I disagree that they have a better claim. Let me know when Gamergate starts calling out their own dudebros. Let me know when they realize that this whole crusade is a waste of time and resources.
Different Gamersgaters are crusading against a lot of different things under the same banner, with various results.
- Those who actually intended to fight against corruption and cronyism in journalism will probably be disappointed by the result of their efforts.
- Those trying to defend the gaming community from "undue accusations" got a massive circle-jerk of gamers more closed to criticism than ever before, and a gaming press that will eventually have to mollify them.
- Those who hate gimmicky or artsy games and want developers to focus on their core audience are certainly helping the industry realise that inclusiveness and out-of-the-box thinking are falling out of style in this period of socio-economic decline.
- Those who are calling out the gaming media for their "progressive bias" aren't going unnoticed from the right-wing media machines, and will probably get their "fair and balanced" alternatives sooner or later.
- Those who want to punish these uppity, lying, man-hating, oppressive whores for their crimes already got what they were hoping for.
Needless to say, there is a LOT of overlap between these categories. The second one is by far the most federating, and they are definitely getting rewarded for their time and resources.
Also I don't really even know what MiniJust is. I doubt it's the entirety of everyone who disagrees with Gamergate. What, are we adding MORE labels to the pile?
Didn't find anything relevant on the Internets. I suppose it's a term UU invented to denigrate everyone whose ideas about social justice are more radical than his own, regardless of their degree of militantism. I mean, it's not like he can honestly attack SJWs on the "warrior" part anymore, since he has been displaying the exact same kind of partisanship and blind zeal lately.
Also, the idea probably comes from the novel
1984. The dystopian state's ministries all follow the same naming pattern of Mini + a shortened, ironic label for their functions: Miniplenty (rationing), Minipax (war), Minitru (propaganda), Miniluv (reeducation). Because SJW and radfems are clearly ruling the world with an iron fist, and nobody would ever dare to speak publicly against them or their opinions, right?
Okay, so you're not anti-GamerGate. And you made some good points. However, the crux of your argument (that GamerGate is dominated by misogynistic dudebros) is demonstrably wrong. Ergo, your argument that there are "no good guys or bad guys" is incorrect.
These are
my arguments, and I would very much like you to explain how you came to the conclusion that they are "demonstrably wrong". Because that's a pretty strong choice of words. One that is generally used not for subjective perceptions and opinions, but for factual statements. Statements such as, "Gamergate has never been about Zoe Quinn".
While I AM miffed at you for your latest bouts of militantism, do not take the question as an attack. This is an actual question and I am genuinely interested in your answer. Last week I got sick of stating my opinion over and over again, because I was just repeating myself, because I didn't find anything to amend my initial opinion that neither side is worthy of support. If anything, I would be elated to revise my purely negative stance on the matter for a more optimistic one.
Is this sufficient proof?
On one hand, the third one is no evidence at all, and the fourth one is obvious sarcasm.
On the other hand, did anyone
really need more proof that Zoe Quinn is a crummy person who cheated on her BF? Well, I guess so. But can we move on now, please?
