A clean analysis ; Gamergate.

[Jodwin]

Bucket said:

That [book about 9/11 conspiracy theories / government rebuttal / Bible / atheist manifesto] is only one of many sources. I hesitate to spam this thread with articles, because it's not my responsibility to inform people. I assume they're as informed as I am until proven otherwise; they have the same access to the same information as I do. The difference, it seems, is that I can discern which sources are irrefutable fact, which are tinfoil-hat speculation, and which are repeated lies. Would you like an illustration?

Yeah, no, you don't really get to pull that card just because you've chosen to support a side which holds the moral high ground in your eyes.


@Freeze: And how many of those sources provide a neutral point of view instead of repeating and thus reinforcing an already existing narrative? Having ten supposedly reputable sources echoing the same story is no different than having one source, that's how it works in academia as well: You don't copy someone else's work, you do your own individual research which produces its own results that are then reported as-is. So lets see those medias put some actual journalistic effort into their work and maybe they'll be worth a thing as sources. Or do you consider the cited Guardian article, titled "How to attack a woman who works in video gaming" to be worth a damn?

[CorSair]

Bucket said:

Since you're being especially obtuse today, here's another post with explicit instructions on how to use #NotYourShield:
http://img.pixady.com/2014/09/202517_bwm9q3ciaaxi4t.jpg

Is it wrong to gather in the internet, to post thoughts, and have conversations how to proceed? Read this. It is not black and white matter. Not even the cesspits of the internet.

Does the fact that it was done in some corner of internet, detract the issue of generalizing? Are you saying, that gamers which are gay/lesbian, female, ransperson, black or asian, irrelevant? Sorry, but I am getting this thought of your posts.

Do you think, that they, all those women in the video, have no idea what they are doing? Think again. See the Huffpost Live video I posted earlier here. Listen them. BELIEVE them.

Link for more opinions, this time; Diamondback.

Bucket said:

And here's the first volley of hashtags. The posts seem oddly similar, and they're not all retweets.
http://topsy.com/s?q=%23notyourshield&window=a&sort=-date

he hashtag #NotYourShield, along with #GamerGate hashtag, helps to establish the foundation that not everyone is WHITE CIS MALE GAMER. And it was only beginning to gather momentum. Not a lotta people immediately jumped, but when they did, wow.

Bucket said:

And yes, RationalWiki is neutral. If you disagree, maybe you could provide some proof of what specific agenda it promotes.

You have infocentral
cool story bro
I have infocentral too

KnowYourMeme

Encyclopedia Dramatica

KYM has been usually the friendliest place of the internet. And usually, they do good job.

And don't tell ED is invalid choice of source. I think it is good to have contrary opinion compared to... "Rationalwiki."

Speaking of ED and Rationalwiki... Here's good breakdown of the Rationalwiki in reality. ;)

MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION: Are you objective enough to question the cited sources, and ready for trip to see any dissenting opinions?

[h.brick]

Not gonna speak for the objectivity of RationalWiki (only been there once or twice), but the fact that you're citing ED as a source is really sad. What is this... fucking 2007?

Actually, scratch that. People didn't use ED as a valid source even in 2007. It was mostly an info hub for alleged "lulzcows" or whatever pimply keyboard commandos called them, and even calling it an "info hub" is being generous.

Before you get on my ass about saying that, you have to understand my context. This is coming from someone who gathers information in a semi-academic, progressive context... and who is majoring in Communications. When, in the first sentence of the ED article, people are referred to unironically as "fags", how do you expect me to take that seriously?

You have to understand the practice of establishing credibility for your argument. When you cuss, that can diminish credibility. When you use the word "faggot", your credibility is gone -- because everyone who hates that word automatically x'es out of the article and goes back to Gawker, Kotaku, HuffPo, or wherever else. The worse thing is that, nothing about being pro-#gamergate requires the use of the word 'faggot'

And you wonder why the mainstream media wants nothing to do with you? Well geez... look no friggin' further.

[doomgargoyle]

Jodwin said:

Yeah, no, you don't really get to pull that card just because you've chosen to support a side which holds the moral high ground in your eyes.


@Freeze: And how many of those sources provide a neutral point of view instead of repeating and thus reinforcing an already existing narrative? Having ten supposedly reputable sources echoing the same story is no different than having one source, that's how it works in academia as well: You don't copy someone else's work, you do your own individual research which produces its own results that are then reported as-is. So lets see those medias put some actual journalistic effort into their work and maybe they'll be worth a thing as sources. Or do you consider the cited Guardian article, titled "How to attack a woman who works in video gaming" to be worth a damn?

It is a fact, that zoe quinn harrassed the members of the wizardchan channel. There's ip logs to prove it.

A: I first became involved in Wizardchan when I saw it linked from 4chon.net in December of 2012. I was a regular poster until the original administrator of the site, mr_pacific, wanted to sell it. He was tired of the site and needed money. The community was very small then but I decided to buy it from him and I was the administrator from March 2013 to September 2013. I resigned from the site because the main rule of the site is that only male virgins are allowed to post, and I lost this status.

I was friends with the subsequent admin of Wizardchan, Glaive, who was in charge during the Zoë drama. The way it was described in the media is not the way that it happened at all. Many Wizardchan users are very depressed and have trouble even ordering pizza over the telephone, muchless calling someone they don’t know and making threats. The threatening posts made on Wizardchan were made by Zoë herself for attention and by trolls from other websites, as was confirmed by IP checks. Some media outlets recanted their story, but by then the damage was already done.

[doomgargoyle]

BMW pulls out advertisement from Gawker!

https://i.imgur.com/sPemEPx.jpg

Another win for the white cis privileged sexist woman-hating neckbeards of the patriarchy!

[CorSair]

@h.brick

ED is definitely place you don't usually want to tread, if your skin is thin. And their motto is: "In lulz, we trust." It was solely based on this, from the time of LiveJournal, they gathered all sorts of drama from there, and eventually, they began to expand to cover all dramatic stuff happening in internet, IRL and even from past, to turn it into parody and satire.

But out of all places, when internet drama is ensuing, dramacrats and ediots of ED are digging out all sorts of stuff. Rumors, shit... Facts. ED twists all them into cringeworthy, mean and outright slandering and shaming position, into their wiki. If you ever get mention in ED, NEVER get pissed. Because holy fuck, they love it when you get mad. And trying to take ED down... I'll let you think how that goes.

Spoiler

Their usual response to that: lol

And ED has their own forums. And everything what comes into their wiki, usually goes here. Not everything, mind you. But most of them. And they usually link to sources, and they go to controversial sites, too. They dig EVERYTHING. Anything that makes shit even funnier, they're gonna post it. And when they see anything illegal... They are like normal citizen does, report it, let time pass... And take out soda and popcorn bags and watch the meltdown happening.

Again, this is more directed to 4chan/8chan, but generally, it is good guide for controversial places.

If you keep dismissing ED as a place of bigotry, racism, sexism and misanthropy, you have only scraped the surface. This is what they want, they WANT to make you believe they are the worst place of the internet. (Actually, it is, but that's just my personal taste.) But believe it or not, there are normal people in there, with jobs, even someone who is lawyer spends their time there. The thing that connects them, is that they all love the drama and shitflinging. And they document it.

And if I didn't make it clear, I am only lurker and observer of the internet. If you still wish to think ED is something no one should associate, then think it so. I don't mind, that's your opinion. Internet is never that easy thing to learn, especially, when everything is not always black and white.

(And yes, I personally think nobody should link to ED, especially if someone, like you who is aim for majors in Communication. But no one prohibits lurking there. ;) )

[h.brick]

But see, that's where trusting ED is a self-fulfilling prophecy. You and I, long-time lurkers of the Internet, might know that there's a little more to ED than just calling people "faggots" all day. But put yourself in the shoes of an underpaid, overworked reporter for CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, etc. Assume they've never heard of ED before.

When they do research on this subject they're gonna see the SJW side of things and see "feminism! womens' rights! diversity!" and go "hmmm. now that's not all bad". Then they're gonna see the #GamerGaters going all "I don't know why anyone would want to sleep with that disgusting whore. I'm going to murder Anita Sarkeesian. Fuck you SJW faggots!" and go "ooooo... these guys seem like bad news".

On one hand, it's up to Journalist to conduct the research to back their positions up. That's what journalists do. But on the other hand, how can you blame them for painting GamerGate the way they do? When a lot of #GamerGaters see someone threaten Anita out of her home and either 1) don't call it out for being unethical or 2) actively encourage it, they are implying association with that person's beliefs. Guilt by association isn't a crime in the judicial system, but in the court of public opinion it's a death sentence. Whether it's right or not, that's just the cold, hard reality of how public opinion works. The media both influences and is influenced by public opinion.

The #GamerGaters' biggest problem is that they know fuckall about how to conduct a successful PR campaign -- a painfully apparent problem in the past month or so. That's really gonna hurt their chances of being taken seriously by an influential body -- I can guarantee that.

[Technician]

h.brick said:

The #GamerGaters' biggest problem is that they know fuckall about how to conduct a successful PR campaign

That's kind of hard when it's a grassroots-styled movement. There are figureheads, but no leaders or organizers.

[june gloom]

At least this place is better than TTLG. :(

[deathz0r]

Mr. Freeze said:

Skimming that article, I see citations by...

-The New York Times
-The New Yorker
-Forbes
-The Globe and Mail
-Ars Technica
-The Guardian
-Salt Lake Tribune
-Washington Post

Some bias here, totally. It isn't because decent people across the board see this movement for the mess of bullshit that it is, surely it's a conspiracy!

Most of those sources only bother to allow the anti-GG side to talk rather than attempt to give a neutral ground. The closest thing that has happened in regards to giving both sides the ability to speak is with the series of live panels that Huffington Post hosted last week. Why did you not list them as a source?

Bucket said:

Like I said: misinformed.
Mostly due to whitewashing cons like you.

Why are you so resistive towards the notion that women people don't have to agree with third-wave feminism? I highly recommend reading this extremely well-detailed tumblr post if you have any inclination to think critically about the fearmongering you enjoy doing:

http://check-your-privilege-feminists.tumblr.com/post/95979451581/i-dont-understand-how-are-you-not-a-feminist

I don't care about Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu. They are mostly just a distraction from what the real issue is, and why I personally support Gamergate - the blatantly open contempt that game journalists have towards gamers. There's also the whole recent controversy around Shadow of Mordor with regards to paying Youtubers for review copies and explicitly telling them not to post anything negative about the game.

With that said in mind, there is plenty of things to fault with pro-GG supporters, mostly in that they have a tendency to go just as full-retard as the anti-GGers on Twitter.

[fraggle]

deathz0r said:

I highly recommend reading this extremely well-detailed tumblr post if you have any inclination to think critically about the fearmongering you enjoy doing:

http://check-your-privilege-feminists.tumblr.com/post/95979451581/i-dont-understand-how-are-you-not-a-feminist

Literally the first screenshot in the article is from the "#EndFathersDay" Twitter hashtag, a hoax started by 4chan. "this is how the current feminist movement looks right now" indeed.

lmao

[deathz0r]

fraggle said:

Literally the first screenshot in the article is from the "#EndFathersDay" Twitter hashtag, a hoax started by 4chan. "this is how the current feminist movement looks right now" indeed.

lmao

Everything posted afterwards is invalidated by the second screenshot (not the first!) showing a hoax that people fell for? Come on, you can do better than that

[doomgargoyle]

deathz0r said:

Most of those sources only bother to allow the anti-GG side to talk rather than attempt to give a neutral ground. The closest thing that has happened in regards to giving both sides the ability to speak is with the series of live panels that Huffington Post hosted last week. Why did you not list them as a source?
Why are you so resistive towards the notion that women people don't have to agree with third-wave feminism? I highly recommend reading this extremely well-detailed tumblr post if you have any inclination to think critically about the fearmongering you enjoy doing:

http://check-your-privilege-feminists.tumblr.com/post/95979451581/i-dont-understand-how-are-you-not-a-feminist

I don't care about Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu. They are mostly just a distraction from what the real issue is, and why I personally support Gamergate - the blatantly open contempt that game journalists have towards gamers. There's also the whole recent controversy around Shadow of Mordor with regards to paying Youtubers for review copies and explicitly telling them not to post anything negative about the game.

With that said in mind, there is plenty of things to fault with pro-GG supporters, mostly in that they have a tendency to go just as full-retard as the anti-GGers on Twitter.

Exactly, there's trolls and extremists on both sides. But these anti-gg people keep crying mysogyny, harrasment, and the unholy female sarkessian/quinn/wu trinity just to make noise to divert the attention from the real issue which is corruption and consumer rights. The shadow of mordor thing is another example of this corruption and cozyness between the industry and its media. Seems like youtubers sold out too.

But on the matter of games, I disagree with all their notions. Games are a way to forward a political agenda. Games dont have to be "inclusive", or "exclusive". There's nothing wrong with Bayonetta 2's tits. Games dont have to apologize to nobody and make excuses for anyone's perceived "oppression". And games dont have to accommodate to the requirements of third wave feminism.

[Bucket]

Jodwin said:

Yeah, no, you don't really get to pull that card just because you've chosen to support a side which holds the moral high ground in your eyes.

People on both sides claim moral authority; at least one of them has to be bullshit. I've chosen to support the side with the most concrete evidence in its corner. Do you disagree with my assessments of what is irrefutable fact, tinfoil-hat conspiracy, or a repeated lie? Let's see your work.

CorSair said:

KYM has been usually the friendliest place of the internet. And usually, they do good job.

And don't tell ED is invalid choice of source. I think it is good to have contrary opinion compared to... "Rationalwiki."

Speaking of ED and Rationalwiki... Here's good breakdown of the Rationalwiki in reality. ;)

Hardly. By your admission ED is a parody site (satire is a stretch). Parody is a distortion of reality by definition, so it's telling that GG'ers are informing their views from there. KYM might be a detailed account of he-said-she-said, but it makes exactly zero effort to prove or falsify any allegations. RW is unique in that it's actually done the research into those claims. You don't have to take their word for it; you can peruse their dozens of citations. If you weren't an intellectually lazy piece of shit, you'd discover them for yourself and not make me post the findings directly in this thread.

Sure, ED has its share of screendumps Photoshops sources - but as I said before, it's all connect-the-dots circumstantial evidence and no smoking gun. You might value Fair And Balanced sources, but to paraphrase Jon Stewart: "Sometimes one side is just wrong."

deathz0r said:

Everything posted afterwards is invalidated by the second screenshot (not the first!) showing a hoax that people fell for? Come on, you can do better than that

There's a word that seems appropriate for that. It's right on the tip of my tongue... oh, right. "Misinformed". Weird how that word keeps coming up. I don't have to hate minorities/women or believe they're all sockpuppets to refute NYS. They could also be useful idiots. That's not a slight on them; that's an indictment of a movement that has to manage information carefully in order to proliferate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uPcthZL2RE

doomgargoyle said:

Exactly, there's trolls and extremists on both sides. But these anti-gg people keep crying mysogyny, harrasment, and the unholy female sarkessian/quinn/wu trinity just to make noise to divert the attention from the real issue which is corruption and consumer rights.

For shits and giggles, let's do a thought experiment and remove the trolls and baiters from both sides of the equation. This is already a generous proposal; I'm still waiting for that list of pro-GG figures who have been driven from their homes and jobs to escape harassment and threats. So let's reduce GG to genuine grievances. Since GG was conceived, all that's new in the "games journalism ethics" world is the fact that maybe game critics shouldn't donate to indie projects. This hardly registers for me, and clearly the community at large. I can't say the same for people who want to hold game bloggers to the same standard of integrity as, say, Pulitzer-winning reporters in the Korean DMZ.

That's all you've got; no other GG issues hold up to scrutiny (unless you want to count "feminists are ruining my games" as a legit grievance, in which case, LOL). That includes the issues that LAUNCHED GAMERGATE IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE. GG is batting .001 even when it comes to its main impetus. As movements go, that's pathetic.

[fraggle]

deathz0r said:

Everything posted afterwards is invalidated by the second screenshot (not the first!) showing a hoax that people fell for? Come on, you can do better than that

Not at all, but when the very opening to the article includes a known, well-documented hoax, it says a lot about the rest of what you're going to read. But it's not the only thing. Half of those pictures at the start don't appear to have anything to do with feminism at all, despite the fact that the text preceding them states "this is how the current feminist movement looks right now". At least one of the screenshots seems to be from an obvious parody/troll tumblr account.

As for the rest, it's mostly cherry-picking. Is anyone surprised that it's possible to dig up a bunch of quotes that make feminism look bad? Some of those are from the '60s and '70s (how exactly is this representing third-wave feminism which began in the '90s?) - and come from sources such as the intentionally provocative SCUM manifesto.

The cherry-picking continues throughout the article. Particularly egregious is the list of violent acts committed by women. Now, I should clarify straight away that I don't wish to diminish the seriousness of these acts: violence by any person against another is wrong, regardless of the gender of the attacker or the victim.

What I'm asking is: what's the point of all this? Again, is it surprising to anyone that sometimes women are violent and it's not just men? Or that it should be possible to make a long list of news articles about such acts?

If you want to see something less biased then here's a list of studies into domestic violence. Overwhelmingly women have a harder time. Again, I'm not saying that violence against men should just be ignored. But if the statistics overwhelmingly show that women suffer the most, shouldn't we be asking why?

The article says this to explain why this list is there:

The crimes that have been committed by sick individuals like Elliot Rodger are horrible, no one is arguing about that. But is it really good to use those isolated incidences to further your own agenda? If so, then these other incidences would also make it clear that there is a huge problem of female perpetrated violence and misandry in society as well:

But it's an oversimplification of the issue. What made Elliot Rodger's shootings notable wasn't the fact that he killed a load of women: it was the fact that he explained in detailed terms (through his "manifesto" and videos) exactly *why* he did it. He had developed a philosophy of hating women, but his motivations were sort of a distorted and exaggerated version of stereotypical societal attitudes by men towards women. The kind of beliefs that Elliot Rodger had are shared - to a much lesser extent - by many men. That was the purpose of the subsequent "YesAllWomen" Twitter hashtag, which documented women's experiences of being on the receiving end of these kinds of attitudes.

I guess what I find most disturbing about this article you've linked to is the overall narrative: first some cherry-picked screenshots to portray feminists as crazy, then some cherry-picked quotes to portray feminism as a kind of violent philosophy, some stuff about "false rape reports" and how feminism is oppressing men, and a couple of big long lists of articles about violence committed by women and suicide rates among men, all to solidify the narrative about how evil crazy feminists are oppressing men.

It's basically a persecution complex and it's no less ridiculous than any of the other persecution complexes we tend to see, like Christians complaining they're being oppressed because their historical special treatment is being taken away, or white rednecks moaning that Obama is oppressing them and trying to take their guns away. The entire article is a cherry-picked propaganda piece intended to promote a preconceived narrative and I'm kind of amazed that you were actually taken in by it and seriously thought it was a good article.

[FireFish]

The mere thought of using a mentally diseased individual as an example to prove 'woman hate' shared under all men
in the west is rather 'odd' coming from a person trying his best to write decent responses.
--- End of answer to fraggle.

It is about time to add to the opening analysis, again this is meant to be objective.
To long and did not read means you can not even quote or use one sentence out of this, it is a whole.

People A ;
A Woman sleeping around for reviews, they name this gamergate, the gamer scandal like watergate. Gamergate is a new
name for what almost nobody knew to have even existed called the 'quinspiracy', a conspiracy theory about a woman
sleeping with men for reviews. Nobody on the entire internet knows for certain what happened, and there is no real
journalism on real news channels to be seen anywhere covering the subject, The reasons why are simple and pure logic...

People B ;
They are getting lured in by fake posts and profiles on websites frequented by gamers. suddenly there is mention of
a western rape culture under gamers of apocalyptic proportions as if gamers just chose a woman for every minute to
do as they please, and unpunished. This creates a domino effect where 'easy to fool' people visit the offending
userbase and the 'mysterious and dark' 4chan random section only to get offended and photoshopped...
This is enough to get the less thoughtfull 'feminists' going along...

People C ;
these are people claiming its all about consumers. We the consumer need protection from evil gaming companies and
reviewers getting a video game in the mail to review or preview. Or in other words ; even in the 90's back when true
gaming magazines still hold reign, they received previews; betas, alpha's, and review copies. Even Doom has
press-release versions... This group thinks the consumer is being cheated and played with because indie games get
high votes on a democratic voting system where the consumer himself / herself is voting on what they like. There
they use gamergate (quinspiracy) to act as if everybody just sleeps around to get votes on websites and programs not
even remotely related to the freelance 'gamer' site where it supposably started.

People D ;
These are the people insulting, trolling, attacking, and attempting to degrade everybody anywhere while claiming
to be superior and decent humans fighting for the good of woman and consumers. This grants them the license to do
everything they claim is evil and wrong with the internet, world, and men or woman. These poeple are the reason
many start to think this entire ordeal is a troll paradise made by trolls for the trolls, and they have cookies.
Call them trolls, social justice warriors, hypocrits... what name they could be given is irrelevant as eventually
there are way to many of them doing completely different things. some are just very misinformed.

People C :
These are the poeple willing to do good by supporting woman, transgenders, or gay and lesbian. How they
even got involved into the gamergate(quinspiracy) is something which probably escapes many people who accidently
started to follow this. knowing there are many better places, organisations, and real movements they can support
it remains odd to see them come to this ordeal as if it is a group, movement with a name...

---

People D ; Now let me do something drastic and mind bending here.
the origin of this all (supposably) could be a woman who made a game about despression because she feels it to be
misunderstood, This game was or is on steam. Here an angry EX, or Jealous 4chan user, or angry basement dweller
feels the need to start a hate campaign hoping this depressed emo chick commits suicide as punishment for sleeping
with a fellow nerd in the beloved gaming community, and gaining review or mention of her game...

well, i just invented People D based upon anything which could be realistic and possible, the scary part is the
fact that it is realistic. And preventing things like this is the reason why they remove photoshoped pictures,
and suicide troll materials on websites. This is what they slander as 'extreme inhumane government censoring.'

To be blunt ;
nobody even remotely knows what they are doing, and what they are basing themselves on. All anybody, including
me knows are what gets smashed together on the internet, and in places where it does not belong. Now i have had
enough of this... it is not even close to important in its current state.

[CorSair]

Bucket said:

RW is unique in that it's actually done the research into those claims. You don't have to take their word for it; you can peruse their dozens of citations. If you weren't an intellectually lazy piece of shit, you'd discover them for yourself and not make me post the findings directly in this thread.

Sure, ED has its share of screendumps Photoshops sources - but as I said before, it's all connect-the-dots circumstantial evidence and no smoking gun. You might value Fair And Balanced sources, but to paraphrase Jon Stewart: "Sometimes one side is just wrong."

If you want to keep mislabeling the movement, then do so, I don't stop you. Other folks can tangle with your semantics if they want, I am not debater, I was wrong to enter that field, and thus, I will leave that field for someone else, if they want it.

But if you argue that we don't have legitimate reason to dig any kind of dirt that affects games industry as a whole, you are a fool.

GamerGate WILL move on. We WILL NOT change it to something else to fit for you, we WILL keep the name and bear the consequences. That's how we grow, we learn from mistakes, and know that everything is not black and white.

This train doesn't even have brakes.

"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."

- Galileo Galilei

Spoiler

http://techraptor.net/content/final-gamejournopros-thread-laughing-matter
http://techraptor.net/content/secret-game-journalist-mailing-list-gamejournopros-exposed
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-destructoid-corruption-and-ruined-careers/
http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2014/10/gamergate-nowhere-on-my-site-does-it-say-we-are-journalists-says-destructoid-owner/

[geo]

Forgive me for asking, but am I the only one that wants to see this thread put in post Hell?

[june gloom]

[Captain Red]

geo said:

Forgive me for asking, but am I the only one that wants to see this thread put in post Hell?

Hey Gamergate would be that be censorship or would I need to post a 20 page conical about my bitch ex girlfriend first?

[mrthejoshmon]

geo said:

Forgive me for asking, but am I the only one that wants to see this thread put in post Hell?

I don't, I love the absolute butthurt and fuckery flying around here.

[CorSair]

If you folks want to bring sexism issue in videogames into real debate, forward this video. This is is really needed to be discussed.

That is all.

[Clonehunter]

mrthejoshmon said:

I don't, I love the absolute butthurt and fuckery flying around here.

Me too. Keep it up, and maybe if the name "gamer" dies, everyone can get up in arms about Call of Duty being mysgonist for no female protags (?) or black-mexican-jew male diaper furry pansexual protags being in their games. Then we can hit to birds with one stone.

[geo]

Yeah I guess you're right. Carry on.

[mrthejoshmon]

Clonehunter said:

..."gamer"...
...Call of Duty...

Heh, but I do agree with what you said.

[Blastfrog]

dethtoll said:

At least this place is better than TTLG. :(

It was kind of sad to see you leave - being unfairly targeted and ostracized is a bitch. I went through something similar and some of those jerks still talk shit about me to this day.

I don't want to derail the thread but I did want to ask, would you recommend against me (Blastfrog, elsewhere) trying to get more involved there? I still find the base game to be fun and haven't really bothered to learn how to work with the Dromed engine so I'm honestly not that interested in FMs. For the most part I feel like an outsider and it seems like quite a small and slow place. I just wonder if aside from lack of interest if I should not bother in order to avoid getting caught up in bullshit.

[mrthejoshmon]

I have been looking at both #stopgamergate2014 and #gamergate and I can safely say that #gamergate looks less retarded.

The very notion of "gamers are dead" is without a doubt one of the stupidest fucking things I have ever seen posted in a serious discussion.

It is also accompanied by such classic stupidity like "cyber-rape" being when you kill a girl in game, disagreeing with a woman being equivalent of domestic abuse (as somebody who witnessed domestic abuse, I can clearly say that it is not anything like it, other side of the world levels of incomparable) and the ever joyful rape fantasy that Super Mario is (Because 2D platformers totally make me want to molest helpless women, suuuuuuure).

[Bucket]

CorSair said:

But if you argue that we don't have legitimate reason to dig any kind of dirt that affects games industry as a whole, you are a fool.

I would never argue that. I would only argue that GG hasn't found any.

[h.brick]

CorSair said:

If you folks want to bring sexism issue in videogames into real debate, forward this video. This is is really needed to be discussed.

That is all.

[video]

FULL DISCLOSURE

Before you forward that video, know the following.

Christina Hoff Sommers is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Koch-funded, conservative "think tank". To give you an idea of this organization's ethics, know that its scholars have made statements either trivializing or denying climate change while the organization has received $1.6 million from ExxonMobil -- a massive conflict-of-interest that remains mostly unaddressed by AE... and certainly unaddressed by CHS. This debate is about journalism ethics, is it not?

So basically, this proposed debate is between Anita Sarkeesian -- a lone feminist scholar -- and Christina Hoff Sommers -- a "feminist" who is literally on the Koch Brothers' payroll. The sad thing is that I didn't have to look very hard to find any of that out.

[Clonehunter]

Okay, but who gives a flying fuck about climate change arguments?