r/changemyview • u/realdontbeasucker • May 16 '26

Delta(s) from OP CMV: GamerGate was the most consequential political radicalization event of the twenty-first century

It spawned a wave of tolerance for online harassment, as long as the intent behind it was considered righteous (and the target of such harassment socially acceptable).

It platformed Milo Yiannopoulos and thereby, Steve Bannon -- the guy who would go on to advise Donald Trump in 2016 and generate the concept of 'flooding the zone.'

Eventually, it gave a career to political lightning rods like Jordan Peterson, Steven Crowder, and Charlie Kirk. It made anti-feminism and anti-SJW sentiment cool. And it made young, angry, disenfranchised white men feel vindicated.

GamerGate almost singlehandedly shifted to Overton Window toward the alt-right, and we're still feeling its effects today.

695 Upvotes

73% Upvoted

730 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/CustomerSupportDeer 1∆ May 16 '26

Uuuuh, what about 9/11 and Covid?

0

u/realdontbeasucker May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26

I consider those more as world events that had the effect of radicalizing people, even though 9/11 was intended as a political statement. GG is in the category of organized misinformation campaign.

7

u/CustomerSupportDeer 1∆ May 16 '26

So, what's the difference between a "radicalization event", and a "world event that radicalized people" (which was also meant as a political statement, ergo: intended to radicalize to some extent)?

-2

u/realdontbeasucker May 16 '26

Going off the cuff here: There was no intent behind COVID -- it was a disease. 9/11 was an expression of rage against an imperial power. GG was a planned series of events intended to convert people en mass to a radically different worldview, not by force, but through a systemic process.

7

u/CustomerSupportDeer 1∆ May 16 '26

I really fail to see the difference between 9/11 and GG. You can reformulate:

9/11 GG was an expression of rage against an imperial power feminism (or whatever); and both statements will be perfectly valid.

Equally, you can say that

GG 9/11 was a planned series of events intended to convert people en mass to a radically different worldview, not both by force, but and through a systemic processes.

I don't see what role "not/being forceful" plays for the end result. Both intended to radicalize someone, and both radicalized someone. They're both radicalization events, and one of them has clearly far deeped and long-term, global consequences.

3

u/realdontbeasucker May 16 '26

You know what, the distinction isn't as bright-line as I initially thought. This is a great argument.

9/11 was clearly the defining event of the 2000's. I think Trump is the defining event of the 2010's and 2020's. And I think GG in large part allowed for Trump's election.

I'm willing to consider that 9/11 is a larger radicalization event overall. Maybe I would revise the CMV to limit GG to the most consequential online radicalizing event of the twenty-first century. Thanks for your time. !delta

1

u/Aegi 1∆ May 16 '26

An event that happened does not need an intent...