Ucchedavāda Originally Posted by There is no simple answer to that, since GamerGate is and always has been a mismash of different groups with widely different motivations:

[LIST][*]There were already people who had it in for Zoe Quinn before GamerGate, before the "Quinnspiracy", and who helped coordinate it and kick it off in the early days;[*]there are people who genuinely believe(d) that this was about unethical dealings in game journalism, though a lot of those seem to have become disillusioned by now, as the movement increasingly focused its attention on Feminists and "SJWs";[*]there are people who think that games and / or gamers are under attack in some form, and must be protected (see e.g. the response to the misnamed "Gamers are dead" collection of articles);



And I am probably forgetting some, on top of all the weird overlaps and cross-pollination between these groups.

Yeah, I think in the early days the "movement" gained much of its traction from people with no idea what the (presently obvious) intent was. If you weren't familiar with the group they were pretty good at misleading and presenting themselves as something reasonable--they don't seem to bother with that anymore since they have enough traction just being loud assholes blatantly hating women at this point.For a month or two it was pretty possible to be legitimately confused but imo were well past that point. But not everyone is well informed. I follow tons of game devs on Twitter so I still have to hear about this constantly no matter how much I wish I didn't have to.It also sucks they made a meme out of "ethics in games journalism" as it's now very difficult to discuss a real issue that was significant many times before these idiots came on the scene.