Great, an argument over context.  First, I never said anything about warranted or unwarranted.  I said "out of control".  I'm talking about how extremist elements latch on to a "movement" until you have a great deal of division.  Black Power and some of the more violent riots, for example.

Do I really need to explain what I mean?  

Lol of course not. It was out of context.

I need to do better deliveries 

Clicked the link. It held my attention for 30 seconds before realizing its a fucken book!!! Then my urge to leave the page became so overwhelming. I had to get that bad 'my brain just got fucked' feeling out of my mind somehow and troll something just to make me feel happiness again and feel better about myself. Happy thoughts... Happy thoughts.. Breathe... Slowly.. There you go. 😌

Sorry, I tried.... 😞

What and who represent the prosaically-named "Gamergate" movement is probably lost forever at this moment, buried under narrative and counter-narrative.

You'll hear sensational reports from both the Gamergate and anti-Gamergate movements, but the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. One narrative explains that Gamergate exists solely to fight back against corruption and nepotism in the video game media, but I think that obscures a very important fact: that Gamergate was a movement rooted in the attempt to maintain the status quo. It wasn't simply about journalistic integrity; it was about keeping social criticism and political ideas out of the video game industry.

Another narrative explains that the so-called anti-Gamergate movement is simply trying to draw attention to social and cultural problems in the video game industry. Again, this fails to address the reality that many who criticize sexism, racism, bullying, and misogyny in the video game sub-culture are doing so to advance their own political agenda, and not to effect any serious reform in this medium we all hold dear.

And then there are trolls on both sides, who co-opt the conversation and confuse the debate.

In a way I'm sympathetic and hostile toward both sides. For those who subscribe to Gamergate, I understand 1) the desire to play games in peace and 2) wariness about the politicization of video gaming. And yet I think having an open, honest discussion about the cultural impact and legacy of video games is a conversation worth having.

For those who subscribe to anti-Gamergate, I appreciate the wide-angle view that games, like all media, do not exist in a vacuum; and that they are fair game when it comes to social criticism. Yet, I believe that the vast majority of video game enthusiasts are well-adjusted, well-meaning, respectful, fun-loving people that don't deserve to be lumped together with a fringe group of misanthropes who spew racist, homophobic, and sexist ideas.

So, it's a complex issue with many different layers. And it can't be summarized - let alone solved - in a sound bite. 

Just my two cents.

I really never got a clear answer either. Dunno which side I was supposed to be on v.v XD

the Antigamergaters arent gamer at all, they dont know the problems gaming has, they just want to get further with their SJW agenda.

gaming has problems with racism and sexism, but its not inside the GAMES, its inside the community, specialy multiplayer games.

i never heard from a  outspoken gamer gater that gaming should stay white and male or that harrasing of women in mp games is okay.

between hating women and laughing over tumbler"feminists" shitheads  is a looot of space.

In a nutshell:


View on YouTube

And the ongoing list of proof:

http://deepfreeze.it/

The concern over collusion and lack of disclosure among gaming journalists has been around for quite some time, the Grayson case was merely an in your face issue, that helped shed light on what's usually kept quite secret. Also, the only people you should be asking about what it is, are those within the movement. It's unusual to ask outsiders to define a movement (throughout history, most if not all movements have been allowed to define themselves, except in this case).

And for those who would think about arguing the merits of this, Lynn Walsh, of the SPJ (Society of Professional Journalism) during the Airplay event, agreed that the examples brought forth by the panelists, were in fact some severe transgressions (She helped write the SPJ's current code of ethics).  These included (but not limited to) writing articles about current/former roommates, friends, etc, as well as not disclosing conflicts of interests.

For me, I'm hesitant to use the tag, because of the negative tactics used in this issue.  I am, however, strongly concerned with the State of games journalism which I think is a very real issue considering Gaming is now the most profitable form of entertainment medium on the planet (and only going to get more profitable over time).  The amount of money and power involved here is quite concerning.  I'm also on record in numerous other threads, as being completely against any form of censoring or restricting a person's artistic/intellectual property.  It's theirs.  If you don't like it, or it doesn't match up to your principles/ideology don't buy it.  Plain and simple.

This is probably the best summary on the subject that you'll ever read.

It sounds like GamerGate was against any game with a (political) subtext when it was about not giving a (political) subtext where there is none.

Other than that great summary.

It's why Vita games never get the scores they deserve on Meta Critic ;p