this post was submitted on 14 Feb 2026
25 points (85.7% liked)

Wikipedia

4606 readers
158 users here now

A place to share interesting articles from Wikipedia.

Rules:

Recommended:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ClickAndPoint@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

It started with the whole Dorito pope thing and American capitalism really starting to choke creativity out of games and the few bits of honesty from gaming journalism. People who weren't active /v/irgins don't even know about that part. As expected, the Wikipedia article doesn't mention that either. Then American feminism. Then the weird relationship thing. Then Russian trolls on both sides fanning the flames. People would post screenshots of horrible and hateful posts on 4chan (what good luck they often happened to see them within minutes of them being posted...). Then the American white supermacists came to pick up and nurture all the young boys who were being demonized. Then American left being surprised that Trump gets elected so they hate on white men a bit more to fix that. Russian propaganda fans the flames a bit more.

It's funny how back then 13 year old SJW were screaming about there not being women, black people, trans people or gays in games. People on GG would make massive lists of games since the 80's that featured minorities - positively. Now you have 13 year old boys screaming that back when games were good, there were no women, black people, trans people or gays in them. The grown up SJWs could just give them the same lists.

One of the more prominent voices of anti-GG people is currently one of the most blocked people on Bluesky because she is seen as a turncoat. The feminist talker seems to have fallen from grace too after delivering underwhelming Kickstarter promises, despite banking quite a bit on the GG kerfuffle.

It was weird to be there and see it all happen first hand and then watch how the public narrative twisted and turned to support various political agendas. A great example of a piece of online history that will never ever be told with any degree of accuracy because so many people have a vested interest in telling their version of the story. So you can pretty much disregard everything I wrote. But it is a great cautionary tale about how easy it is to make people hate whole groups of other people.

[–] oreoreore@lemy.lol 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

As firmly as I am on the left, watching GG happen in real time and seeing plainly the manipulation and lying the Literally Whos orchestrated definitely made me want to distance myself from both sides. None of that is in the Wikipedia article.

Yeah, GG was completely hijacked by misogyny and alt-right politics and absolutely fuck Milo and the other proto-Trumpist cunts that paved the way for that but the common narrative that it began as just evil gamers attacking innocent women for daring to exist is a blatant lie. Funny how the article mentions the sockpuppets but seems very certain that everyone doing that were definitely on the GG side, not the antis harassing themselves to have more ammo. People were caught doing this multiple times but it's all been conveniently buried. There was a massive culture of fear built around being even slightly critical of anyone on the anti side so nobody without a significant established online presence dared to speak up. The article doesn't mention the amount of death treats and harassment people who did speak got from the antis either. Because again, nobody dared to even acknowledge it, lest they be considered to be on the wrong side. The natural consequence of that was that it was a whole lot of anonymous people flinging shit at each other, and the only safe option was to either be quiet, or be a vocal victim of GG. Like you say, many young men who were involved in it then found themselves warmly welcomed by actual neo-nazi shitheads that had been lurking on 4chan for many many years and of course, manipulating GG for their own ends as well.

Nobody is immune to propaganda.

edit: and these days I don't trust anyone whose online presence revolves around any kind of controversy. It's all just cash flow.

[–] ClickAndPoint@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

For me GG was a great example of why anonymous online environment is not for political discussion, and I generally speaking avoid it. Especially for controversial topics.

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fell for this initially but bailed out as soon as gamergaters started saying bigoted stuff about gay people.

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Started as one thing and changed to something completely different.

Paid promotions are everywhere nowadays. Want your thing in a news article? Few hundred bucks and yahoo publishes your propaganda as an article. No mention of it being paid either.

There’s no ethics in journalism because there’s generally no ethics in business whatsoever.

[–] ccunning@lemmy.world 13 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

This always felt like the turning point for the decline of online discourse to me.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

Yeah, the fact that Epstein was a fan of 4chan and hung out with moot makes everything about this moment make a lot more sense in retrospect

[–] GiveOver@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago

Same. 2015-16 is when I think everything went to shit. Gamergate. Brexit. Trump. The internet stopped being fun and turned into what it is now.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I remember this starting and just being confused. Somebody made an indie game, some people didn't like the game, and her ex boyfriend says she slept with a guy who blogged about it? Why does anyone who's not directly involved with the situation care?

[–] Zephorah@discuss.online 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Because gaming is a man’s space. The subset of men who believe that statement were looking for a reason to yell about it.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I was surprised to learn that many young men were that sexist. If anything, I figured gamer men would be glad to have more women around because it would increase their chances of getting laid.

[–] Trudge@piefed.social 1 points 12 hours ago

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Losers are exclusionist, no matter where you find them. 

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes and the larger picture given was how SJWs (what year is it) were trying to police gaming.

I thought that was going to be the equivalent of Tipper Gore going after metal and hip-hop.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I do remember earlier moral panics about violent video games and music lyrics, but the suggestion that people trying to police political correctness in games was the same kind of threat seemed absurd to me.

On the other hand, the first Witcher game from 2007 has cards the player collects as achievements for having sex with female NPCs, and that doesn't seem like something a major title in 2026 would do unless it was actively trying to be provocative.

[–] atro_city@fedia.io 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Gamergate was such a wild time. SJWs suddenly started picking apart games for anything they considered offensive. Now nazi-snowflakes are picking apart games for anything they consider "woke" or DEI. "hurrduur, it has one non-white, must be wOKe". The pendulum has swung the other way and maybe in 10 years it'll be back at "ermagerd, her b**bs are too big, that's sexist!".

[–] morriscox@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

I like "Nazi-snowflake". I use "orange snowflake".

[–] makeshiftreaper@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

One of the craziest parts in retrospect to me is Adam Baldwin (Jayne from Firefly (no, not one of those Baldwins)) is the guy who coined the actual term "Gamergate"