I'm very, very glad people are not letting gamergate proponents whitewash what the movement was, and sanitise their own involvement in it. Let's not forget that before he was sending frenzied gunmen into pizza parlours, Mike Cernovich was GG's "based lawyer"
I'm reminded of the bit from Basterds, about the nazis taking off their uniforms and settling down to cosy life after the war, and how they can't abide that. Well, people who were involved with that god damn harassment campaign don't get to walk away like their shit don't stink!
Now, the comparison to nazis might strike some as a bit much, but it's frankly accurate. It started with the "ironic nazis" on /pol/ and neo nazi sites like the Daily Stormer were among the first to pick up on it. To be involved in GG, you had to be ok with those bedfellows.
The site is no longer accessible, but Richard Spencer had people write about gamergate on his site Radix Journal, this is one of the few articles commenting about that:
The links between gamergate and overt white nationalism were quite apparent from the beginning. Gamergate hive 8chan admin Hotwheels wrote a pro-eugenics article for the Daily Stormer.
Now, some people claim they were drawn to it for genuine reasons, of wanting higher ethical standards in games journalism, and sure... I might buy that for some people, who may have been fooled briefly. But on the whole? Nah.
And I don't buy this because that kinda glosses over all of the groundwork that was already done by reactionary types with regards to Anita Sarkeesian and the extreme backlash against her Tropes vs Women in Videogames Kickstarter.
People entered gamergate off the back of this.
People also entered into it because of a pre-existing axe to grind with Gawker. If you've ever wondered why the GG sub on reddit is called Kotaku in Action, and why there's an extreme focus on Kotaku in particular, like the cheering when they were blacklisted by Bethesda...
Well it goes back to 2012 and Gawker doing an article about reddit user Violentacrez, who moderated among many others, the Jailbait (read: child porn) sub. In retaliation, many of the larger subs banned links from Gawker. It is with this lens you need to view people who joined GG
For those that are unaware about this, reddit has had many ahem let's say "unsavoury" subs that were only banned after they were exposed to media scrutiny, and they did indeed host kinda/maybe child porn. You can read more about that here:
So basically, Gawker came for reddit's CP, and all the worst dregs of the site held a grudge over that. This naturally was part of the reason why gamergate had such momentum, the targets had already been defined, all they needed was opportunity and an excuse/cover story.
Gamergate didn't just happen, there was all of this grievance bubbling up from back in 2012, the rational sceptic youtubers were already making videos about Anita. This is it's history, something that some of its proponents are now trying to whitewash. Don't let them.
Now, you might be wondering "Hang on a mo Sloth, they were angry Gawker took away their child porn? What is it with gamergate, nazis, and child porn, is this a pattern?"
The aforementioned Hotwheels famously refused to clamp down on child porn on 8chan.
Between reddit's /r/jailbat, 8chan, and Milo Yiannopoulos' pedophilia apology, yes gamergate had a pedophile problem. This was part of the reason why they were so quick to levy those accusations against their detractors; accuse the other of what you are guilty of.
This is why we absolutely cannot let people involved in the movement whitewash it, it has a very sordid history going back to 2012, and people who were a part of it from the start can't claim they were initially in it for the "ethics" but that it was later co-opted. It wasn't.
In order to claim it was co-opted, you have to ignore all of the abuse and harassment Anita Sarkeesian had already been on the recieving end, and pretend that that didn't lead up to what became the self-styled "ethics" movement. You knew what it was, and you were complicit.
Don't go along with people trying to whitewash their involvement with a hate group. Because they're not sorry about their involvement, they're sorry their hate group was exposed. And that's a key difference between someone who is genuinely apologetic for being duped by it.
That's why I can't abide people like Totaldipshit and Erik Kain pretending that the movement had altruistic goals to begin with, and then when it became too inconvenient for them to be associated with it, claim it had been co-opted after the fact. No, you were complicit.
Biscuit had been onboard with the harassment of Quinn before they even re-branded it to Gamergate. Again, these aren't folks who came in unknowingly, they were the ones who helped normalize it to their audiences.
By the way, the cover that GG was for any sort of journalistic ethics or reform was blown the very moment they aligned with Breitbart. You know, the very publication that made the bogus "Friends of Hamas" story about Chuck Hagel? That Breitbart?
Remember when Andrew Breitbart released maliciously edited footage which subsequently got Shirley Sherrod fired?
Remember when Breitbart and O'Keefe had to pay out $100,000 to the victim in their maliciously edited ACORN sting videos? Remeber that?
Remember that this guy was their champion? The guy who blamed video games for Elliot Rodger? Yeah, funny how they'd all hang off his every word when this is what he thinks of them. Remember his Tory Amos plagiarism? Yeah, Milo never met an ethic he didn't want to violate.
So either everyone involved with gamergate was so monumentally ignorant to have missed out on Blightshart's multiple, serious ethics violations, for which they've had to pay out loadsamoney to their victims... or, it was never about ethics in the first place? Which is it?
Were they too thick ( and I mean unable to tie their own shoelaces) to have missed Milo blaming videogames for a mass shooting, and calling gamers embarrassing, overweight, awkward and lazy... or, they didn't give a crap about games in the first place?
I mean, if you gave one damn about journalists attacking gamers, and blaming games as the cause of violence, then you would naturally be targeting your ire towards Yiannopoulos. So either you're for journalistic ethics, or you're with Milo and Breitbart. It can't be both.