#Gamergate, the war on nerds, and the corruption of the left and the free press

[HeXen]

Have some milk and cookies guys...everyone will feel better. Then never return to such stupid threads ever again. Just go do your thing in life. It will be ok and if you think it won't then just remember this ....You will die someday. Then think, how important is Gamersgate anyway?

 

[CitizenKain]

What issue is gamergate supporting that you do not like?

Probably the harassing of women and sending death threats. Which is precisely what gamergate is about, and you are simply lying to yourself and others when you say otherwise.

 

[TheSlamma]

Probably the harassing of women and sending death threats. Which is precisely what gamergate is about, and you are simply lying to yourself and others when you say otherwise.

The good thing is, it keep the crazy people occupied with this complete waste of time while rational people can maybe focus on more important issues, like 2-ply vs 3.. cause yes that does carry more weight.

Lamersgate

 

[DrDoug]

I would consider myself as a Gamergater, and I dont and have never played BF anything. I suppose I dont pass the test of what a gamergater is?

Well let me fix that!

When you ask a gamergate nut about the last time they scored they respond with "Last night in <insert game here>!"

Now do you pass the test? :biggrin:

 

[werepossum]

Yes, you are imagining this. I've had many disagreements with feminists in my life and have never been accused of sexual impropriety.

You honestly sound mentally ill. At a minimum you appear to have some pretty serious emotional problems as it relates to women. Maybe you should talk to someone as all that misplaced rage isn't healthy.

He meant for men with penises.

Have some milk and cookies guys...everyone will feel better. Then never return to such stupid threads ever again. Just go do your thing in life. It will be ok and if you think it won't then just remember this ....You will die someday. Then think, how important is Gamersgate anyway?

Yeah, but that's a dangerous precedent. Virtually nothing in these forums is really important by that standard. Or at least, our "discussions" aren't.

 

[Painman]

This thread does not go well...

Let's refocus. It is about ethics in games journalism.

But that's where it gets complicated. Because games journalism is a cesspit, but the sewer dwellers are a bunch of lefty culture warriors this time.

And Misogyny is their worn-out battle cry. Who's scaring women away from STEM the most at the moment? The actual professionals in those fields, or the professional umbrage-takers?

Who is actually leading humanity forward at this very moment?

 

[justoh]

The real scandal is mouse acceleration.

 

[Painman]

The real scandal is mouse acceleration.

We solved that one back in the 70s with Cox .020 and .049 engines.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Let's refocus. It is about ethics in games journalism.

No it isn't. The whole movement started by going after a game developer, not a journalist. Then, when it became clear that this might be a bad PR move, people attempted to shift the focus from Zoe Quinn to the nebulous concept of "ethics in journalism." But literally every single battle they've fought has been opposed to ethical journalism. They want to censor people like Anita Sarkeesian and Leigh Alexander and Brianna Wu (who, like Zoe, is a developer, not a journalist) because they post op-eds that GG disagrees with. They want "objective reviews," a concept that doesn't even make sense since a review is inherently a subjective opinion. They want all talk of cultural considerations of gaming removed entirely unless it reinforces the status quo. But ethical journalism is not "never post an opinion your audience might find objectionable," and attempting to censor dissent is the antithesis of journalistic ethics.

If it's really about journalistic ethics, why has virtually every major publication come down against Gamergate? And not just gaming websites; places like The New York Times, or Time Magazine, or the Wall Street Journal, or NPR, or the BBC. Do they all just have a vested interest in unethical journalism? The only major publication that is demonstrably pro-gamergate is Breitbart; are they the paragons of journalistic integrity? The major "journalists" who have landed on the side of gamergate are Milo Yiannopoulos (not a gamer and has written articles openly hostile towards gamers in the past), Roosh V (not a gamer and openly misogynistic owner of Return of Kings), Davis Aurini (neo-Nazi), Ralph Retort (a self-described non-journalist muckraker) and Christina Hoff Sommers (not a gamer and opposed to modern feminism). Even Andrew Sullivan, while coming out in support of parts of Gamergate, decried their use of intimidation tactics and questioned whether it was even a battle worth having since the market isn't going to suddenly start ignoring its base. For a movement based around "journalistic ethics," they've been notably quiet on what that specifically looks like, and the one attempt they took at it was clearly written by someone who had zero training in journalism or ethics. Why, if the movement is so concerned with ethics, do big stories like "favors for positive coverage" with Shadows of Mordor or "review embargoes until after release" for AC: Unity get less response from the GG community than threads about Anita Sarkeesian's latest video?

So, no, it's not about journalistic ethics, it's about anti-feminism. That's why the go-to label for their opponents is not "unethical", it's "SJW." That's why unethical, non-gamer pseudo-journalists are held up as the paragons of journalistic integrity by gamergate as long as they are staunchly opposed to feminism or cultural critique of any kind. That's why they exclusively target non-journalist women like Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn or Brianna Wu or Jenn Frank or Maya Kramer or Felicia Day when they dare say anything critical but ignore it when it's done by someone who purports to be on their side (last year Milo Yiannopoulos called gamers "unemployed saddos living in their parents' basements" which sounds almost exactly like what Leigh Alexander wrote that got her excoriated by GG). A ridiculous double-standard that only women who speak out get harassed? Why that sounds just like ethics in journalism.

 

[QuantumPion]

They want to censor people like Anita Sarkeesian and Leigh Alexander and Brianna Wu (who, like Zoe, is a developer, not a journalist) because they post op-eds that GG disagrees with.

I disagree with most of your post but this especially. We want to defeat the feminazi's in the arena of ideas. Countering and critiquing their arguments is not censorship. On the other hand, using DMCA takedowns and twitter harassment bans, tactics which Anita and all the others themselves use to silence their opponents, IS censorship.

If it's really about journalistic ethics, why has virtually every major publication come down against Gamergate? And not just gaming websites; places like The New York Times, or Time Magazine, or the Wall Street Journal, or NPR, or the BBC. Do they all just have a vested interest in unethical journalism?

This seems pretty brain dead obvious to me and is the whole point of gamergate. These publications are strongly leftist oriented and thus wholeheartedly and unabashedly support leftist feminist ideas and agendas. Which goes back to my previous comment about the nature of gamergate - it is a combination of corrupt media and leftist feminists working together for mutual benefit.

So, no, it's not about journalistic ethics, it's about anti-feminism. That's why the go-to label for their opponents is not "unethical", it's "SJW." ...
That's why they exclusively target non-journalist women like Anita Sarkeesian or Zoe Quinn or Brianna Wu or Jenn Frank or Maya Kramer or Felicia Day when they dare say anything critical but ignore it when it's done by someone who purports to be on their side (last year Milo Yiannopoulos called gamers "unemployed saddos living in their parents' basements" which sounds almost exactly like what Leigh Alexander wrote that got her excoriated by GG). A ridiculous double-standard that only women who speak out get harassed? Why that sounds just like ethics in journalism.

When you replace "target" and "harrass" with "argue with" and "criticize", things sound a lot more reasonable. Using such hostile language is part of the problem. The reason why Anita and her ilk are the center of attention is because they make themselves the center of attention to begin with. GG'ers didn't just pick her out at random.

 

[Thebobo]

here she is!

Zoe Quinn speaks out: ‘All #Gamergate has done is ruin people’s lives’

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/...all-gamergate-has-done-is-ruin-peoples-lives/

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree with most of your post but this especially. We want to defeat the feminazi's in the arena of ideas. Countering and critiquing their arguments is not censorship. On the other hand, using DMCA takedowns and twitter harassment bans, tactics which Anita and all the others themselves use to silence their opponents, IS censorship.

You're right, she should resort to death threats like the classy folks over at gamergate.

This seems pretty brain dead obvious to me and is the whole point of gamergate. These publications are strongly leftist oriented and thus wholeheartedly and unabashedly support leftist feminist ideas and agendas. Which goes back to my previous comment about the nature of gamergate - it is a combination of corrupt media and leftist feminists working together for mutual benefit.

If a wide range of people are criticizing you it's not because you're acting badly, it's because they're all part of the conspiracy!

When you replace "target" and "harrass" with "argue with" and "criticize", things sound a lot more reasonable. Using such hostile language is part of the problem. The reason why Anita and her ilk are the center of attention is because they make themselves the center of attention to begin with. GG'ers didn't just pick her out at random.

I'm sorry that you are bothered by people describing the actions of gamergaters accurately. If they had stuck with 'criticize' and 'argue with' we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Hell, just look at the nutjobs in this thread. It's like a somehow even more pathetic version of a men's rights conference.

 

[qliveur]

I love how the white knights and the press are just assuming that the rape and death threats are being sent by GamerGaters and not by the feminazis to themselves in order to gain attention and sympathy. There is no evidence that the threats are genuine, but that doesn't seem to matter. :\

All one has to do is a little research and the track record of these people will speak for itself. But that takes some effort, and emotarded knee-jerking is so much easier.

 

[MrPickins]

I love how the white knights and the press are just assuming that the rape and death threats are being sent by GamerGaters and not by the feminazis to themselves in order to gain attention and sympathy. There is no evidence that the threats are genuine, but that doesn't seem to matter. :\

All one has to do is a little research and the track record of these people will speak for itself. But that takes some effort, and emotarded knee-jerking is so much easier.

SMH

 

[Londo_Jowo]

DP

 

[Londo_Jowo]

SMH

I don't know, there may be some validity to that. Not like people haven't carved swastikas on their faces, or claimed they were raped, covered in feces, and had racial things written on their body only to be later proven to be done by the person.

 

[MrPickins]

I don't know, there may be some validity to that. Not like people haven't carved swastikas on their faces, or claimed they were raped, covered in feces, and had racial things written on their body only to be later proven to be done by the person.

In this case, the feminists don't need false flag operations. There are plenty of extremists in the GamerGate movement to do that for them.

 

[fskimospy]

I don't know, there may be some validity to that. Not like people haven't carved swastikas on their faces, or claimed they were raped, covered in feces, and had racial things written on their body only to be later proven to be done by the person.

Anything is possible, but is that honestly the likely reason?

I mean this guy is practically foaming at the mouth about how much he hates all women. If he's a representative of gamergate it seems extremely likely that those threats are all genuine.

 

[lotus503]

I don't know, there may be some validity to that. Not like people haven't carved swastikas on their faces, or claimed they were raped, covered in feces, and had racial things written on their body only to be later proven to be done by the person.

Sure its possible, I think its more likely some basement dwellers actually are making the threats though.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I don't know, there may be some validity to that. Not like people haven't carved swastikas on their faces, or claimed they were raped, covered in feces, and had racial things written on their body only to be later proven to be done by the person.

Even if you discount all the threats, look at the way that GG supporters address women like Sarkeesian here in this fairly benign thread: feminazis, leftists, lefty culture warriors, lying twats, sociopathic con artists. You can't have a dialogue with someone who is literally describing you as a Nazi and eschews any discussion about issues in favor of vitriolic labels. Before Anita Sarkeesian blocked comments on her YouTube videos, thousands of people would come on calling her a "wise and beautiful woman"; now that she's blocked comments, she's "censoring" this productive line of commentary. So even if every single instance of death threats and doxxing is a false flag (and that's a stretch to believe), the movement is still populated with people who are more interested in screaming misogynistic insults at women than engaging in any sort of discussion. It's not just anti-feminist, it's anti-intellectual to boot. You can refute Anita's points using the same feminist theory she relies on, but that's a lot of work; let's just call her a bitch and high five each other for our (intellectually lazy) cleverness.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I love how the white knights and the press are just assuming that the rape and death threats are being sent by GamerGaters and not by the feminazis to themselves in order to gain attention and sympathy. There is no evidence that the threats are genuine, but that doesn't seem to matter. :\

All one has to do is a little research and the track record of these people will speak for itself. But that takes some effort, and emotarded knee-jerking is so much easier.

You need an even bigger shovel? Maybe you should move to one of these:

Do you never get tired of condemning yourself with your own words?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Sure its possible, I think its more likely some basement dwellers actually are making the threats though.

I'm sure some are making threats but that don't mean all are from basement dweller.

 

[Exophase]

Anything is possible, but is that honestly the likely reason?

I mean this guy is practically foaming at the mouth about how much he hates all women. If he's a representative of gamergate it seems extremely likely that those threats are all genuine.

I don't think he's representative of pro-GamerGate people, although people like him aren't that hard to find.

I agree with you that there are going to be real death threats. That'll be true for pretty much anyone with huge exposure on the internet, all the more so if they're controversial. I would have been surprised to learn someone like Zoe Quinn had not received such abuse online, although that's kind of a strange scenario because she would have never had much of an audience without it (even going back to when Depression Quest was greenlit)

Normally, you wouldn't have a good reason to think that someone is fabricating or exaggerating stories of abuse they've received. But Zoe Quinn isn't exactly normal. The story of how she claimed she stabbed someone to death who was attempting to rape her is well known (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152274323855882&set=a.412206445881.199341.597085881&type=1 in case you weren't aware). What's less well known (eg, to her supporters who argue that Mallorie Nasrallah made the whole thing up) is that she's made several similar claims about severely injuring assailants, in the form of posts that are still accessible and easily verified as her. Here's a sample of them:

http://i.imgur.com/K4MbxBE.jpg

Sure, these could all be true stories, but if so she's escaped an awful lot of criminal investigation. So it's not really a win for her either way. She's also made claims to her friends that Eron Gjoni himself sent death threats using his IP. But then somehow failed to bring this up in court against him, when it could have gotten him locked up.

This is just a portion of several accounts that paint her as being highly manipulative and deceitful. Is it really wrong to be skeptical of the level and nature of harassment she claims she's received (according to a recent article in The Guardian, "16GB worth") given a history of claiming harassment stories that are also pretty hard to believe? Does that make you a misogynist? Apparently to many people it does.

Everyone knows that very few people, men or women, are going to treat others this way. But those few who are willing to are also going to be the most interested in taking advantage of a platform that gives them this audience. And the "listen and believe" mentality the mass media and society in general is taking is giving such people an audience. Unfortunately, to the detriment of other victims.

You might ask why it matters if this one person happens to not be trustworthy. What does that change regarding the typical GamerGate narrative? A lot if your description of GamerGate is the kind that many people are given - a harassment campaign to attack Zoe Quinn for nothing more than making a game as a female, that is an expression of hatred towards all women. And if it comes from media sites that uncritically champion her and eagerly hang off of her every word and claim (or those like Brianna Wu who are themselves hardly models of mental health)

 

[Exophase]

It's not just anti-feminist, it's anti-intellectual to boot. You can refute Anita's points using the same feminist theory she relies on, but that's a lot of work; let's just call her a bitch and high five each other for our (intellectually lazy) cleverness.

People are like this about everything. Most would rather throw insults around than calmly debate something. But there are plenty of people in and out of GG supporters who do actually attempt rational arguments refuting her when asked.

 

[Blue_Max]

You have some serious issues with women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-iYPri69rk