I've followed the story somewhat remotely from the beginning. I see posts on /r/all occasionally and so on.

But I've got to admit I am confused about the discussions I see.

On the one hand, the pro-gamergate side, if I understand correctly, claims that its grievance is unfair reviewal of games. Namely that an unknown developer could, according to claims, sleep her way into good game reviews.

On the other hand, I see those same "pro" people post, or at the very least upvote significantly, anti-feminist rants and complaints about "SJWs."

My principle confusion is what does the second "movement" have to do with the first? Why, to support fairness in game reviewing, must one also be an MRA/anti-feminist?

I will admit upfront that I identify as feminst myself, that I do not recognize the feminism in such screeds as being what exists in reality. There certainly is a broader discussion and education that needs to exist about what feminism is and is not, but I don't think this is exactly the right location.

But I also identify as a nerd. I love to play video games (though, anything multiplayer is way too intimidating for me, so I don't really know any of that scene first-hand). I can very well support the idea of fairness in reviewing and reporting. In that regard I would be "pro-gamergate" I guess.

But from an outsider's perspective, the whole thing is so tainted and damaged by the MRA bullshit that there's no way I could feel like the movement represents my beliefs.

To draw a loose parallel, suppose you support the idea of libertarian "government governing least." And you see the Republicans who kind of do that... but then also want to govern what people do in the privacy of their own homes, who want to legislate "morality." You may want to be a Republican because of fiscal policy, but you have no idea why or how you're stuck supporting their moral agenda too. (please note, this is a rough parallel, and I do not care to engage in any discussion of why, exactly, my analogy is wrong. I think you get the point without it being perfect)

As an outsider, the gamergate "side" is now defined by MRAs and anti-feminism, far more than it is about pro-fairness-in-game-review/reporting.

Edit:

After some productive discussion, I think I have an answer to my question:

1. There exist unfair practices within the game-journalism community. People who believe <unlabeled thing X> are tending to only hire/publish people who also believe <unlabeled thing X>

2. GG is critical of the practices of external selection of people based on <X>

3. Some people then go further to start to critique <X> and not just the practice of hiring/publishing pro-<X> stuff.

if <X> was a religion, political party, race, favorite food type, whatever, one would somewhat naturally find the community attracts more anti-<X> people than pro-<X> people because it's easier to extend the critique from the practice to <X> itself than it is to say the practice is wrong, but <X> is still okay.

Personally, I still think

• self-selection plays a larger role here than the community maybe gives credit for. (ie, pro-<X> people are more likely to choose to work in such an industry)

• The broader national media doesn't give 2 shits about "gaming journalism ethics on relatively obscure websites." They do care an awful lot about death threats, the broader role of women in society, online harassment, and so on that the population at large will care about.

• If anyone actually did care to cover gamergate itself, the community would be best served, imo, by simply not saying anything about feminism. "I don't care to discuss what feminism is, what's good or not. The only thing we are here to discuss is the specific practices of discrimination in this case." (eg.)

• My opinions are, of course, my own. I know they're flawed, limited, and subject to my own biases. But I see what I see, and it's true that I see it. I think it's also true that a lot of others see what I see, and the community would be well served to not be so quick to dismiss external opinions as "conspiracy."

If there are any other interesting points to make, I'll try to comment on them. Otherwise, back to work for me.

Thanks for the solid discussion.