I suspect I might be feeding the troll, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Gamergate might have very initially been about 'ethics in games journalism', but it didn't stay that way very long. It was very quickly infested with racist, sexist trolls. All that stuff with the lady that supposedly slept with someone to get good reviews, or whatever? Turned out that was total bunk. That was proved within a couple of weeks.
Guess what, KotakuInAction still exists. It doesn't really matter whether the initial idea was right, though. If they'd been right initially, their later actions would still be wrong. And they were wrong initially in reality, and it hasn't stopped them from continuing their shit.
For quite a long time, I dismissed the criticisms of Gamergate because I really had nothing to do with it. I read the initial couple of news articles and watched a couple of videos with some outrage and kind of went 'yeah no shit, IGN gets paid to give good reviews, not news'. I then basically ignored them for years. I would hear that they were toxic this or problematic that and I dismissed it, because I thought their initial points seemed solid enough.
Then when I actually went back and looked at it, it had basically turned into TheRedPill. KotakuInAction and GamerGate are really not worth defending.
---
The rest of the topics are pretty similar: all differing levels of controversial, and with echo chamber subreddits heartily happy to advocate for them and heartily happy to advocate against them.
The word 'toxic' is only used by one of those sides, but the other side generally uses far worse language to describe their 'opponents' if you want to use that term. I think being described as 'toxic' is a little better than being described as 'worthy of being shot' or whatever other horrible things people in TRP, The_Donald and such tend to say.
Plus sometimes echo chambers are actually good. When you want to discuss the finer points of something, being able to just say 'this is not a subreddit for debating the merits of ideology X just because it's called /r/X, go to /r/DebateX please' is fine. One of the biggest problems with reddit is that in comparison to old-style forums it's so ephemeral. Other than the (maximum 2) stickies and sidebar links there's little in the way of permanent material in any subreddit, so you end up having the same introductory surface-level discussions again and again and again.
Reddit is a social news website first and foremost. It's not good at discussions at all.
Gamergate might have very initially been about 'ethics in games journalism', but it didn't stay that way very long. It was very quickly infested with racist, sexist trolls. All that stuff with the lady that supposedly slept with someone to get good reviews, or whatever? Turned out that was total bunk. That was proved within a couple of weeks.
Guess what, KotakuInAction still exists. It doesn't really matter whether the initial idea was right, though. If they'd been right initially, their later actions would still be wrong. And they were wrong initially in reality, and it hasn't stopped them from continuing their shit.
For quite a long time, I dismissed the criticisms of Gamergate because I really had nothing to do with it. I read the initial couple of news articles and watched a couple of videos with some outrage and kind of went 'yeah no shit, IGN gets paid to give good reviews, not news'. I then basically ignored them for years. I would hear that they were toxic this or problematic that and I dismissed it, because I thought their initial points seemed solid enough.
Then when I actually went back and looked at it, it had basically turned into TheRedPill. KotakuInAction and GamerGate are really not worth defending.
---
The rest of the topics are pretty similar: all differing levels of controversial, and with echo chamber subreddits heartily happy to advocate for them and heartily happy to advocate against them.
The word 'toxic' is only used by one of those sides, but the other side generally uses far worse language to describe their 'opponents' if you want to use that term. I think being described as 'toxic' is a little better than being described as 'worthy of being shot' or whatever other horrible things people in TRP, The_Donald and such tend to say.
Plus sometimes echo chambers are actually good. When you want to discuss the finer points of something, being able to just say 'this is not a subreddit for debating the merits of ideology X just because it's called /r/X, go to /r/DebateX please' is fine. One of the biggest problems with reddit is that in comparison to old-style forums it's so ephemeral. Other than the (maximum 2) stickies and sidebar links there's little in the way of permanent material in any subreddit, so you end up having the same introductory surface-level discussions again and again and again.
Reddit is a social news website first and foremost. It's not good at discussions at all.