[Kalyx triaD]

Originally Posted by The Rogerer I can't make a judgement on all the members of gamergate. My experience with Adam Baldwin is that he enjoys playing the cigar chomping Reaganite and he's addicted to arguing, and serious gamergaters should probably regret his involvement because he's a big shitehawke.

I'm fine with him only as a fellow supporter of GG. I have a dislike for ever tweet he does outside of that. Love him on screen, but he's somebody I otherwise would not follow. actually, there's several people I'm only in league with by a strange bedfellows set-up. GG naturally gained the assist of conservatives because the politics being pushed back are hyper left. I'm a left guy myself, so in this bizarre thing I'm sided with people I otherwise wouldn't communicate with on a social. But I think this is a strength of a movement, if it's able to build bridges between ideologies.

And honestly; whenever something comes along and actually gets rivals to join forces, it's a huge hint that the joined forces may have some legit issues there. Righteous causes have a habit of featuring bitter rivals joined together as opposition. That's just my personal observation on history anyway.

Anyway, the real problem with GG is that a)with the best will in the world, it will never be able to separate itself from the Zoe Quinn stuff

Sad but true.

b)it's a breeding ground for shitehawkes on both sides

How is this a specific problem with GG? This can be an issue with any movement ever. And can GG be blamed for creating assholes on the other side?

c)as I say, I think talking about objectivity and journalistic ethics just has no place in something that is enthusiast press, and I really cannot shake the feeling that the core arguments about this really are a disproportionate response to radical feminism. Tumblrites and these 'SJW' people, if I must, do often have a shocking lack of perspective and are probably contributing a fair amount of shit.

I don't think GG wants objectivity in the sense you're thinking here. We know robots aren't writing these articles. Nobody's silly enough to mean that kind of objectivity. I don't even think GGers posit this a great deal anyway. It comes down to ethics. It was a lack of this that led to GG at the beginning, and there very simple things the journalists could have done to kill this before it started.

To then complain to care about a lower review score because of a personal quabble that a reviewer has...

I don't think GG is concerned about some guy giving a low score. You are talking about the Bayo2 thing, yes? I have explained what the problem was with that piece and it had nothing to do with the score.

The root of it is still that it too often gets away from what it pretends to be about, and I think what it claims to be about isn't good either.

I wanna ask; what would the line be in your mind where something goes from pretending to being?

GG funded a feminist game jam. GG raised money for anti-bullying awareness. GG put women forward when anti-GG kept telling them to stand down and be quiet (fancy that). GG showcased the true diversity of the gaming community when anti-GG kept pushing their 'gamers are all white sexist' narrative. Every journalist who has had equal communication with both sides almost always notes how GG treated them great while anti-GG were shockingly harsh (the latest case being YTer David Packman).

At what point, to you, does this illusion of being a good cause become a good cause? Is there any action GG can take, for you, that would finally separate it from it's complicated origins (it was not about harassing a women, as somebody who seen this unfold live, but I'm done arguing this info)? Why can't you measure the good over the bad? Is it that you don't care about the lives that were improved because of us? Cancer research, female developers, people of color speaking out; are these not things you find impressive?