SJWs like you have been using the "ethics in journalism" card from the very beginning. Every time a Gamergate supporter says something that makes a lot of sense, and your side has no argument against it, out comes the "I thought this was about ethics in journalism" card. It's a diversion and a distraction. Every time that phrase gets mentioned, its been mentioned by the anti's and its sole purpose is to be a non-response to an issue you have no argument.

As to your assertion that Gamergaters didn't know what they were arguing for, I beg to differ. We were pretty clear. Stupid advocacy articles such as the Gawker one you linked. One-sided, biased, yellow journalism that promotes an agenda. That isn't journalism. That is the journalistic equivalent of Fox News when it covers politics. Biased and one-sided. Basically your SJW hate mob and its media pressure from the journalism you have usurped.

Ok I read the article. I won't be able to comment on the players involved I don't know them and I haven't read what they wrote. I also don't have the time or inclination to learn.

So all I can get from the article is that one group wants authors from one group to win Hugo's and another group wants another group to win. The writer of the article seems to think that the other group is anti-woman, mostly-white, mostly-guys, conservative, and that they are distracting Gearge R.R. Martin from finishing the Winds of Winter. While I understand his dislike for anti-woman ideologies. I don't understand why being white and male is negative. That is something a person is born as. I also don't understand the dislike for conservatives. Unless the author is referring to extreme conservatives, but extremes at both ends of the political spectrum are considered extremes for a reason. As for George R. R. Martin, he is a brilliant author and I have greatly enjoyed many of his books, but the guy really lacks focus when it comes to his writing. My biggest fear is that he will die before he finishes Game of Thrones. I also wish he had written another Windhaven novel.

The author is also complaining that the other group is organizing and trying to get votes for the authors they want to win. He is suggesting that the rules need to be changed so that it is harder to vote. I'm guessing because he thinks that will boost his group. I don't understand why he can't just organize his group to vote for the authors they want and then the majority will win.

Anyway enough of this. The Hugo's are irrelavant. If they can only get 1800 votes for best novel, when the only barrier to entry is $40 and filling out a form, then the award is worthless.

What is it with this two dimensional "us or them"-thinking these days again? I thought humanity should have evolved beyond that by now.
Free yourself from this, it's utter bs.

To me, the shaming and control schemes of the self-proclaimed "progressives" is as conservative and un-liberal as it gets.

Calling gamers ultra conservative? That in itself is a generalization that is retarded. This isn't about politics. If so we'd have games based on it. The closest thing to s political game is Democracy.

Correct, "ethics in journalism" IS a diversion and distraction. GAMERGATE's diversion and distraction from the actual issues, which, you're right again, they were pretty clear from 'the beginning' and certainly even before that. Which is the same as having 'an agenda', by the way. If you think you can change that basic situation by pointing a flashlight at it from the other side, you're mistaken.

Gamergate's argumentative structure has been transparent from minute one, and it wouldn't serve any purpose to reiterate it here again and again at great length. Short version: Gamergate is not about ethics in journalism, but with the brittle bridging narrative of "the SJW" and his evil influence on all that is holy in video games, gamergate people manage to pull off the self deception that full time attacks on feminist critics and the few journalists who actually understand their job as art critics would serve an 'ethical' purpose.

As we've also heard from the video I just posted, "SJW" as a term is a diversion and distraction as well, meaning, in essence, "funny hair and hat person", the term I will be using from now on (or FH&HP in short), for "SJW" was created to be derogatory, hence the SJW must be evil (a successful application of the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis, an epic self deception and a manipulatory use of language that reminds me personally of Orwell's Newspeak in the 1984 novel).

You're incorrect in assuming that only people opposed to gamergate would draw the "ethics in journalism" card, and I honestly don't see how you could ever make that your point. For example, John Bain still draws that card, continuously. He goes so far as to advise, in greatest detail, the gaters not to dwell on any other topics. A most hilarious thing for him to do seeing that 'ethics in journalim' has long since ceased to be his own topic as well.

I understand, I deeply understand that some gaters don't want to be reminded of their own smoke screen any more. I really, honestly understand that. For a halfway intelligent person, that smoke screen was such an embarrassing lie right from the start, no wonder it is repeated so often by the opposing side. Gamergate has done nothing to gather information, identify and actually talk about systemic corruption in the video game industry and the video game press. Gaters have only ever tried to gather dirt on FH&HP (including indie developers) because it served their agenda.

"Ethics in journalism" is gamergate's ball and chain. They're going to be slapped in the face with their fictitious raison d'être so often that eventually, they will have to abandon that narrative. The same is true for the term 'gamergate', which will probably be abandoned eventually as well while the movement soldiers on. But right now, they're too quick to jump to new smoke screens to be effective. Better to not abandonthis particular lie quite as quickly. The ground work of abandoning the smoke screen for another has been done, they have the FH&HP as an enemy figure now, that can drive the movement for another year while they continue to attack anything but the actual monopolous and mainstream video game experiences and the actual potentially corrupt entities in the industry.

TL;DR: the "ethics in journalism" agenda was and is the central lie that constitutes the movement's existence, and I understand that they don't wish to be reminded of that. Gamergate grew out of shit and would now only see roses bloom at their feet. They don't want to be reminded of that because the accusation is 100% truthful and there is no credible defense. Sorry about that.

You should be a fiction writer. If you gurgle on without proof; might as well make some money right? Maybe write for minorities; twat the story of a brave writer being oppressed by the internet and make millions without having either talent or creativity; without completing your first book.

I'm serious. CONSIDER being a fiction writer.

Don't recall ever reading anything about capitalism from you. Maybe I missed it?

I'm not sure where you get that from, I just said there were two sides, I didn't say which side I thought you were on. You've said to me many times that you aren't #gg, unless you've changed your mind now?

Which pizzeria has been burned? I'm not sure I understand what this is about. The Indiana religious freedom legislation? Are you (or #gg'ers in general) advocates of that bill? I wasn't aware of that.

nope. I don't even know if you are libertarian.

I genuinely have no idea what you are talking about. Does anyone else here understand what Brasas is saying here?

Again, I'm not really sure what you're on about here. I thought the article was discussing how some people in the sic fi community were recruiting people from outside of the sci fi community to vote for particular authors because they didn't like the previous winners of the Hugo awards as they felt they were too "progressive". What did you think it was about?

I have been playing that card from the beginning. I was trying to draw #gg'ers attention to the reality that complaining about censorship on websites wasn't about journalism and complaining about SJW/feminist devs wasn't about journalism either. We finally got there. Lets hope now we can move on from it. As others have said, I think it is a very accurate description to call this a "culture war".

I don't think its fair to say that ever time a #gg'er made a sensible argument "my side" came out and said "I thought this was about ethics in journalism". Maybe that is the case. Are you able to give an example, perhaps?

How do you think the article I linked is biased? Do you think they misrepresented the facts or are they leaving out certain facts? I don't know a lot about the issue, but I had a look around after I read the article and the issues set out in it seemed pretty much accepted in the sci fi community and particularly those organising the Hugo awards. Did you find something from the Hugo awards people suggesting it didn't accurately portray what is happening in that community?

No, what the article is really about is how certain "pro-diversity" groups had managed to co-opt the Hugo awards in such a way that almost all recent winners have been minorities. My guess is they used their agenda and clout to do the same thing they accuse the other side of now doing, namely stuffing the ballot box.

Now that a group of white male sci-fi writers have grouped up to counter this agenda-based co-option and get some white male authors on the ballot, the "pro-deversity" group is crying foul.

Quite frankly, this is a rather close parallel to what is happening with video games. Here, "pro-diversity" groups are pushing their agenda through co-option of gaming journalism affecting the scores on Metacritic and pushing their agenda in gaming. And just like with sci-fi, where they are claiming that the old writers are "so boring" and not diverse. Notice how they try to say the same about video games and Call of Duty or other top-selling FPS franchises.

To me, what is happening with sci-fi awards is what similar groups (with likely overlapping memberships) are trying to do with video games.

But how can you free yourself from this? Its fact isn't it? Its anti-SJW and anti-modern feminists vs SJW and feminists. That's what everyone here is talking about. I don't get it, do you think there are elements of #gg that are pro-SJW?

I'd place judgmental proof denying listen-and-believing people in the conservative side. So I'm in a mindfuck about what and who you're referring to here.

You really believe this?
Yes, there are (classical) feminists and many people who stand for social justice in #gg, I think this would have been clear by now. What we have here is one heterogenous masse of diverse people sharing a hobby and having a certain intersecting set of (as well as contradictionary) ideals like in every diverse group and on the other hand we have a totalitarian mob with very clear agendas and very little tolerance for deviations.
To me it's likely that in every-day life, many of the people from both partys would get along quite well 1-on-1 except the radicals, as always. The number of radicals on the modern feminist side is just overwhelmingly big.

AKA indoctrinated mob

Wow, you are really blinded by your own ideas. You set an idea, locked it in place and there is nothing that can be done to change it.

As you may (not) know, movements evolve. It started as ethics in journalism. But then the dense and corrupt SJW abd media played the muh soggy knee. GG received so much hate hate hate from there it is normal their movement evolved to also stand against heavy censoring and resisting against them forcing a change in life views to become theirs.

the anti say gg sees conspiracies everywhere, only to then hear the antis say shit like "they were planning this for years" "they actually do this because they think hillary will run for president" "they want to promote rape"

GG gets annoyed by the "but this isn't journalism" shit, because it shows that the antis outright refuse to see that GG has expanded. And remember, GG is not a set community with memberships and shit. Its a free hashtag movement. (And also, its a cheap shot to deflect legit criticism. NU UH you can't dislike or be against this foul, underhanded move cuz its not journalism.)

But i'm wasting my time. Your mind is set and you are simply unable to see anything but what you want to see.

And if it never was about ethics, why did gg consider the ethics changes at the game sites such a victory? i do wonder?

Don't be so evolutionist! We have a duty to protect ideals that can't evolve.