so many people seem to find a way to justify why it is okay for reporters to sleep with the subjects they are reporting on, or to report on their friends. Do people even go to school to get educated these days? Objectivity and avoiding conflicts of interest are Journalism 101 topics. But so many people are so clueless as to justify these actions which distort the truth.

But here's a fairly objective article by a prestigious source detailing exactly how Wikipedia is not most accurate...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/29/gamergate-wikipedia-and-the-limits-of-human-knowledge/

So once again, you are basing the entirety of Gamergate off of one individual. Since you continue to never provide sources for your claims, I checked the video. It is by a single person named Raz, and then a small back and forth conversation ensues with one anti-SJW person even changing their mind. Nothing here screams Gamergate or implies there is some concentrated effort to attack Dreamfall developers. Again, I can find no mention of such feelings on KotakuInAction, and Twitter results are sparse. The Facebook announcement of the character had a lot of general comments regarding the hair, but a page search never showed the term SJW appearing once.

Do you not see the problems with your claims?

Maybe this is simply a language barrier issue, because there is nothing about being slighted in this post. He is not saying Gamergate has insulted or attacked him directly, but that he believes they are associating with the wrong group of people. He even says he does not believe that they are Nazis, just a bad mix of gamers and trolls. I am not sure what else I am to extrapolate from this link, and he is certainly entitled to his opinion.

Finally, something we can agree on. Your very own example proves this, but to save you the time of going back to see why, here is a quote from the Twitter post you linked:

"@RagnarTornquist I disagree (w/ both your points), but you're crunching, so it'd be rude of me to cont. Instead, I'll just say good luck!"

Sounds like a #Gamergate person did specifically that, left the developer alone to make his game.

Was this your first post on this thread? I commend you on bravery. This thread is well and truly radicalized, and your choosing to post therefore shows you are quite the idealist...

I'm also a bit of an idealist myself, so let me answer you. I'm sure my perspective will be quite alien to you though...

You think ethics in journalism is a conscious Trojan horse for misogyny. I disagree.
You compare gaming journalism to other entertainment media. I agree - they're all afflicted by the same issues, and non entertainment media much more.
You point how neutrality works against small scale networking. I kind of agree... it works against all networking. You seem almost willing to admit Indies need friendship to get media coverage. But you don't really believe their work is generally unworthy, on the merits, of being covered, right?
You repeat how a desire for objective journalism is exclusionary. I disagree.
You ask what GG wants. My perception is most want: proactive disclosure of bias, cessation of banning and censorship due to disagreement, and more focus on mechanics over theme in reviews.
You say GG doesn't mind corporate PR. I kind of agree... unlike ideologically minded bias, PR is typically disclosed, non repressive, and gameplay focused (hyperbolically ofc).

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

Yeah... idealism. It's difficult...
Honesty now please. Do you truly believe I'm lying to your face? Or do you want to believe...

I'd be more concerned about Ragnar's stance regarding regional pricing.
I don't care so much for his design decisions but rather for this.

Consider this pt1 of my response, as what I say to Brasas is part and parcel to my response to you. The forum just wouldn't let me vomit 2k words in one post ;)

I meant the "most accurate" in quasi-jest; I'm well aware of the problems Wikipedia has with documenting hot-button issues. That said, I still think it remains very accurate and the article you linked doesn't dissuade me from that so much as bolster my point. Here's my summary of its main points:

- both sides were engaging in biased editorial practices
- ArbCom came in and banned a few serious rulebreakers (who were on both sides), and sternly warned/earnestly pleaded with the rest to make their claims verifiable.
- Anti-GG was still upset, because it felt like there was still plenty of content left standing that was inaccurate/damaging due to Wikipedia's acknowledged systemic bias

The article notes the pleading is a soft solution, and is reliant on people chilling out, which is unlikely. In other words, it is safe to assume that the war marches on, and the version that we see today is deeply embattled and filled to the brim with systemic bias.

And yet what we find, at least as of 5/3/15, is a page that is ostensibly compromised and embattled still has a very long series of sub-sections devoted to all of the reputable organizations (Columbia Journalism Review, of the famed Columbia Graduate School of Journalism! The Guardian! Inside Higher Ed! The New York Times! The Washington Post! Electronic Frontier Foundation!) taking apart GG's platform. I don't want to accuse you of not reading what I linked you, but if you had, you would have found people writing for said reputable publications saying things like "many criticisms of press coverage by people who identify with Gamergate (...) have been debunked" and "some of the movement's ostensible ethics concerns about video game reviews are actually rooted in Gamergate supporters' belief that video games are appliances rather than art and should be reviewed based on feature checklists rather than traditional artistic criteria" and ultimately, in a summary of multiple organizations' opinions (a summary that is no doubt at least relatively accurate; if you disagree, then read each article and get back to me with how this misrepresents what they have to say): "discussion of gender equality, sexism or other social issues in game reviews present no ethical issue."

(It's at this point where I decided that I wanted to read a book instead of participate in an endless debate that I already believe I've ultimately won by the very fact that writing about games being good/bad will always have a contingent of people evaluating them solely on how fun they are, so I apologize in advance if I project your counter-arguments inaccurately and am brusque in tone.)

But so, I expect your response to me will find you cut off at the knees and complaining that there is a leftist media bias and etc etc etc, at which point I'll kindly remind you that you opened the floor to the reputed experts and what they had to say on the issue.

As far as Zoe Quinn: it turns out we were both wrong! Witness: http://geekparty.com/eron-gjoni-clarifies-the-zoe-quinn-nathan-grayson-timeline/. So that takes care of that; that is, unless you want to argue in favor of a conspiracy theory about her engaging in a campaign of social-sexual manipulation with Nathan that involved some sort of quid-cum-quo exchange, in which case by all means. Blow that hot wind in the void, where it will dissipate and return to the ether.

Let's take this backwards and start with Zoe. Again, sexual or not, this close friendship is enough bias, not to mention the fact that the sexual relationship occurred just days after the Game Jam article was published indicates that the motives for the article were not pure. Add to this the fact that all articles written about this event were by individuals who were good friends with Zoe Quinn, should make any reasonable person doubt the integrity of said articles.

Onto Wikipedia, frankly pulling out a few specific quotes out of an admittedly embattled article and claiming you've somehow won the argument is rather disingenuous.

There have already been discussions in this forums on the topics you mention which go far deeper than the one lines of text which you quote. Many significant conflicts of interest have been brought up which are undeniable. There has been any number of discussions about objectivity in game reviews. And many discussions about the various articles and their inadequacies. And the fact you take the clearly one-sided quote about appliance reviews as proof of victory just shows your internal bias.

For you to claim some victory by quoting Wikipedia is rather silly. Your arguments fall flat. Of course you "think" the parts you cherry-pick to your side are "very accurate". Of course you can pick out quotes from these various articles to support your side. And whats the point really? You just show your own bias in reading into what is said exactly what you believe. So in your own mind you've won, so what? Who the hell do you really think you are? What are your credentials to be the deciding factor?

First of all, thanks for the reasonable response. I appreciate that you took the time to engage me honestly, and I've written a whole huge response in kind. One that is so huge that I can't actually post it, or maybe my bbcode is broken, or maybe I'm just stupid. In any case, it won't post and I do feel I owe you a response.

I hate to do this because it assures no one besides you will ever read it, but seeing as how I'm quickly losing interest in arguing with Rwarehall about how I already called all of his stupid errors in argument before he made them, it's probably for the best

Sorry again. http://tny.cz/ce6c193a. It's a pastebin.
As for you,

Blow winds blow.

So what you're saying is you have no ground to stand on, or are lazy. Sounds like I win by fault.

It truly is a mystery how you remain so defiantly wrong after suffering through this many people telling you, in great detail, that you are wrong.

And that's it for me! Enjoy the flame war, y'all!

Rwarehall used to be more reasonable. I used to be more reasonable. Vaina used to be more reasonable. Wars do that. And it would take a bigger idealist than me to not notice we are in a war. I posted a couple of threads trying to break out of the circle, to not much avail.

Anyway, you're also falling in the trap. Rwarehall is hot tempered, but far from stupid...

To claim victory, to call out what only you call "stupid errors of argument". To directly misquote me and call me lazy and imply you already won. You are just completely clueless. Yet somehow its okay for you to completely overlook the over 3000 posts in this thread. And its okay for you to claim a poor version of the same arguments that have been substantially debunked over these pages.

You have brought nothing to the table except to claim "Wikipedia" is correct. Sadly the same Wikipedia which cites Zoe Quinn speaking for herself as a reliable source.

But to your diatribe.
1) Objective reviews of games. In short, no one here has called a video game an appliance but you. You put up a strawman and claim that is what we believe. Talk about "shitty argumentation" as you call it. Simply put, I believe a game review is about the game itself, not about some social commentary of game culture. The purpose of any review is to make an objective attempt to inform the public about the quality of a given game. In essence, helping the consumer decide whether to shell out their hard earned money for it. When most of a review turns into how socially immoral a game is, be it because of "boob armour", exaggerated tropes, attacks against a game because it promotes violence, the review has lost its purpose. If one is reviewing a game called "Soccer Hooligans", there is no point arguing how wrong post-sports violence is, because those reading the review have already decided that the theme is not a problem for them. The reader wants to know about the game play, not that the reviewer thinks soccer hooliganism is wrong.

2) Ethics in journalism. Just because you think proper disclosure of relationships is "wrong-headed", who are you to disagree with virtually every manual on journalistic conduct? Avoiding reporting on those one has ties to and if that cannot be avoided, disclosing those relationships are a foundation of responsible journalism. The fact you do not know this or seemingly feel it can be disregarded at will, shows how little you know.

3) Misogyny. And this is the same problem with all these neo-feminists. Once again a strawman argument. Just because there is a great dislike for certain women, that does not equate to hatred of all women or hatred of women in general. Misogyny is such a misused term. If you can't understand why some people are upset that Zoe Quinn, when confronted with bad reviews on Greenlight, took a few posts attacking her as a girl as proof that all the detractors were misogynists, then you are not being intellectually honest. If you cannot understand why people get upset when Anita promotes a Kickstarter claiming to expose problematic representations of women that are pervasive throughout the industry, then you also have a problem. And if you can't understand why people get upset when disagreeing with either of these people is simply dismissed as "Misogyny", you have a problem. The real problem is neo-fems who believe they are disadvantaged and as such should be immune to any criticism.

4) Fallacy of Relative Privation. This one is very common from many of you. You use this fallacy many times. Why aren't we complaining about Peter Travers movie reviews or Fox News and its coverage? Maybe because our issue is games...Why are these feminists so interested in depictions in video games when they could be writing about Boco Harem and their treatment of women? The strange thing is, in your example of Fox news, that has come up as a comparison in these threads many times. That these one-sided neo-fem oriented articles are no better than Fox news covering politics and calling Obama a Muslim. We don't argue about these things because we need to stick to the topic at hand. Your insistence that there are other causes we could fight for is merely a distraction. Its a diversion and has nothing to do with the real issues we are talking about.

5) Wikipedia. When Zoe Quinn can essentially give one-sided testimonials in a decidedly one-sided article just because some bleeding heart editor of a major publication allows it to be published, doesn't make these a reliable source. Anyone can read some of the articles linked to that Wikipedia page and see the bias contained in many of these articles. That is the essence of what is wrong with relying on Wikipedia in this case.

But all in all, the fact that you try to justify self-promotion or promotion of one's friend's works in the guise of objective journalism shows exactly why this is an issue of ethical journalism.