She got death threats bro, she doesn't deserve sympathy?
One of things I still can't seem to get over is what exactly has GG done for/about corruption in games journalism? The only things I've seen come of it are getting ads pulled from Gamasutra for having an opinion piece by Leigh Alexander they didn't agree with, and getting ads pulled from Gawker cause some of the writers there were asses.
If you jump through any more hoops trying to paint GG as puppy-kicking, moustache-twirling villains you're going to put SeaWorld out of business. GG donating $71,000 to fund female game development doesn't count because they found out about the contest through mutually having been wronged by ZQ and some minute fraction of donators considered taking back their money because one ZQ didn't do one thing they thought she did? Who gives a shit?
As an aside, your definition of the word "spite" is flat-out wrong. It doesn't fit even if you assume nefarious motives.
You don't deserve my jokes.
I did say they were constructive things, the only constructive things to come out of GG. They count.
But as my chief objection to GG are their motivations and general lack of focus or intelligent leadership, guess what I'm not behind them since their motivations continue to be spiteful and extremely personal. It's actually not hard to agree with their basic assertions of 'most gaming media is too cozy with pubs.' It's everything else I find repellent.
So your theory is that thousands of people (at least a majority of people who use the GG hashtag) have spent tens of thousands of dollars and worked for over two months while coordinating over a publicly accessible forum to attack women in gaming. They've used such tricks as supporting women in gaming, occasionally being female themselves, and launching massive email campaigns against male and female game journalists to legitimize a cover story that they're actually about journalistic ethics. And yet there is no smoking gun that drives off people who've staked their careers on this, let alone people who joined just because they believed in the cover story?
First question: Why go through all this effort? Consider the lifespan of a legitimate troll campaign like #EndFathersDay. People have been on national TV saying it's about harassment, and the harassment campaign has backfired and furthered careers of several women in gaming. If "ethics" is a cover story, they've been made. Why not drop it and move on?
Second: Are you one of those assholes who thought Loose Change had a few good points?
Game journalism reform is the only GG platform. Everything else is a dismissive narrative from people who don't want to do their jobs well. GG continues to exist because rather than adhere to the set of ethical guidelines people expect from anybody who calls themselves a journalist, sites like Polygon and Kotaku literally mock the movement and try to dismiss it by saying it originated in misogyny. If the goal of GG was to harass Sarkeesian, Quinn, and Wu it would have ended when it started helping their careers.
I have to wonder why the denial that it has its roots in a pretty sexist invasion of someone else's privacy continues to this day. It's the main reason people find the hashtag repellent.
'yeah maybe it started out being about quinn but...' is reason enough to disregard it. Still want to insist that despite its legacy #GG is a legit campaign? Someone tell its founder, who yesterday was still convinced it should be about making sure the world thinks Anita Sarkeesian is faking the threats against her.
So what?
That's not very compelling.
Many early feminists were either in the Klan or associated with them. Therefore, feminism is a movement about lynching black people operating under a cover story of equal rights for women. The repeal of the 19th Amendment should be coming around any day now.
#CorrectionLogic
Most of #GG's recent efforts that are actually about journalism have been to silence dissenting opinions on, among other things, Bayonetta 2 reviews. Yes, that's ethics, making sure that someone who writes a story you didn't like is shut down while accusing feminists of being the ones who want to censor others. But let's keep deflecting because you're actually out of objectively good things to attribute to a hashtag with tons of hate and violent, focused threats dripping from it. Call me when GG's contributions to society amount to even a fraction of feminism, or fuck that, call me when they successfully kick out the influences seen in Milo Yiannopoulus or InternetAristocrat or thunderf00t or MundaneMatt or hell, even stop embracing the vile likes of Todd Kincannon.
This Christian video game reviewer can somehow manage to separate his feelings of the morality from his appraisal of a game's artistic merit, but Polygon can't? Fuck off.
I don't think you understand how ads work.
The consumer has every right to demand companies not support sites that disparage them or do not represent their views. People do it all the time outside the realm of video games and I'm sure if it was some feminist organization doing this because someone said things you disagreed with, you'd be all for it.
Just how deep do you go when you pull things out of your ass like this? Can you actually feel your fingers reaching your teeth?
Because the only thing game reviewers are allowed to put into their reviews are the things you allow them to put into their reviews, right? Fuck off.
Seriously, it's the mental decathlon when earlier I get pro-GG people telling me they want metacritic to go back to being a joke because that's how you reform the system of payola, the 7-10 review score spectrum and cozy relationships between publishers and reviewers, only to turn around and say 'that review writes about things that I don't want to see in a list of otherwise consistently glowing review, hay Nintendo pull your support for that particular publication, yeah that one, just that one. That'll teach Polygon to bring down the average!' Echoes of their Dragon's Crown review. For reals.