Brianna Wu, head of the independent gaming studio Giant Spacekat, was the target of a series of tweets containing death threats on Friday; one published her home address (since redacted). The poster's Twitter account has been disabled.
Wu responded on Friday night with the tweet:
Brianna Wu @Spacekatgal
The police just came by. Husband and I are going somewhere safe.
Remember, #gamergate isn't about attacking women.
GamerGate supporters denounced the threats and "doxxing" against Wu and disavowed the poster. However, several suspected that the tweets were a false flag created by anti-GamerGate forces:
Sun Knight @SunKnightO
@Sen_Armstrong @Spacekatgal @chatterwhiteman It's clearly either a troll or false flag shame that people actually think its legit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @02:18PM
over the fappening and the storm of harassment aimed at her twitter account? I can't find her old twitter account just some shills.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Nr_9 on Sunday October 12 2014, @02:24PM
Some neonazis suspect the Holocaust never happened too. That doesn't mean we need to mention it in every discussion of the Holocaust.
(Yes I Goodwined it on the first post. I'm just so god damn tired of this fabricated "scandal" and disgusted by the vile creatures behind it.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @02:38PM
Several suspected that one person can make thousands of death threats and get away with it too.
In an age of anonymity and trolling, every flag is false.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @02:54PM
The article couldn't be more one-sided. It's "the gamergate movement is a bunch of misogynist internet terrorists" repeated over a bunch of paragraphs.
Well, yeah, if the media retaliates to the criticism of allowing anti-ethical practices by calling critics misogynists, they will get angry at you too. That doesn't mean they lost focus, that means you are not doing your job properly of reporting news.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:08PM
Follow the reaction at one gamer site [nichegamer.net].
Yes, the threats were created by one individual, but there's an entire community in denial. And this has happened several times before
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:44PM
An "entire community" you say?
Hmm, you're right, all of those SJW are a community of denialists.
And this has happened before, someone should really tell them to STFU already.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:27PM
Ok, this fucking irritates me.
Why does this concern a "community" if we've identified one individual who is responsible?
Cut off his balls, inject him with estrogen, and be done with it. Yes, I am aware of how cruel that is. Do it. He deserves it.
I will not be held accountable for the actions of someone else. I am sick of being assigned the male gender and apparently being a borg collective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:38PM
> Why does this concern a "community" if we've identified one individual who is responsible?
Because he's just an exemplar of the community of gamerassholes.
Your argument is like saying, we should all have respect and love for members of the KKK because only a couple of them have actually burned crosses on people's lawns, all the others in the KKK just fantasize about it and tell each other how those people totally deserved it, those guys are above criticism.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:41PM
You're a fucking idiot.
I didn't ask to be assigned the male gender.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:48PM
But you do seem to have decided that you want to be not just someone who plays games, but to be a member of the gamerassholes.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:51PM
I've decided that I am sick of being held accountable for the actions of others because of my assigned gender.
I just want to play Gran Turismo, Armored Core, and Civ. Why the fuck do I need to be held accountable for the actions of others?
If I had been assigned the female gender at birth or if this gods had allowed me to transition as a child, like the fucker in my house at the moment, there wouldn't be a problem.
In fact, if I were legally female, I'd probably be held up as an example of a woman gamer!
So fuck you and your cissexism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:50PM
> I've decided that I am sick of being held accountable for the actions of others because of my assigned gender.
The only one holding you accountable for that is YOU.
I never thought "professional victim" was a real thing until now.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:04PM
Haha, you've made me lol.
In order to be a professional, I'd need to have some profit motive. How do I profit by gamer-gate?
I am simply fucking sick and tired of sexism. This shit needs to stop.
I am an individual. I will not be held accountable for the actions of others.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:39PM
Its not, its only used as an ad hominem and strawman. Kinda like that whole "social justice warrior" label; there's no such thing, but its a useful way to collect and direct hate at everyone who disagrees with you.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:45PM
Not necessarily.
I hope that some day you come under fire on the basis of your assigned gender at birth. Then maybe you'll understand the irritation directed at SJWs.
Is social justice a good goal? Absolutely. However, the tactics of SJWs, mainly targeting individuals who are not causing the problem on the basis of sexism, are questionable.
When you find yourself attacked because of your assigned gender at birth, irrespective of any other biological or physical factors, you might understand.
And no, all of the sexism that was directed at me in the name of getting women into programmer, apparently has not resulted in more women programmers. However, my cisgendered female apprentice (who is a very impressive person!) might vouch that a non-sexist strategy is more functional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:04AM
I don't see how, because the first sentence is unrelated to the second. You're just trying to demonize [wikipedia.org] everyone who says or does something you dislike by giving them a label [wikipedia.org] so its easier to collect and direct hate at them. Such a thing doesn't actually exist beyond a tiny minority, but using propaganda techniques is useful when trying to make something insignificant appear as something to be concerned about, isn't it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:10AM
That sounds just like the techniques that social justice warriors use. They demonize their opponents by labeling them as racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic or misogynist or even just "privileged", so it's easier to collect and direct hate at them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cafebabe on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:55PM
If I may heavily paraphrase one of your earlier comments [soylentnews.org]: When you fire up a car driving game, you just want to drive a car. You don't want to engage in a session of gender politics or be subjected to a 30 second public service announcement about misogyny.
Indeed, it is offensive that some people think this is an appropriate venue for debate. It would be more appropriate for people to compete in a free market of ideas. Unfortunately, digging yourself out of the Turing tarpit [catb.org] is hard work and it is far easier to complain that [soylentnews.org] programming is a tool of the clandestine patriarchy [theregister.co.uk].
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:02PM
When you fire up a car driving game, you just want to drive a car. You don't want to engage in a session of gender politics or be subjected to a 30 second public service announcement about misogyny.
Because that's precisely what's going on here. Fight the good fight!
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:48PM
Let me expound on why you're a fucking idiot for comparing me to the KKK.
I will not be held accountable for the actions of others. I'm an individual.
I was assigned the male gender at birth despite several objections I raised early on, which were dismissed because of 1. transphobia 2. cisgender blindspot 3. some "bathroom rape" issue 4. the circular argument that I must be injected with testosterone because I'll make more money that way!
Fuck all those arguments. I refuse to be held accountable as the male gender.
So what are you telling me? I will never put my copy of Gran Turismo V and Civ IV away just because I'm assigned a certain gender against my will.
In short, fuck you and fuck all sexists, especially cissexists that are involved here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:48PM
> Let me expound on why you're a fucking idiot for comparing me to the KKK.
No, I compared gamergate to the KKK.
Are you claiming that you have voluntarily joined the group collectively known as gamergate?
If no, then quite your bitchin.
If yes, then birds of a feather.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:39PM
Ah, ok, point taken.
I simply will not be affected by whatever sexist policies come about because of gamer-gate. That's my position here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:18PM
> I was assigned the male gender at birth despite several objections I raised early on,
Holy shit! I just re-read your post. Now I know why you are soooo fucking brain-dead about this topic.
It has nothing to do with gamerasshole misogyny, you are just fucked in the head as a result of being a square peg stuffed into a round hole.
I won't argue with you any more, I will just cite your post going forward in case anyone else thinks your arguments come from a place of reason rather than mental distress.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:28PM
And you suffer from transphobia. You clearly need sensitivity classes.
I mean, what the fucking hell!?
Yes, I've admitted before that I'm mentally ill. The American Family Association (or someshit like that) has put forth evidence that being raised as a gender one is not can cause long-term mental illness. Despite their transphobic intentions, they're right!
The point you seem intent to ignore is that I am sick of being held accountable for the actions of others. Being held directly accountable for the actions of others is what's led me to post in this troll article. I do not want to be held accountable for the actions of others ever again, which is where gamer-gate is headed.
Do you not understand that?
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:31PM
And in fact, I will not be held accountable for the actions of others ever again. That's my decision.
If it means leaving this shit life I currently lead, so be it. Let the gods decide. I am fucking sick of sexists, to the point I'm willing to just leave. I am an individual .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @12:01AM
Or, ya know, you could, just continue on playing your video games and stop putting yourself out there as some sort of cause celebre. It would probably be a great relief for everyone. I know I'm getting a little tired of seeing you strut your martyr complex before the world. Just sayin'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:36PM
> And you suffer from transphobia. You clearly need sensitivity classes.
You brought it up. Multiple times in a discussion where it is completely irrelevant.
I'm not particularly transphobic, in fact it is my personal experience with other transgender people who were transitioning, witnessing how societal pressure warped their outlook that makes it easy to see the symptoms in you. But you are an adult, you don't get a free pass to be irrational online just because of your personal trauma.
> Yes, I've admitted before that I'm mentally ill.
> The point you seem intent to ignore is that I am sick of being held accountable for the actions of others.
Your illness prevents you from rationally evaluating the situation.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:03PM
It is very relevant. It's an example of someone assigned the male gender and held accountable for "rape" (to the point my genitals were mutilated to prevent cervical cancer in these theoretical women I was supposed to fuck).
It's an example that whatever sexist policy comes from this will do nothing to stop the problem.
And it is a problem, but targeting all assigned males will do nothing about it.
I want action to actually hold the fucker responsible… well, responsible. I don't want to be targeted because I was assigned the male gender against my will and because I like Gran Turismo.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday October 13 2014, @10:32AM
So, the argument for infant male genital mutilation is that, on the balance of probability, the patient is likely to identify as male and be heterosexual therefore any reduction in pleasure for the assumed self-identifying male will increases pleasure for zero or more females, has health benefits which may only benefit females and negative outcomes are of little consequence even if patients commit suicide [wikipedia.org]. Whereas, best practice, as followed in intersex cases, is to wait until the patient can make an informed choice.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:58PM
I would like to inject and note that it is circular argument to describe a transgendered person as mentally ill because the diagnosis appears in the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5 [Diagnostic And Statistical Manual Of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition] [wikipedia.org]. This controversial guide [newscientist.com] has input from discredited experts [wikipedia.org] and, in addition to pathologizing male heterosexual attraction to breasts [wikipedia.org], it is generally stuck in a medieval practice of diagnosing humors and impressions rather than following any evidence-based medical practice. As noted by one member of the Other Place [slashdot.org]:-
Homosexuality was a mental illness? Why, yes! Until 1980, openly gay people were also considered to be mentally ill [wikipedia.org]. By today's standards, this treatment of homosexuals is considered abhorrent and cruel. However, that's exactly the situation where transgendered people are today.
If we extrapolate forward, I'm concerned that if and when transgenderism gains parity with homosexuality, "professionals" will just move their money-making quackery onto the persecution of intersex people and other minorities using this well-practised but discredited methodology.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:15PM
> I would like to inject and note that it is circular argument to describe a transgendered person as mentally ill because the diagnosis appears in the DSM
I think you are arguing a completely unrelated point. Neither velex or myself are saying that being tg makes you ill, but society putting pressure on you to deny your gender can make you ill.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:40PM
I think we agree. This [soylentnews.org] and this [soylentnews.org] can be interpreted both ways. (Specifically, transgenderism is a mental illness and transgenderism leads to mental illness.
Bi-sexuality, homosexuality, transgenderism, intersexuality and other conditions are normal variations which should not be pathologized. However, some individuals endure considerable distress because they are penalized for not fitting into other people's simplistic, hetero-nomative, gender-binary model of the world.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:26PM
In exactly the same way that Osama bin Laden was an exemplar of the community of Muslims. Or Muslimassholes, if you prefer.
Oh, look, there's an asshole who identifies with a social, ethnic, or gender group: that can only mean all members of the group are assholes! Hang 'em all!
(Score: 1) by mojo chan on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:37PM
It was never about men, it's about the GamerGate community and other asshats. Even the original ciriticisms of the gamer community were about some specific issues related to the lazy way women were often portrayed (tropes).
The GamerGate community immediately weighed in and claimed it was a false flag operation. They would rather believe elaborate conspiracy theories than a woman. Publicly condemning these actions, both the original trolling and the reaction from the GamerGate guys, further marginalizes them and sends out the signal that it really isn't okay. That's how we deal with this stuff, that's how we make progress. The same way racism was made unacceptable by people calling it out.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:03PM
It was never about men, it's about the GamerGate community and other asshats.
If that's what it is all about, why is there not even a single link or word of explanation of what the hell Gamergate is all about?
I could easily see that someone so ensconced in their basement gaming cave might just assume this tempest in a teapot was common knowledge, and submit a half baked story about it. But why would the editors let it pass in such a disheveled state?
Yes, I know Google works, but FFS would its hardly a household term, and the quality of the article would have been improved 200% by a cut and paste of the first sentence of the Wiki Article. [wikipedia.org]
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:11PM
>> It was never about men, it's about the GamerGate community and other asshats.
>
> If that's what it is all about, why is there not even a single link or word of explanation of what the hell Gamergate is all about?
Because it is a household name to the intended audience.
But, lets turn that logic around. Not only are there no links to explain how men are collectively to blame here, the words "gamers," "men," "males," "boys" or any other synonyms aren't even used in the article itself.
(Score: 2) by mojo chan on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:38PM
I think the poster assumed everyone knew what GamerGate is, since it has had so much coverage lately. Okay, that was their mistake, but that doesn't change the fact that it isn't an assault on men or anything like that.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:19PM
No he does not deserve that you fucking feminist.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:36PM
Me, a feminist?!
Feminism believes that every morning when I take my estrogen, I'm raping all women in some metaphysical bullshit.
Then again the MRM believes that despite my history of voting Libertarian, I'm a fucking communist.
Somebody mod parent funny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:15PM
> Well, yeah, if the media retaliates to the criticism of allowing anti-ethical practices
To the best of my knowledge the "criticism" has been only two stupendously weak points:
(1) A woman slept with a bunch of gaming reporters for favorable press coverage -- completely debunked.
(2) A handful of stories covering all the commotion about (1) that were published in the same 3 day period happened to include, among their numerous other references, reference to some obscure feminist academic paper. Not all the gamergate stories published in those 3 days referenced that obscure paper, but some did - and never mind that people have been writing articles about the beyond crazy reaction to (1) for months and have continued to do so since.
Is there more?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:27PM
How was the 1st debunked? Kotaku already ran a piece acknowledging the relationship.
http://kotaku.com/in-recent-days-ive-been-asked-several-times-about-a-pos-1624707346 [kotaku.com]
Which makes you a liar, and why should we listen to a liar?
You're likely just full of BS.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:21PM
They very article you linked to is what first informed me that it was debunked. The article says:
He has not written about her since. Nathan never reviewed Zoe Quinn's game Depression Quest, let alone gave it a favorable review.
...
Given the information available to us both from Nathan and all sources presented online, I have no reason to believe any further action need be taken.
The quality of your response seems to be the highest level of what passes as intellectual rigor among the gamergate crowd. So I find myself faced with choosing between you guys either being drooling morons or unrepentant misogynists. Or a combination of both.
As I said previously, if there is more to your crusade over "journalistic ethics" than those two non-issues, let us hear it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:42PM
So which part is debunked? Please explain it to us poor souls.
Are you saying she slept with them and they didn't give her favors in return?
Or that she slept with them for unrelated reasons?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:59PM
What part of "never reviewed" do you fail to understand?
The only thing relevant to "journalistic ethics" is whether or not she was given special treatment for whatever reason.
> Or that she slept with them for unrelated reasons?
Your thinking that such a question has any sort of relevancy confirms the accusations that gamergate is about misogyny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:06PM
Well if you wrote clearly the first time no one would misunderstand.
I never claimed I was in gamergate, or a gamer at all.
But thanks for playing the "make up bullshit to support my point of view" game.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:14PM
> Well if you wrote clearly the first time no one would misunderstand.
How could you possibly think her sex life was at all relevant?
Really, what part of "ethics" do you think might possibly apply?
> I never claimed I was in gamergate, or a gamer at all.
Two can play that game. I never claimed you were in gamergate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:40PM
Being in gaming development and having any sort of personal relationship with games journalists is clearly an ethics violation. Why put ethics in quotes. It is not a scary word. It is not made up. It is the study of what is right and what is wrong. Conflicts of interest are thought of as wrong, therefore if someone's sex life and professional life overlap, then it is unethical.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:55PM
> Being in gaming development and having any sort of personal relationship with games journalists is clearly an ethics violation.
How so? Seriously. I expect you to claim the extremist position that any relationship is defacto evidence of an "ethics" violation. Which is just bullshit. Ethics violations actually require a violation. Unless the reporter actually gives favorable coverage to the person they are involved with there is no "ethics" violation.
> Why put ethics in quotes.
I put it in quotes to make it evident that I think the definition people like you are using is absurd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:58PM
Wrong. People can have relationships with whomever they want. Reviewing your partner's or ex-partner's work is an ethics violation, but that didn't happen here, so its irrelevant, nothing more than a red herring.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:11PM
How DARE you bring common sense and responsibility into this discussion!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:15PM
Responding to yourself is stupid and easy to spot. You can sock puppet all you want, but its pretty obvious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:19PM
I don't think it is a sockpuppet. I think there really is more than one person who thinks that logic is impeccable.
There are a whole bunch of them in gamergate. It's kind of a requirement to join.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:27PM
Nah, I'm pretty sure its all that one guy who thinks every AC poster is Tork. Even this post is by him, and yours definitely is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:41PM
That's just ridiculous. By that token, it seems like no two people in the same professional field should be allowed to communicate outside of job. Ethics, or at least publishing ethics, isn't about building impersonal walls between humans, it's about managing your relationships to avoid conflicts of interest.
Sleeping with the person who recommends your product, or who recommends you for promotion: conflict of interest. Recusing yourself from reviewing your girlfriend's product: ethical. Quitting your job because you're attracted to someone who works in the field: Hollywood melodrama.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:50PM
Maybe we're asking the wrong question.
How about, why did 5 game journalists sleep with her?
That way all of the blame is on the corrupt male game journalists.
Better?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:01PM
> Maybe we're asking the wrong question.
You are indeed.
> How about, why did 5 game journalists sleep with her?
Nope. Still the wrong question. But points for realizing that what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
> That way all of the blame is on the corrupt male game journalists.
Except there was no corruption.
Any hypothetical motivation is irrelevant when there is no crime.
I keep waiting to see evidence of a crime and there has been none.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:08PM
If it looks like a duck...
Why did she choose to cheat/sleep with only those in the game Journal Industry?
I never said it was a crime, (that I know of anyways), I only wanted to know her motivation.
If they're "too sexy it hurts", then I'm not bothered by it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:11PM
> I only wanted to know her motivation.
None of your fucking business.
Really. Why do you think you are entitled to know why someone decides to sleep with anyone?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:17PM
Because it shines a light on a larger issue that should be addressed. Women in the gaming industry shouldn't have to sleep with game Journalists to promote their work.
Why did you think I cared?? Asshole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:25PM
> Women in the gaming industry shouldn't have to sleep with game Journalists to promote their work.
Who says they have to?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:34PM
Um, we're trying to find out if that is what happened.
Except every time we ask a question we get a shitstorm of OMG sexists assholes!!!! as a response.
Which only makes us believe more in the likelihood of a coverup.
The slander articles and their "coordinated" timing seem suspicious as well.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday October 13 2014, @06:05AM
No-one should have to sleep with journalists to obtain favorable reviews. However, five journalists (who may or may not enjoyed sexual relations with one woman) gave dis-proportionately good reviews for a "game" which consists of stateless HTML wrapped with a full-screen web browser.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @06:16AM
"Good reviews exist for a game I personally thought was shit!" is not proof of anything, except that the reviewers apparently like visual novels. Visual novels are pretty big in Japan, and have a niche market here in the US; so what? Where are these five reviews along with the proof that the game's creator fucked them within a week - or hell, a month - of the review? Without that, all you have is proof that your tinfoil hat is on too tight.
(Score: 3, Informative) by cafebabe on Monday October 13 2014, @07:20AM
It would be an improvement if it was a visual novel.
I've done game testing professionally and I've seen the effort that goes into games that flop. I've also seen how developers react when a reviewer doesn't understand a feature in a game. And I would hope that it is generally understood that game reviews are critical in some area even when a game pushes boundaries in many areas. However, if someone publishes a few webpages, they can expect most influential Steam reviews to contain the following:-
You may imply that I am a conspiracist but this is not a game which obtained distribution through intrinsic merit.
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:52PM
The 1st Amendment allows me to ask whatever I like. You can also run your mouth protecting sluts as much as you like too.
Why is this slut shaming anyway? Is she ashamed of sleeping with 5 game journalists?
I actually wish more women slept around, because you really need to get laid!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:58PM
Now imagine your wife slept with 5 mob bosses.
It's none of your business, she can sleep with whomever she likes.
So I won't advice you to flee the country, just stay put like the good little doggie you are.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:02PM
No, not better. That position doesn't fucking fix anything.
I don't give a shit who she's slept with. I've slept with a lot of guys! It's easy to do! What fucking difference does it make?
The problem here is that an entire demographic is being blamed for the actions of a few individuals. We know who they are! Cut off their balls and inject them with estrogen! Be done with it.
Except we won't. We'll go after every 3rd party who is assigned the male gender on a legal document who likes to play games. How the hell does that fix anything?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:13PM
You slut! Go die in a hole as filthy as you are! Oh wait, you're a guy, aren't you? High Five bro! ^5
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:09PM
Thank you for identifying a big issue of sexism.
Thank you also for identifying a big issue of cissexism that you white knights can't seem to get past.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:07PM
Who cares? Its got nothing to do with this, merely a red herring and strawman used as an excuse to justify slut shaming, an inherently misogynistic action.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:15PM
Oh for fucks sake, not this garbage again. Nathan Grayson mentioned her game in an article in Rock Paper Shotgun [archive.today] back in January, then he covered Zoe's "Game Jam" [kotaku.com] at the end of March after she was responsible for tanking the same project run by The Fine Young Capitalist (TFYC) to get women in to gaming.
This has been stated over and over and over and every time someone insisting it doesn't exist pops up, then when it's pointed out they come back with, "well that's not a review". Seriously just fuck off already.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:31PM
This has been stated over and over and over and every time someone insisting it doesn't exist pops up, then when it's pointed out they come back with, "well that's not a review". Seriously just fuck off already.
So, what I am getting from you is that you have a problem with reality. Not only is it "not a review" it isn't particularly favorable towards her or any of her work. If you think it is, perhaps you could quote the lines that actually endorse her rather than just describe how someone else was shitty towards her.
after she was responsible for tanking the same project run by The Fine Young Capitalist (TFYC) to get women in to gaming.
True or not, I don't see how that's relevant to the charge of journalistic corruption versus a complaint about her as an individual.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:59PM
It shows a pattern of shitty/unethical behavior.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:13PM
> It shows a pattern of shitty/unethical behavior.
Is she a journalist? No. Case fucking closed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:37PM
So because she's not a journalist she's incapable of unethical behavior?
Or do non-journalists have some type of diplomatic immunity to it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:22PM
So because she's not a journalist she's incapable of unethical behavior?
What part of "journalistic ethics" do you fail to understand?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:38PM
The "ethics" part. It does mean "everything done by somebody I like", making "ethical violation" mean "everything done by somebody I don't like", right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @12:09AM
So journalistic ethics are the only kind of ethics?
And unethical behavior by journalists can only involve journalists?
Because if a non-journalist is evolved everyone is a sexist pig?
Am I doing it right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:18PM
Only if you look at it with the intent to use it as proof of that, having already made your mind up and simply looking for anything to justify your pre-made conclusion.
In reality it shows nothing of the sort.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:57PM
Of course gamer-gate is about misogyny.
Why aren't we holding the individuals^H^H^H^H^Hassholes involved accountable?
I am sick of being dragged into this shit because of my assigned gender. I am sick of being held accountable for sexual harassment and date rape.
Get me my fucking Obamacare sex change or drop the issue.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:02PM
SJW logic...
You sound white, you must be a KKK member then.
Don't like being called a member of the KKK?
Fine you're a leader of the KKK and you rape children?
Don't like that? Well I guess it must be true then.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:11PM
Somebody mod parent insightful. I'd use one of my mod points, but I opened my fat mouth already.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:08PM
> I am sick of being dragged into this shit because of my assigned gender.
No one but you is dragging you into anything.
Seriously.
You can go about your life doing your own thing and not only will no one say anything to you about gamerassholes, no one will even know you are a male gamer.
The only time you get accused of being a gamerasshole is when you get all thin-skinned about somebody criticizing someone other than yourself and take it personally. Or you know, you decide that hey those gamerassholes have a point when they aren't yelling whore at people and think you should stick up for them. But that's you dragging yourself and not any sort of assignment.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:51PM
Nope, sorry, you lose.
I have been held accountable to my face by various sexist feminist bitches for the actions of others.
Yes, me personally.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:53PM
> I have been held accountable to my face by various sexist feminist bitches for the actions of others.
Held accountable for being a gamerasshole? No you weren't. You are lying.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:19PM
You've never been a target of sexism?
You think it's unpossible that an assigned male might be a target of sexism?
You think it's unpossible that women can be sexists?
You think ti's unpossible that an assigned male might have been a target of sexism on multiple occasions?
What did all that sexism accomplish? Clearly nothing, because here we have gamer-gate.
Feh, hell, I wonder if my home-ec teacher still hates me for being better at baking and sewing than the cisgendered girls in her class. That had to have been the most unwilling A I've ever received.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:24PM
> You think it's unpossible that an assigned male might be a target of sexism?
As I noted earlier, all your rage here has nothing to do with gamergate and everything to do with being an "assigned male."
I'm think your bitterness about being assigned a gender has made you see gamergate as being assigned to you personally.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:56PM
Again, you don't seem to understand that some brain-damaged sexist policy will likely come about because of this.
I've said before, we know who the individual is. Cut off his balls and inject him with estrogen.
Hell, you're right. My complaint is being legally male. Cut off my balls and inject me with estrogen! My liver might appreciate it.
Yet, my complaint at being legally male is valid. I am not a part of gamer-gate or whatever, but I am concerned that some brain-damaged sexist policy will be enacted.
I suppose the sentiments that I should shut up until such a policy does come through are valid. However, I'd rather protest loudly here than need to lawyer up later.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:59PM
> Again, you don't seem to understand that some brain-damaged sexist policy will likely come about because of this.
Ok, how about you explain what kind of brain-damaged sexist policy will likely come about because of this.
Make it good because what I expect to hear from you is something from a fever dream.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:21PM
Ok, you made me laugh.
What about propositions to limit one's avatar to one's legal gender?
Haha, I went to look for that referece, probably from 2003 or so, I think it was a Microsoft policy, but instead I found an actual implementation [blogs.com].
Of course, given the specifics, I have nothing to bitch about. I don't play that game and even if I did, I'd likely "pass" and get permission for a female avatar whether I was trying to or not. I worry about some friends who do not get gendered female as often as I do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:43PM
> What about propositions to limit one's avatar to one's legal gender?
That's funny, because I would expect the result to go the other way. That games which didn't let people play as other genders would be sanctioned. The entire point of the feminists is that gamergater dudebros don't know what its like to be a woman online.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:46PM
>gamergater dudebros
#NotYourSlur
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:03PM
Feminists are peculiar in this way.
They want to cut your balls off right up until they find out that you would like that. They want to put you in a dress right up until they find out you have several dresses you like to wear, then suddenly it's a matter of being a rapist because you get gendered female too often for their tastes.
If I'm remembering the brain-damage correctly, it was the same matter as it is with feminist transphobia. The feminists are horrified at the possibility that anybody who was assigned the male gender at birth might gain female privilege (or heaven help us sneak into the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival).
Feminism is all about chauvenism and cis-woman privilege. It's complete sexism.
Also, the feminists are afraid that somebody like me might be gendered by somebody else as female and learn what it's really like to be a woman. It makes it very difficult to believe their victim power bullshit after being extended female privilege both online and offline. They hate that there are people like me who know exactly what it's like to be a woman. Maybe they should just fucking drop their "bathroom rape" shit and let me be a woman full time. Then I wouldn't post angry shit when I'm looking forward to being forced to present as a male yet again and be accountable for the actions of these gamer-gate shitheads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:13PM
Your definition of feminism is wrong.
I don't think you are able to hear any other definition.
It is kind of sad.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:28PM
That's why social justice warrior is a good term to have. It allows you to separate proactive feminists from whiny loser feminists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:35PM
> That's why social justice warrior is a good term to have. It allows you to separate proactive feminists from whiny loser feminists.
That's odd. I use it to identify whiny loser misogynists and racists.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:38PM
> That's odd. I use it to identify whiny loser misogynists and racists.
That's ok. Everybody makes mistakes [reddit.com].
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:30PM
She's describing the de facto definition of feminism. It's the only definition that actually matters.
Any dictionary/academic/de jure definition of feminism is irrelevant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:32PM
> She's describing the de facto definition of feminism.
Nope. She's describing something she personally experienced once or twice and which has been reinforced by the gleeful howls of anti-progressives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:28PM
This woman knows what she's talking about! Mod her up!
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:39PM
Ok, AC, this is past the point of intellectual rigour.
This is clearly about holding an entire demographic accountable for the actions of one dickwad.
I'll say it again. Cut off his balls and inject him with estrogen. That's what this dickface deserves. Be done with it.
Don't hold me accountable. I'm an individual. Don't tread on me.
Why aren't we holding this individual accountable and instead making it a matter of shitting on an entire demographic?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:12PM
If it's just one person then the entire SJW + Feminist "we hate all gamer males" looses steam!
Can't you see how important it is for the cause that every male everywhere is all GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @12:38AM
I must say I find it rather telling, in a sad sort of a way, that you apparently see "being turned into a women" essentially as punishment. I gather that you are in the process of transitioning to being a woman yourself. I realize that psychoanalyzing someone over the internet is fraught with peril but, wow!, you are throwing off some really weird vibes. I hope you are getting therapy for this, and I mean that sincerely.
To my eye, it would appear that the only ones in this "demographic" who are being "shit on" are those who would excuse, deny, or rationalize death threats and doxxing. You go ahead and play your video games if you like. No one is going to "tread" on you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:16PM
Second, maybe he did plan to write said review and just by happenstance, the review went to some other journalist. Or maybe he never intended to honor any deal.
Or maybe the relationship had nothing to do with their day jobs. But what we do know there was a conflict of interest. And that Kotaku has said nothing in the above article about what it plans to do, if anything, about future conflicts of interest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:23PM
For example, the game developer could have slept with the journalist in order to seal the deal and the journalist then passes a monetary bribe on from the game developer to the actual reviewer of the game. Or he might have gotten her game put in the review queue in the first place. In other words, just because he didn't actually write an article doesn't mean that he wasn't instrumental in getting a positive review written up.
Anything's possible. But if you have to make up a movie-plot to worry about, that should be a clue that you are on the lunatic fringe.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:47PM
What we do know isn't the whole picture, but what we've seen so far doesn't look good.
I seriously wish she was a man and had used money instead of sex. All of this would be much easier to sort out.
Hell I'd settle for just the gender change in the story, it would at least be funny.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:10PM
> What we do know isn't the whole picture,
How do we "know" that? Sounds like wishful thinking.
> but what we've seen so far doesn't look good.
Yeah, it looks like a bunch of butthurt idiots making up shit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:12PM
Yeah, it looks like a bunch of butthurt idiots making up shit.
Why should I care what it looks like to you? The conflict of interest is there no matter what it looks like to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:16PM
> Why should I care what it looks like to you? The conflict of interest is there no matter what it looks like to you.
Why should I care what it looks like to you? The evidence of conflict of interest is not there no matter what it looks like to you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:34PM
Citation needed.
"A good review exists!" is not proof of anything. A list of other games greenlighted at the same time is not proof of anything. What else is there being touted as "proof of a conflict of interest"?
If "she could've fucked this guy who then bribed other people with money!"-type conspiracy theories are all you've got, then you're only proving that you're working backwards from a conclusion and desperately searching for evidence to support it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @12:21AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:14AM
Pardon the parsing, but that is basically what you're saying.
So she had sex with a journalist, so what? Its nobody's business who she has sex with. "A relationship exists" is not an ethics violation. [wikipedia.org] And how is it "obvious" that the only purpose behind the relationship was to get good press? How can you know anybody's motivations for anything? Are you a mind reader? No? Then you can't know and can only guess.
There are no facts to support your claims. Have some integrity for once in your life and stop trying to destroy innocent people's lives for no reason.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @09:32AM
Its nobody's business who she has sex with.
Because she had sex with a journalist who covers her industry, this matter becomes the business of the journalist's employer and any customers of the developer's game who are concerned that reviews of the game may be compromised by the above conflict of interest. When the relationship affects others in ways that can be very harmful, then it becomes their business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @12:54AM
Well, he may be searching for evidence to back up his wild-eyed conspiracy theory but he is still failing quite miserably at actually finding any.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @09:35AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:11PM
But if you have to make up a movie-plot to worry about
"Movie-plot"? This sort of thing happens every day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:20PM
> "Movie-plot"? This sort of thing happens every day.
In the movies.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @12:18AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:17AM
[Citation needed]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @12:21PM
Here's the citation [soylentnews.org] you asked for.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:31PM
Are you claiming she didn't sleep with them or that they didn't reciprocate?
Or that she did sleep with them, but for some different unknown reason?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:00PM
Gamergate has already made their mission statement clear.
Trying to attribute every threat to them is "almost" as deplorable as the one(s) that issued it.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @02:33PM
going on in the world? Talk about 1st world problems... just sickening.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @02:38PM
I completely agree, this LaminatorX guy needs to stop publishing clickbait submissions and other inane trash otherwise its no better than the green site.
(Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Sunday October 12 2014, @02:38PM
Death threats aren't just a "first world problem". Though in many parts of the world they don't threaten first, they just kill you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:01PM
Let's talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:50PM
No, let's talk about technology, science, math, computers, and all that good stuff.
I don't come here to read about petty squabbles over video game reviews, or petty squabbles over third-world Middle Eastern desert, or petty squabbles about thugs who attack the police and get shot.
GIVE ME SUBMISSIONS ABOUT TECHNOLOGY!
GIVE ME SUBMISSIONS ABOUT SCIENCE!
GIVE ME SUBMISSIONS ABOUT MATHEMATICS!
GIVE ME SUBMISSIONS ABOUT COMPUTERS!
GIVE ME SUBMISSIONS ABOUT HOW DEBIAN IS BEING KILLED BY SYSTEMD!
GIVE ME SUBMISSIONS ABOUT THINGS THAT TRULY MATTER!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:55PM
Don't click on it, submit stories?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:59PM
"Not clicking on it" doesn't change the fact that these stories take up a valuable front page slot. That's the problem with them.
Yeah, I can ignore them easily enough. But there's nothing we can do about the lost space on the front page, and the lost time between good submissions. Those are the real problems, and the only way to avoid them is by not having shitty submissions get to the front page to begin with.
Submitting more stories doesn't help, either, because they're blocked by shitty submissions if those shitty submissions get onto the front page.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:03PM
> "Not clicking on it" doesn't change the fact that these stories take up a valuable front page slot.
Post your bitcoin wallet id and I'll reimburse you the 0.001 cents that it cost you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:07PM
Boo hoo. Valuable first page slots. Now who's bitching about first world problems.
This is a huge problem that is pervasive in tech and gamergate is just the surface. You're part of the old guard who is still clueless and scared.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:13PM
Yeah, I live in the first world. My problems matter to me. I really don't give a fuck about problems involving third worlders, whether they're in Africa, the Middle East, or St. Louis.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:31PM
Articles like these get the most posts by a large margin, so its pretty clear the SN community cares about these kinds of things more than anything else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:34PM
Nah, its more like a lowest-common-denominator effect.
Any asshole can have an opinion on social issues and think they are an expert since they live in society.
Most other stories require at least a modicum of actual expertise in the particular topic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:38PM
Sadly, most of the comments are just troll posts. Little discussion actually happens. But, looking at the numbers and the lack of better submissions... Look at it from an MBA's perspective, because raw data matters even if it doesn't really matter. If you want better articles, submit them and comment on them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:49PM
Most of the Linux and programming submissions I've seen have very good discussion. We need more of those.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:37PM
OH NOES! SYSTEMD IS KILLING LINUX! is not discussion. Although granted, those happen everywhere except Linux and programming articles, where they belong.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:07PM
That's some of the most important discussion that's even possible. Systemd is the worst threat Linux has ever faced. It's worse than anything Microsoft or SCO could have ever imagined doing to harm Linux. It needs to be talked about, all the time, and everywhere.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:48PM
Nobody gives a fuck about Linux, just you crybaby neckbeards throwing temper tantrums. Keep it up and nobody will ever use it; after all, who wants to use an OS that's primarily used by whiny little children who lash out when they don't get their way? Throwing your tantrums into everyone's face will only make people despise Linix and the 'tards who use it, instead of just ignoring it. Now when somebody hears "Linux", they think of you assholes instead of "What's that?" Congratulations on killing Linux!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:54PM
You seem awfully angry. Did you just get systemd unexpectedly installed on your Linux workstation, too? I know the pain, it happened to me. All I did was update my Debian installation and sonofabitch, systemd was there, my computer had problems booting, and I couldn't even read the log files because they were using some godawful binary format. At least it hasn't happened again since I've switched to FreeBSD.
(Score: 1) by pgc on Monday October 13 2014, @01:57PM
You don't care about Linux; What are you doing on Soylentnews ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 14 2014, @07:50AM
Because SN is nothing but a Linux repository, full of articles discussing Linux and nothing else, right?
(Score: 1) by pgc on Monday October 13 2014, @01:59PM
Mod parent up.
(Score: 1) by pgc on Monday October 13 2014, @02:05PM
News about a flamewar that nobody really gives a flying f*ck about. News please, not this gossip.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:03PM
Any editor will^H^H^H^H should react when they see that screenshot stack of tweets labeled "Death to Brianna". That is both breaking news and a discussion breaker.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by bornagainpenguin on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:48PM
/s
Has anyone confirmed the police report yet, or has it too made its way directly to the FBI without the local police knowing about it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @01:41AM
I don't like how your comment is worded, but I think there's some value in there, so let me rephrase:
Someone received a death threat on the Internet for publicly taking a stance someone else on the Internet didn't like.
Notable, sure, but newsworthy? I'm sure tons of people get death threats every day. Of those, a small but significant number are credible (really, it's not that hard to get someone's address in this day and age if you already have their name, email, and possibly employment info). Now, one can't help but ask at this point, why is it that of those, the only ones that get blown up with news coverage are about female feminists (or children, I suppose, vis a vis cyberbullying)?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:22PM
First world problem indeed
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:10PM
Second, note once again, the blame shift to a generic group, "gamers", without explaining how or why gamers are supposed to control the behavior of anonymous people who make death threats. I'll further Godwin this thread by noting that there are neo-Nazis in Europe despite all the efforts to stamp them out. Does that mean we should tar all present day Europeans with accusations of being or supporting neo-Nazis? Or of having a toxic culture which encourages the expression of Naziism? Note I didn't say which countries. If you're European, then you're bad.
(Score: 2) by velex on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:27PM
Yes, exactly, apparently.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:36PM
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday October 13 2014, @03:05AM
Every group needs to take ownership and responsibility for its members. If a Scotsman does something heinous, the rest of Scotland can't say "he's not a true Scotsman!", they need to own up to the fact that one of their own is scum.
However, every group has its bad apples. There's no group of humans where everyone is great, except on Star Trek shows (probably one reason I like that show so much, the only assholes are non-Enterprise people they run across, whereas everyone on the ship is hyper-competent and an wonderful human (or alien) being). The question is: overall, how assholic is your group?
From what I've read, neo-Nazis do indeed exist in Europe. They also exist over here in the USA. However, in both places, they're a ridiculously tiny minority of people by all accounts. (Yes, there's racist people too in not-so-small numbers, but there's a big difference between being a little racist and being a neo-Nazi, wearing a swastika, quoting Mein Kampf, having meetings with others, etc.) So we both need to acknowledge that we have these jerks in our populations, but people also need to recognize they're not a big problem on either continent. It's not like these groups are known for committing crimes in significant numbers, or really causing any problems at all. It's not like you ever see them running around in hitler uniforms or whatever either. Last I heard, there's a few rural places like north Idaho where some of these white supremacists have some little compounds, but a handful of nuts in the middle of nowhere with some crappy trailers out of population of 1/3 billion does not constitute a serious problem.
Similarly, there's Muslims who do bad things (see ISIS/ISIL), and Muslims who advocate for bad things. However, many polls seem to show that a very large percentage of Muslims advocate bad things, such as Sharia Law to be instituted in Europe. So apologists saying "it's only a few extremists!" are really understating things, and in fact lying, if these polls are to be believed. Given the acts and opinions seen by Muslims across the world, with terrorism, oppression of women, pushing for religious laws, harassment of those who believe differently, millions marching in the streets calling for executions because of some comics of Mohammed, millions marching in the streets celebrating 9/11, etc., it appears Muslims really do have some serious problems as a group which can't just be chalked up to "a few bad apples".
Similarly, there's the cops in the US. Many apologists again trot out the "few bad apples" line, but Ferguson MO and many, many other incidents show that US cops have some serious problems as a group, and it's not just a few bad apples.
So, the question here is: just how many gamers are misogynists? There's two sides here: on one side, you can argue that thanks to power of the internet, it's easy for the actions of one or a handful of jerks to make the national news, while 99.999% of them are just happily playing Counterstrike or whatever. But on the other side, how many other internet groups are running around harassing women to this extent (e.g. "doxxing", death threats, etc.)? I can't think of a single one. So I really have to wonder if the gamer community isn't more diseased than the "a few bad apples" people want us to believe.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @10:17AM
Every group needs to take ownership and responsibility for its members.
Ever hear of the term, "arbitrary grouping"? Groups are defined merely as people with a common trait or property. This can be quite general as in names on a list. For example, suppose I create a secret list of names and yours happens to be on it. Now, by your not-even-wrong claim, you're in a group so you're "responsible" for the members of that group even though a) you don't know who's in the group, b) you don't know that you're in the group, and c) I burn the list later so nobody knows who's in the group and there's no way to find out (my memory for lists is terrible).
And what does it mean to "take ownership and responsibility" for someone else just because they and I happen to play a computer game and not necessarily the same one? I think that it means absolutely nothing. I can't own someone's behavior when I have no control over it. It's like owning the weather.
Further, and this is a point people are really missing here, I have no idea whether these people actually are gamers and hence, members of the supposedly relevant group. For example, how much ownership and responsibility should I have for people faking a slight by a member of a group that I've been identified with? Normally, deception and fraud negates responsibility. But if I'm responsible for not just the actions of real gamers, but also the actions of fake ones, then that really stretches my resources.
So let's give an example of how stupid this idea is. I'll group you with Adolf Hitler and Genghis Khan. Now, you "own" and are "responsible" for the deaths of six million Jews and the destruction of Baghdad. Have fun with that.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @10:28AM
But on the other side, how many other internet groups are running around harassing women to this extent (e.g. "doxxing", death threats, etc.)? I can't think of a single one.
Further indication that you haven't thought about the problem. I'll give a counterexample, feminists.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 13 2014, @11:02AM
Last I heard, there's a few rural places like north Idaho where some of these white supremacists have some little compounds, but a handful of nuts in the middle of nowhere with some crappy trailers out of population of 1/3 billion does not constitute a serious problem.
So you can just evade ownership and responsibility for these handfuls of nuts by just saying they aren't a serious problem? Ok, misogynist gamers aren't a serious problem. What prizes did I win?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:26PM
Game Developer Wu Leaves Home after Death Threats
"We wanted our basement back" - Mr & Mrs Wu
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:30PM
In case you want to know what exactly prompted the death threats and what other reactions the #Gamergate misogynists had, here is a link for you:
http://wehuntedthemammoth.com/2014/10/11/yet-another-woman-in-gaming-has-been-driven-from-her-home-by-death-threats/comment-page-1/#comments [wehuntedthemammoth.com]
Short version: Wu criticized #Gamergate on Twitter. Wu's fan made memes of Wu's comments. Wu liked the memes and posted them on Twitter-> MASSIVE HATRED.
I rather doubt all those nasty counter memes were made by a single person. Apparently a lot of people on 8chan were involved.
(Posting this anonymously just to be safe.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:36PM
Don't wake sleeping bears?
Best advice I can think of.
It would be nice if everyone online would be civil, but the other half of that is don't go around looking for a fight.
You'll find one every time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:38PM
How do you know "allot of people" were involved?
Or are you just sepeculating/being a dumbass?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:06PM
Try reading the linked article, which has screenshots.
Yeah, maybe a single person on 8chan made 60+ pages worth of abusive memes on memegenerator. Yeah, maybe the reason there are now fewer of those memes on memegenerator's page is that they were a lie (even though it would have been easy to check at the time and people would have noticed it) and not because the memes were reported for violating terms of service. Yeah, maybe dudebros never do anything wrong and it's all the fault of those evil women, always. Yeah, right.
P.S. It's "a lot" instead of "allot".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:51PM
Because one dedicated person could never create multiple accounts or posts.
Why not simply name everyone involved since your so well informed?
Neither you nor I know how many are/were involved.
The difference is I don't go around making up shit, aka lying to prove a point.
Don't go around assuming if you don't know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:54PM
Like that Tork guy. I'm convinced he's behind every Anonymous Coward post on this site.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:09PM
I think you could be right about a lot of the AC comments. Not all of us are Tork, but it is possible that a lot of the AC comments are from him.
Tork himself admitted in a past comment [soylentnews.org] to posting as Tork and as Anonymous Coward, and to doing so in order to be disruptive:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:16PM
Tork whistleblowing on Tork!
Now we know Snowden is actually Tork! You can quote me on that Tork. Or wait, you can quote Tork on that Tork!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:26PM
Please be careful while blowing your own whistle, Tork! If you don't do it right you could seriously injure your neck and your spine.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:34PM
Going by that exact quote that you've used at least 5 times now, I know that you're the guy that thinks everyone is Tork. You've called me Tork more times than I can count, but you keep insisting. Therefore, I'll just agree with you. EVERYONE IS TORK!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:11PM
It's an interesting quote. It is indisputable proof that Tork likely is posting as Tork and as Anonymous Coward. It backs up the claim that many Anonymous Coward comments here are from Tork.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @11:15PM
So because he posted as AC once, every AC post is by him? Thats one of the dumbest things you've tried to claim, and that's saying something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @01:07AM
No, not every AC post. Just most of them.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday October 13 2014, @02:39AM
For the record I have been away for nearly a week and haven't posted at all. Whatever Tork you've been chatting with, it wasn't me. :)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @02:42AM
You haven't used your Tork account for a week, but you've still be here posting as AC? That's just what I thought!
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday October 13 2014, @02:48AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday October 12 2014, @03:38PM
who is a developer working ... on games like Sharknado 2 for mobile, is voicing the primary criticism
I broke out laughing at that line. Apparently its not a parody but it sounds like one.
First off, WRT BS-dash-gate being used to name all scandals, is something that stopped being cool when gen-x-ers parents were hippies reading about the Nixon administration 40 years ago. Earth to journalists, its not cool, its not retro, now go away and try a little harder, just a tiny bit. Using that kind of terminology in 2014 makes the user sound like "that guy" who thinks the Lawrence Whelk show is hip and trendy.
Secondly I see nothing in "gamer-gate" coverage at this time but B-list C-list and Z-list "celebrities" trying to get PR off it. There really isn't a story or narrative anymore, just pimping for clicks and credibility. Its like The Onion "Area Man" stories with real names. As some "earth to journalist" advice, if your story could run unchanged in The Onion then you're probably doing it wrong, unless you work for the Onion or a competitor.
Thirdly I don't know who I can't stand more, little manchild gamers with very narrow provincial outlook on game playing in general resulting in shitty games for everyone and they're also rude to chicks so they have both extremely bad taste and bad manners, or social justice warriors trying to white knight and build consensus by shouting everyone else down and get PR so they're political hacks of the lowest order, or sleazy clickbait journalists and site owners trying to make a buck off the whole thing basically just your run of the mill money grubbing crooks. Are they trying to cooperate to distract us from a real story, or are they just Z-list fools doing what Z-list fools do best aka screwing up, or ...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:25PM
Ah, the fallacy of false balance.
Suckers in the naive every time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:27PM
This whole story just makes anyone who self-identifies as a "gamer" look like an immature asshole. I know that's not true, but welcome to your new stereotype.
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:34PM
I've been noticing a few articials here on Gamergate, but none of them explain what IS the conversity surrounding it? (note emphasis on "IT")
Hmm...maybe gamergate is big enough to get a wiki page....*goes off searching for it....*
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Sunday October 12 2014, @04:46PM
Blah....need edit....IT should have been IS....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:14PM
There is a Facebook page [facebook.com] dedicated to the topic that seems mostly populated by the "against" side. There's *lots* of stuff there, though, and it is active.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:05PM
apparently some chick who makes games had a relationship with some guy who writes articles for Kotaku. he mentioned that Steam greenlighted her game along with 49 other games greenlighted at the same time (it was included in a list! OH NOES!), and now a bunch of assholes are trying to claim that that as proof that she fucked a bunch of game reviewers to get good reviews for her games. basically its just a bunch of misogynistic, abusive, sociopathic assholes using whatever petty bullshit they can find to justify their being misogynistic, abusive, sociopathic assholes.
oh, apparently some other chick wrote an article saying the term "gamer" was outdated, although she was only considering the assholes mentioned above as "gamers" since they're a very vocal, abusive minority, but i'm not sure how that fits in except as a smokescreen to cover for the abusive little fucktards to distract people from the real problem.
i'm predicting a bunch of AC comments will attack me with a bunch of denialist bullshit full of logical fallacies and lies, so know i'm going to ignore them all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:35PM
Damn, I am worried for you. There is a lot of anger in that post. At the end you used a conversational poisoning technique and claiming to refuse to even listen to any other viewpoints. That is an extremist level of investment and defense.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:45PM
work on your reading and comprehension. i said i would ignore all attacks and denialist bullshit, because its a waste of time talking to somebody who just plugs their ears and yells "NUH UH! LALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU!" civil discussion is welcome, but judging from the former "gamergate" article here, its not possible. i'm counting the minutes until i get called a "white knight" and see the burden of proof fallacy used. that you even think "other viewpoints" would be considered attacks or denialist bullshit shows that i called it right; after all, when you're at the pool and the lifeguard yells "No running!" you don't go up to him and say "But I wasn't running!" guilty conscience much?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:55PM
You're not doing a very good job of "ignoring" the alleged "attacks" against you if you keep on replying to them!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:08PM
I wasn't attacking. Just pointing out the extremist position. It is really unhealthy to simply claim whatever you believe as to be true and unwilling to talk about it unless it is to attack or defend against other people. Either a thought can stand up to rational scrutiny or it can't. If that is something someone is unwilling to do, then they have lost all cogent judgement.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @06:24PM
i wanted to comment to say something like that, but couldn't word it right. i'm definitely up for debate and discussion, but looking at all the other posts in this article, its not happening; its all just the same old bullshit from the previous "gamergate" article, people blatantly ignoring facts, using strawmen and red herrings to support their pre-made conclusions. its stupid, and its a waste of time responding because they'll just continue to repeat the same bullshit or move goalposts when they have to (denialist tactics). i'm hoping i prevented the worst of it by calling it out preemptively.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:44PM
I don't really know much about this incident, nor do I really care to. It all seems unnecessarily dramatic and stupid to me.
But there is one thing I've noticed whenever I accidentally run across any discussion of this matter: those in the "social justice warrior" camp, such as yourself, come across as extremely hypocritical.
Let me give you an example, using your very own comment. So you're apparently against people who attack others, yet you engage in the exact same behavior yourself.
Describing those you dislike as "a bunch of assholes", or "a bunch of misogynistic, abusive, sociopathic assholes", or "the assholes", or "the abusive little fucktards" are abusive attacks, plain and simple.
It's strange that you label them as "sociopathic", while your entire comment comes off as such.
It is really, really hard to take you seriously when you and others come off as so blatantly hypocritical. For all of the preaching you do about equality and tolerance, you guys seem to be the most spiteful, intolerant folks around!
(Score: 2, Informative) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:49PM
stopped reading right there. that you even think such a thing exists shows you're an idiot, and if thats not enough, you're using it as a strawman (which also proves you're an idiot) so there's still no reason to read past it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:52PM
Now you're arguing against your own existence?
That may be the ultimate form of hypocrisy: claiming that you don't even exist when you clearly do, because you're in front of us trying to make the argument that you don't exist!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:57PM
I prefer "Social Justice Magic User" but for special days I play a "Social Justice Rogue" on the net. That's because I got mad social justice skillz!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @01:25AM
On another site I lurk on someone suggested that they would be going with "Social Justice Bard". I kinda like that one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:57PM
It's real [reddit.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:12PM
Why is tathra's absolutely dumb comment modded up to 3, Informative? It's asinine. Of course there are people called 'social justice warriors'.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:27PM
Both sides come off as hypocritical. I'm sure there's some truth and some just position, but it's not worth my time to dig for it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:39PM
How? That does not make any sense. It just seems that you are speaking for the sake of speaking, not caring about the issues presented and claiming both sides are the same without willing to understand either.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:14PM
telling somebody that smoking is bad for them while lighting up a cigarette is extremely hypocritical, but that doesn't mean its bad advice. calling somebody a hypocrite as a method to undercut their message is purely an ad hominem though. whether or not somebody is a hypocrite is merely a red herring, at best.
the problem isnt hypocrisy, its that the only "side" i've seen doesn't actually have a message, just a bunch of abusive namecalling towards everyone who disagrees with them or points out the flaws in their arguments or calls them out on their outright lies. if you can't figure out which 'side' that is, here's a hint: they use terms like "white knight" and "social justice warrior".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:43PM
It's not ad hominem to call a hypocrite, such as yourself, a hypocrite when you've clearly demonstrated extremely hypocritical behavior.
If I call you a human, and you are a human, it's not an insult. It's a statement of fact.
If I call you a hypocrite, and you are a hypocrite, it's not an insult. It's a statement of fact.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday October 13 2014, @04:51AM
You can pretend brown people don't exist, don't make it so. would you like an example of a social justice warrior? be happy to help, here ya go [osnews.com]. Notice that anybody that disagrees with him supports rape, THAT is the perfect example of a SJWer, you see there is no difference of opinion allowed, you support X or you are Y, end of story. its ironic that these same people in the 50s would have probably been screaming "nigger lover!" at those that disagreed with them but now its words like "rape enabler".
Personally I don't give a fuck about your politics, what your genitals look like, or what sex you want to call yourself, hell be a Klingon for all I give a shit. But what I DO give very much a shit about is free speech and social justice warriors are totalitarians which can all go burn in hell as far as I'm concerned. ANY group, be it left or right, libertarian or communist, that refuse to allow or broke ANY dissent by using straight up attacks? Are the asscancer of the net. You can pretend they don't exist, pretend Jews don't exist, hell you can pretend I don't exist and the world is but a dream...again won't make it so.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday October 13 2014, @05:39AM
so why not just call them that instead of making up some special word that "coincidentally" gets used to label everyone who disagrees with you? why make up some special, brand new pejorative that gets used exactly the same as every racial slur ever? if the people who used that term cared about anything except wanting to be able to attack people, they'd tear apart their arguments, pointing out their fallacies instead of using fallacies and propaganda techniques themselves (specifically, ad hominems, name calling, labeling, and demonizing the enemy). if they ignore those and continue repeating the same old bullshit over and over again, there's already a word for that - denialist.
everyone who uses any slur, including "social justice warrior", is just outing themselves as a bigot.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday October 13 2014, @08:37AM
Because there are totalitarians that are NOT SJWers? Your argument would be like saying "Because SOME Muslims are black then ALL Muslims are black" when that just isn't the case, there are capitalist totalitarians, communist totalitarians, even religious totalitarians but you can bet your last buck that NONE of those groups would stand in the same room with a SJWer, which you will find is typically an ultra leftist white upper middle class with a MASSIVE dose of white guilt. When in doubt the correct answer to a SJWer is to blame anybody white with a penis, anybody white with a vagina gets a pass UNLESS they are in ANY way religious or conservative, then see white penis.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday October 13 2014, @06:07AM
and by the way, now that i've read that link, i notice that doesn't show what you claim it does. the closest i can find is this one:
Oh boy! People who disagree with the distraction narrative must obviously support rapists, and an implication of misogyny thrown in for good measure.
Way to prove the point...
which is just sarcasm and hyperbole (did you get poe's law'd by that?), i don't see anything that even gives a feeling of "everyone who disagrees with me is a rapist!" almost everything can be claimed to be something its not when taken out of context, especially when used by somebody with an agenda.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Monday October 13 2014, @08:29AM
Then you obviously have trouble reading because no matter what anybody else said his ONLY response was "ZOMFG they are gonna rape Zoe you bastard penis holders!"
You will see this is SOP of the SJWers, its a classic "derail the thread" tactic, no different if in the middle of an Apple iOS versus Android discussion I interjected "Did you know Apple is loved by niggers"? Does their users being black have fuck all to do with a discussion about iOS versus Android? Nope just as what kind of threats (if any, I have seen enough of her act to know this woman loves to troll for flamebaits, helps plug her products) that Zoe Quinn had in the past had to do with the discussion, which was "did the game reviewers secretly conspire to control the narrative?"...BTW if you are curious the answer is yes, since somebody leaked their hidden Google Group emails.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Monday October 13 2014, @03:55PM
i'm honestly trying to figure out where you see that, so i'm going to paste in every quote from that link so you can point exactly to it.
It begins with simple threats. You know, rape, dismemberment, the usual. It's a good place to start, those threats, because you might simply vanish once those threats include your family. Mission accomplished. But today, many women online - you women who are far braver than I am - you stick around. And now, since you stuck around through the first wave of threats, you are now a much BIGGER problem. Because the Worst Possible Thing has happened: as a result of those attacks, you are NOW serving Victim-Flavored Koolaid.
And Victim-Flavored Koolaid is the most dangerous substance on earth, apparently. And that just can't be allowed.
'congratulations on having thick skin, but you probably have a persecution complex'
The fact that I have to turn off comments on articles about the systematic abuse women receive from these low-life idiots on a small site like OSNews is all the proof you need. Until I no longer receive abusive comments for pointing out this issue, comments will remain closed.
'comments are turned off because i keep getting threats, threats which prove widespread...' (misogyny i assume?)
All of the allegations against Zoe Quinn were fabricated, made up out of whole cloth, but it's cool, feel free to continue absolving these dicks of any wrong doing.
There may be wide spread corruption in the game journalist community, but nothing about gamergate shows any of that.
They drove that woman out of her own home, using threats of sexual and other typed of physical abuse, published her person details to the net, they tried to destroy her.
What's pervasive is the misogyny that seems inherent to parts of the internet.
repeats the opponent's position, and then gives a description of what happened, and from what i understand about the situation its not even exaggeration. nothing like what you claim though.
Oh boy! People who disagree with the distraction narrative must obviously support rapists, and an implication of misogyny thrown in for good measure.
Way to prove the point...
the only one close to what you claim, but its Poe's Law in action if that's it.
It does prove the point, it's not a distraction, it was the entire operation, the whole "controversy" was nothing more than an excuse to harass somebody to the point they had to flee their home.
In real life, adults are suppose to investigate wrongdoing, and then deal with it appropriately. Are you saying that threatening a person with rape and death, committing slander and massive privacy violations, to the point they need to run from their home, is a just punishment for some sort of nebulous corruption in gaming media?
Really?
arguing with each other
I'll invoke Godwin's Law: It's like saying "I support National socialists(Nazi) because they had proof that store-owners manipulated certain market, but focusing on attacks on jews is distracting the narrative"
However off-topic this is, it's in that lane.
An no matter how good the ethics in journalism struggle is, you will have to defend against accusations of misogyny and will be attracting misogynists to #GamerGate. It's an empty name that is just a sack of s**t.
starts off saying he's invoking godwins, then points out that misogynist are the voice of the "gamergate" "movement"
I would like to point out that a lot of the bad behavior is NOT misogyny. They hate people pretty equally in my view with men getting as much crap from these people as women.
Do they make things up about these men in order to fan the flames and then reveal their personal location/contact details?
Would a male journalist get the same crap if they wrote that misogyny doesn't exist in the community?
which, exactly, is the example of "you're disagreeing with me? YOU RAPIST!" because i'm not seeing it. is there another post that you were trying to link to and gave me the wrong link? or are you just exhibiting a perfect example of a straw man, projecting and putting your words into other people's mouths, intentionally misconstruing what they say in order to justify your bigotry?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:33PM
Describing those you dislike as "a bunch of assholes", or "a bunch of misogynistic, abusive, sociopathic assholes", or "the assholes", or "the abusive little fucktards" are abusive attacks, plain and simple.
The problem you are grappling with is a difference of definitions. You think the people you call SJWs are against name-calling when they are really against is undeserved name-calling. Sure there are some people in gamergate who are not abusive fucktards. But (a) gamergate membership is 100% voluntary and (b) there are lots and lots of actually abusive fucktards in the group. The saying, "you are known by the company you keep" applies here.
So they are definitely hypocrites if they are against name-calling. But since that's not their actual position, they aren't really all that hypocritical.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cafebabe on Monday October 13 2014, @08:18AM
I thought that gamergate was the name of the controversy. Is there some sleight-of-hand by associating the term with one faction only?
1702845791×2
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @09:30AM
(Different AC here.)
Short version: maybe we should call it the "GamerGate controversy controversy". ;-)
#GamerGate is the Twitter hashtag used for the discussing accusations of breaches of journalistic integrity in videogame news sites as of a couple months ago. The anti-#GamerGate side claims the accusations of journalistic integrity under the #GamerGate banner were a fabricated controversy to attack women, due to #GamerGate appearing to have started in response to a blog post by a game developer's ex-boyfriend trying to get back at her for breaking up with him. This article is referencing the latest woman to be driven out of her home due to threats organized under the #GamerGate banner.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday October 13 2014, @12:54AM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:05PM
I'd stay away from the wiki page for it. If you do read the wiki page also read the talk section and the dispute resolution for it. It's heavily bias and there are a lot of editors that are trying to put their own personal spin on it. They made the mistake of connecting it to the wiki feminist portal project who seem to have a vested interest in this being a smear against the women that was connected in several ways in the beginning. Since it involved allegations a women was trading sex for positive coverage it quickly turned into an assault on women. Had it been started by a man paying journalist off, it'd be called bribery rather than misogyny. It probably wouldn't have even been a foot note in the issue.
GamerGate put together a resource page [giz.moe] if you're interested in checking it out. I won't deny it's likely bias, but it's pretty easy to find information on the other side since, well, they other side is writing about it.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:14PM
Okay, which sounds more neutral:
1) Site that can be edited by anybody (including both sides in a conflict), requires any statements of fact be backed by acceptable evidence (articles, books, etc.) and demands relatively balanced coverage to reach an overall neutral point of view.
2) Site written by people on one side of a conflict.
I think I'd have to go with Door Number One. ;-)
(Score: 1) by GoonDu on Monday October 13 2014, @09:55AM
>The neutrality of this article is disputed.
The article is locked because of edit disputes so it's not exactly neutral as you think. Granted, one can think that it's pro-gamergate people doing vandalism but one could also easily consider that the other side is doing it as well. If not, why would this topic be brought to Jimmy Wales' attention? http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/840952-gamergate [knowyourmeme.com] . Bot sides are guilty.
Seriously, the reason why this issue had been hotly debated is because both sides share some wrongs and rights at the same time. The whole thing would have subsided if not the 'gamer is dead' article which had been written for maximum sensationalism and the mishandling of idiotic journalists who would not know how to PR and damage control. Now they are simply burning from the acts they have committed.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday October 13 2014, @10:59AM
Except there are more on one side, and they've been undoing and having the other side topic banned from editing. The anti side gets the article locked, waits for the unlock jumps in makes a bunch of unfavourable edits, undo the favourable ones, has the article locked again. That's part of the reason it went to dispute resolution. The anti side is weaponizing wikipedia to influence opinion and spread misinformation.
It has been getting better since the dispute resolution, still on going I think, but like I said just read the talk page and you'll see pretty quickly there are issues with the article being one sided. I suspect it's only getting better now because IF no progress is made it'll go to mediation, which could unpredictably end up bad for either side.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by tnt118 on Sunday October 12 2014, @05:42PM
This was the article I first came across that tried to break it down:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/6/6901013/whats-happening-in-gamergate [theverge.com]
As for my thoughts, extremist opinions on any subject are rarely constructive. Both sides are "led" by a core that does not represent the group as a whole. They're both using labels to group people together and denouncing the entirety of said group without regard to the merits of their arguements. Extremists in the gamergate camp have more than their fair share of trolls. Extremists among the SJH's are denouncing bullying/abuse/threats with... bullying, abuse and threats.
In the bigger picture there are valid points of concern from both sides. But that's not what they are arguing about anymore. Gamergate is no longer abourt gamergate, it's about people's reactions to gamergate. And nothing constructive can ever come from that.
I think I like it here.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:18PM
I read through the Wikipedia article and did quite a bit of research out of curiosity to see what had really happened. As far as I can tell, it's pretty much factually correct (if confusing at times due to missing info. Here's my own summary, from memory:
1) Developer starts a Steam campaign for their game. She's harassed by trolls (including quite a few focused entirely on her gender) until she folds and ends the campaign. At some point, her relationship ends.
2) Developer re-starts the campaign, determined to ignore the trolls this time. This time they spread her personal contact/location info, harass her via every available front, one of which includes at least one letter detailing her being raped by them. They also dox & harass her friends, relatives, and acquaintances, including revealing that some are trans. She stays silent.
3) A community moderator & fan of a 'Mega Man' series game makes a public post with fan art asking for the option of playing as a female robot. A group searches her Twitter history, find that she nodded along with a couple of "feminist" tweets (their term for it) and shared a link to a popular video about women being portrayed in games; they post those as "evidence" claiming that her "feminist agenda" will destroy the game, demand that she be fired and that they be given full refunds. The earlier developer finally speaks up in her defense, revealing the harassment she had also experienced.
4) The earlier developer's game is Greenlighted. Her ex, still angry/bitter over the relationship's end, spreads lies on his website claiming she supposedly cheated on him with a game journalist. She and the journalist deny the allegations, and (from what I can gather) evidence of some kind backed their statement.
5) A subgroup of gamers begins aggressively trolling/harassing/threatening her, claiming that she had sex with every journalist that gave her game a positive review and that it's the only reason her game was greenlighted. They spread the lies wherever possible, hack into her accounts, as well as one of a well-known male developer that tried to defend her. They claim to be angry at the lack of ethics in journalism, but don't bother harassing the actual journalist. They press for media coverage of the "controversy" and are enraged further when the coverage doesn't resemble their narrative, so they pass around manifestos like this one [returnofkings.com].
6) Months later, articles start being written about the term "gamer" broadening to become as meaningless as "TV viewer," rather than applying primarily to a subgroup of young single white guys. Some writers point to how common sexism, racism, homophobia & misogyny are in the "gamer" community, and conclude that while there are "good" gamers, it's probably for the best that the identity fade away.
7) A subgroup of enraged gamers takes the above as a personal attack full of racism & misandry. They pressure Intel into pulling its ads from one site that had a particularly blunt article on the topic...and here we are.
(Score: 1) by MostCynical on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:06PM
Thank you for this.
It matches my understanding of some of the key events.
Reading through reams of arguement, counter-arguement, and many, many biased, ranting drivel (from both "sides") is quite difficult.
Interstingly, when the main protagonists are vocal minorities, many want the "majority" to "speak up".
This applies to militant extremists claiming to be the true believers of a religion as well as computer game and game development, and now journalism. Has anyone asked for journalists to "speak out" against "Fox News", just so we have a full circle?
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:24PM
well said. thats pretty much what i found from digging through various sources to find wtf this was all about, and much more politely stated.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @12:28AM
No one ever hacked her accounts, there was never any proof.
Why is it always a subgroup of gamers? Apparently the media blames gamers for so much these days we're just comfortable with it being their fault. Tommy didn't do drugs until after he played Max Payne, therefore video games made him do it!
Did any of you ever consider it's easier to attack gamers than to address the real world inequality issues?
Stop saying gamers did it, the only common trait of people that harrasse women isn't video games.
Gamers and Video games are tired of being your scapegoat.
On behalf of gamers everywhere, Fuck off, we don't give a shit about you anymore!
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday October 13 2014, @11:30AM
You're actually pretty far of base with this and confusing several different events that were partly resulted from GamerGate. The Mighty Number 9 project got spun into the issue BECAUSE the community manager, who had been in dispute previous for other reasons, started banning people from the forums for talking about GamerGate. It wasn't about her wanting a female character included in MN9, it was how she got involved in the project. I'm not going to elaborate because it's not relevant to GamerGate other than she started banning people from the MN9 forums for talking about GamerGate. At which point people went on a charge back campaign to get the hundreds of dollars they spent to be part of the forums back.
Here's a page that has what GamerGate is actually about [giz.moe] to GamerGate people, but because of all the misinformation that's being floated around GamerGate can't get people talking about the actual issues because people comment excessively pushing relevant information out of view, throws in irrelevant information, and screams misogyny. Then all discussion is shut down. Just read thorough the comments on this story. It's the same tactics used by PR companies for reputation management for Microsoft when Windows 8 was released... Well except for the misogyny part, we were called nerds in a negative context instead.
Anyone here from /. knows all about reputation management.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by Marand on Monday October 13 2014, @01:52AM
I've been noticing a few articials here on Gamergate, but none of them explain what IS the conversity surrounding it? (note emphasis on "IT")
Depends on who you ask. Media coverage is skewed heavily toward "gamers are misogynists" and focusing on threats against specific people, while others are claiming it's about the unethical nature of gaming journalism and its general decline. It's hard to get an unbiased view considering the media itself is under fire, and most gaming publications have been reluctant to call out themselves or others.
I find this skewed media presentation interesting, so I've been following it from the sidelines. You've got claims of unethical practices on one side, while the other side seems to be using its narrative control to only focus on a specific part, glossing over most of the ethics complaints and downplaying the claims.
It's not comprehensive at all, but I attempted to explain some of what's going on in this comment [soylentnews.org] the last time it came up on SN. I tried to keep it as neutral and factual as possible while covering the parts that are generally being left out of the media coverage, though I'll admit it's focused primarily on the media control aspect, since that's the part I find interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:00PM
...but we already know gamergate-related attacks have been carried out by sockpuppets trying to discredit the opposite side. I feel bad for this developer but she should really bear in mind that pseudonymous internet threats on public sites are not all that serious. And I say this as a person who has received death threats through his private, personal phone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:02PM
> but we already know gamergate-related attacks have been carried out by sockpuppets trying to discredit the opposite side.
Evidence?
I just googled and all I could find was 4chan discussion of them setting up sockpuppets to attack women.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:15PM
Anita Sarkeesian supposedly faked death threats. I've also seen Twitter conversations about setting up these sockpuppet attacks (but it was a while ago, would be hard to dig them up at this point).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:20PM
> Anita Sarkeesian supposedly faked death threats.
You supposedly faked death threats.
Or in other words, that's not evidence.
You want to make an extraordinary claim, the least you can do is provide ordinary evidence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:23PM
Prove the threats were real, otherwise they were not.
Burden of proof is on you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:26PM
> Prove the threats were real, otherwise they were not.
Why should there be any doubt?
Do I also need to prove that they weren't written by the flying spaghetti monster?
The threats certainly exist and they are in line with so much of the talk out of the group.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:33PM
By their very nature, one must assume all death threats are real - if you incorrectly assume they are not, you die. There is no need to "prove" that somebody intends to carry out a death threat; they're illegal and must all be assumed as serious, joking or not.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday October 13 2014, @08:51AM
Oh, that's curious: Burden of proof meets precautionary principle. And even if the precautionary principle takes precedent, does it affect the burden of proof when it is referenced?
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 13 2014, @03:27PM
Legal vs. personal response. The threat doesn't have to hold up in a court of law for you, the threatened, to respond cautiously to it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @11:37PM
Actually, no, it's not. The positive claim had been made that "Anita Sarkeesian supposedly faked death threats". The AC you responded to did not make the claim that they were real, although he did express some inclination in that direction. AC simply asked for some evidence of your positive claim. So, the one making the positive claim that the threats are fake (or defending it) needs to produce evidence to back up that claim. This is basic logic 101. The logical fallacy you are committing is called "shifting the burden of proof". To read up on this and other fallacies (I think you have committed at least a few others in this discussion), consult this wiki page [wikipedia.org].
Why, oh why, do people become unhinged and jettison basic logic when discussing this issue?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:24AM
Because there's no substance to it, its just an excuse to justify abusive attacking. Once you realize that, it becomes obvious why there's no logic involved.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:39PM
Jeez, don't get so defensive.
>You want to make an extraordinary claim, the least you can do is provide ordinary evidence.
Google or DDG "Sarkeesian fakes death threats" and you will find whatever evidence there is. You will also find claims that the story didn't go quite the way it was portrayed. The bottom line being that proving internet events on a pseudonymous internet network with a high degree of fidelity is hard, nearly impossible given the ease of staging events without any sort of accountability for the parties involved.
Also, 'extraordinary claim'? There is nothing 'extraordinary' about a social network montage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:47PM
> Google or DDG "Sarkeesian fakes death threats" and you will find whatever evidence there is.
So, none.
As such, no further speculation would be appropriate at this time. [gamerheadlines.com]
> Also, 'extraordinary claim'? There is nothing 'extraordinary' about a social network montage.
I don't even know what a "social network montage" is. But I do know that claiming someone made fake death threats and that she herself then had the FBI investigate is a pretty extraordinary claim.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:01PM
>I do know that claiming someone made fake death threats and that she herself then had the FBI investigate is a pretty extraordinary claim.
It is my understanding that she had (allegedly) never contacted the FBI. Regardless, proving this sort of stuff is hard for reasons already explained. I mean, proving that it happened or it didn't would both be hard. Most people don't generally consider this when looking at evidence for any given claim, though. More often than not, the threshold of proof for the position a given person supports is significantly lower than the one said person sets for the opposition.
In any case, I don't see how setting up a sockpuppet is such an extraordinary act. I could go and do it right now if I could be bothered. I mentioned I have seen Twitter talk planning such montages. I'm sorry I don't have the screenshots stored in my computer (though if I did, someone would probably point out I might have forged them, which is just another example of the decreasing trustworthiness of the internet).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:07PM
> In any case, I don't see how setting up a sockpuppet is such an extraordinary act.
The extraordinary claim is that she sent herself fake death threats. How she did it is entirely mundane.
Either you know that and are deliberately misdirecting, or you aren't very smart.
Either way you've lost all credibility.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:11PM
>Either way you've lost all credibility.
Ha, way to ignore the rest of what I wrote. But you are obviously too aligned to one side of this debate to listen to reason, so I agree we should terminate this exchange. Have a nice day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:21PM
> Ha, way to ignore the rest of what I wrote.
You mean the part where you repeated yourself about how hard it is to prove something absolutely and that people have different standards based on their biases?
I don't disagree, but it was not relevant to the point, except perhaps as an excuse for you to believe in the flimsiest of hearsay.
I asked for even ordinary proof and twice now all you did was misdirect to pretend that I was asking for proof about something irrelevant. Oh and you also told me to google it - the #1 sign that someone is full of BS, prove my arguments for me!
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday October 13 2014, @03:30PM
Why is the idea that she sent herself death threats extraordinary?
False flags, sockpuppets...get more cynical, man.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday October 13 2014, @08:50PM
I would like to assume they're real and err on the side of caution.
That said, I was on twitter Friday night when the S**t hit the fan.
There's some question about Wu's twtter time line, she tweeted she received threats 1 minute before she actually received the threats. She received the threats, which didn't tag #GamerGate, SHE tagged #GamerGate and accused it of sending the threats. It could have easily been MRA extremest or any number of other people.
On top of that her tweet tagging #GamerGate was re-tweeted over 1,200 times in the first five minutes, there's a lot of speculation she was using bots to spread the message as quickly as possible. At which point a "friend" of Wu's started tweeting around, "My friend was just threatened here's a link to her game".
People in GamerGate had started reporting it and had the account down in 15 minutes. Not 5 minutes later the first article blaming #GamerGate came out by Ian, something other other. Give how quickly it went from "OMG, I'm being threatened" to "Here's a link to my friends game" to "ZOMG!! #GamerGate is chasing women out of their homes!", to me this seems very much like it was intended to happen.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 14 2014, @02:24PM
"So trap?"
"Trap."
"At least a little effort to hide it would be nice--"
*knocks tray off console*
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Monday October 13 2014, @09:30AM
I take a dim view of any arrangement of pixels whether it is a photograph or a screenshot which "proves" that something appeared on the Internet. The screenshot I saw may or may not be genuine but it looked legitimate to me and it correlated with an account which had been deleted by Twitter due to abuse. Unfortunately, I cursed myself after reading an analysis which noted several anomalies. First and foremost, 10 grammatically correct messages were sent in time that it would have taken me to send one or two. Secondly, the screenshot was taken about 20 minutes after the first message was sent. Thirdly, the screenshot was taken by a prominent Twitter user who was not logged into their account. Overall, the screenshot was consistent with someone who had just logged out of a sockpuppet account after trolling herself. I missed this possibility entirely and I now take an even dimmer view of such evidence.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Sunday October 12 2014, @07:49PM
The more I try, the less I get all of it.
Is anyone so kind as to write a reasonable recap of what is happening, who are the parties and what are their interests?
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:07PM
http://www.apixelatedview.com/quinnspiracy/ [apixelatedview.com]
https://medium.com/@cainejw/a-narrative-of-gamergate-and-examination-of-claims-of-collusion-with-4chan-5cf6c1a52a60 [medium.com]
http://apgnation.com/archives/2014/09/09/6977/truth-gaming-interview-fine-young-capitalists [apgnation.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:14PM
Those are heavily biased to favor one particular party.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:20PM
Let's let mtrycz decide that.
bias != untrue.
untrue != information I don't like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @08:27PM
> bias != untrue.
Neither does bias == true.
But half-the-story == bias.
> Let's let mtrycz decide that.
He didn't ask for biased truth. He asked for a "reasonable recap" - bias basically rules that out and he's back again where he started.
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:00PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:17PM
This. Unless you are a very dedicated gamer, this shitstorm is not even worth looking into. If you are a very dedicated gamer, you already knew the state of the gaming community and industry long before this gamergate scandal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:18PM
That's weird. I've read tons of articles about gamergate and whatever they were called before they adopted that name and I haven't noticed the term "red flag" even once. What does it mean?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @09:29PM
A red flag is something that draws your attention and warns you of danger. I suppose GP meant 'false flag', which means a false alarm of sorts, in this case either the threat was empty words by a troll, or staged by sockpuppets (assuming it was indeed a false flag).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:25PM
Hhhm, so if he meant accusations of "false flag" are frequently made by both sides, I haven't seen any such accusation by one side. Especially of the kind that get the police involved. Do you know of any?
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Monday October 13 2014, @10:59PM
(Score: 1) by mvar on Sunday October 12 2014, @10:22PM
what someone else posted earlier: 1st world problems (for which no sane person who actually values his precious free time would ever give a fuck)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 12 2014, @11:48PM
Except, of course, for the part where people are getting driven from their homes by death threats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @05:57AM
Anything related to having a home is a first-world problem for sure. Come to think of it, death threats are too, because outside of the first-world they skip the threats and just kill you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @10:56AM
#GamerGate is a movement claiming to be about ethics in videogame journalism. Here's a pro-#GamerGate site listing their grievances. [giz.moe] Particularly, they claim the accusations of misogyny are a massive media campaign to distract from their ethics concerns. There's also a good amount of backlash against Anita Sarkeesian's recent feminist critiques of mainstream videogames and Leigh Alexander's article about the stereotype of gamers as only being 18-34 cishet men as being long obsolete (the flamebait title "'Gamers' are over" [gamasutra.com] didn't win her any friends among #GamerGate).
The anti-#GamerGate side, for which is suffices to just link Wikipedia on the Gamergate controversy [wikipedia.org], asserts that #GamerGate is really about driving women away from the videogame industry, the main evidence being this article and the fact that the main visible grievance of the #GamerGate group was an organized disinformation campaign about the indie game developer Zoe Quinn started by her ex-boyfriend.
My take on it is that anyone who claims to be using #GamerGate to confront ethics issues is acting in bad faith, but obviously those standing by the #GamerGate flag think the people who respond to claims of ethics violations with claims of harassment are derailing.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Monday October 13 2014, @11:54AM
I've admitted, I'm pro-GamerGate, kudos to you. This is extremely close to what is actually going on. However it started, GamerGate didn't take off until the "Gamers are Over" articles. Alexander was just one of 10+ articles that were written within 24 hours claiming Gamers were dead/over. Then as it turned out the GameJournoPro e-mails were found that demonstrated there was collusion taking place. Although some people give a little too much weight to the GJP e-mails. I'm a professional and I talk with professionals in my industry, which is kind of like what's going on in the GJP thread. What we don't do is talk about pushing specific vendors, as they did, and discuss spinning narratives to slander and discredit our clients, as they also did.
Again kudos to you for taking a seemingly neutral position, although I'm sure me commenting it's neutral will end up getting you screamed at for not supporting the misinformation campaign... Sorry.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @08:31PM
Snort! Ummm...yeah. And I'm President of the Trilateral Commission. I run the Universe.
Anyone who thinks that this is about concerns over ethics in videogame journalism needs to turn off their computer, step away from their keyboard, and go mingle in the real world for about a week or two (at least). Seriously. Some people just need to get a real life for their own good.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @12:38AM
John Walker, founder of the video game review site Rock, Paper, Shotgun, weighed in [rockpapershotgun.com] on the issue of misogyny/sexism issue in the video game industry long ago.
Video gamers responded to him. Lots of people.
Here [botherer.org] is his take on GamerGate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:04AM
John Walker has been very sexist for a very long time. Though even he had to let go one of his own staff for having an inappropriate relationship with Quinn, only to later ignore it, pretend it never happened, and systematically delete any conversations about it on RPS. He is the worst kind of hypocrite. A petty tyrant that will tell you that you are a bad person for buying videogames and being male at the same time, then refuse to let you defend yourself.
(Score: 1) by boltronics on Monday October 13 2014, @02:08AM
How is it considered doxxing, when the street address, e-mail address and phone number of this person are all published online in public records?
Yeah, the person harassing and posting death threats is a real jerk and I hope the law is able to come down on him/her. But I don't understand what the whole "doxxing" thing was supposed to be about here.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 1) by boltronics on Monday October 13 2014, @02:28AM
In fact, I don't even see why the threats are considered to be someone anti-GamerGate. What does GamerGate have to do with any of this? GamerGate is about responsibility and transparency in gaming journalism, and is inclusive to all people. Women, feminists, whoever, it doesn't matter. If you care about transparency in gaming press, you're not just welcome in GamerGate; you should *be* a part of pro-GamerGate. Heck, if Reddit and 4chan can be on the same page, GamerGate must be as inclusive as it gets. :)
Sure, it all started with Zoe Quinn who directly helped expose corruption. She was a feminist, and waved the feminist flag, exclaiming that this is why she was really attacked (which is obviously untrue). Then the gaming press decided that the best way to defend their actions was to label the pro-GamerGate people as anti-feminist male gamers (also obviously untrue, but it worked to their advantage by attempting to change and twist the issue). Then lots of feminists joined in to help Zoe based on the lies of Zoe and the gaming press, and it snowballed. Feminists would actually be pro-GamerGate, if they understood the movement and weren't fed lies by so many.
Yes, there are jerks on the Internet. We've seen "doxxing" on both sides (if that's really a thing) - I wish people would be more respectful of others' regardless of opinion. But these individuals do not represent what the movement is about.
In the end, the anti-GamerGate people consist of more people than a few feminist groups. The only thing this does is try to play to the narrative that gaming press have been spinning so they don't need to defend themselves from their corruption. This is not actually a GamerGate issue at all, and I get annoyed that it's even mentioned here - even if it is just to deny association with what has happened.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @04:30AM
And what corruption is that? Please explain in detail and post links directly supporting your claim.
(Score: 1) by boltronics on Monday October 13 2014, @08:47AM
I already posted a bunch of links that summarise the situation nicely.
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=4243&cid=102932 [soylentnews.org]
Specifically about some of the collusion that has since came up:
WTF is the GameJournoPros Google Group? #GamerGate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQMOY9HcOf4&list=UUxXUQuvoiIAlpM2osoAitjQ [youtube.com]
So I just spoke with a member of GameJournoPro's email list... #GamerGate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTxf6W3kdwU&list=UUxXUQuvoiIAlpM2osoAitjQ [youtube.com]
On the 28th of August, we had all these sources basically tell us that gamers are dead:
Gamesasutra - 'Gamers' don't have to be your audience. 'Gamers' are over.
https://archive.today/l1kTW [archive.today]
Kotaku - We Might Be Witnessing The 'Death of An Identity'
https://archive.today/YlBhH [archive.today]
Polygon - An awful week to care about video games
https://archive.today/rkvO8#selection-1195.0-1195.39 [archive.today]
Dan Golding - 'Gamers' are over
http://dangolding.tumblr.com/post/95985875943/the-end-of-gamers [tumblr.com]
ArsTechnica - The death of the "gamers" and the women who killed them
https://archive.today/i928J#selection-567.0-567.57 [archive.today]
This strongly hinted at collusion, and it was through enough digging that we learned of the GameJournoPros Google Group.
There are a hundred other issues I haven't touched on. If you're not clued up on what is going on by now, you're probably not going to read these anyway.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @10:34AM
A bunch of games media outlets posting more-or-less the same story in a short timespan strongly hints that games media has exactly as much creativity as mainstream media. Oh, look: CNN is running stories on Furgeson - get a team down there right away! Media is a conversation among journalists that we're all allowed to watch, so yeah, when a new story "breaks," you should expect every outlet to post their special take on that story. Conspiracy not required.
(Score: 1) by boltronics on Monday October 13 2014, @11:15AM
Call it what you will, it turned out to be both warranted and helpful in this case.
It's GNU/Linux dammit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 13 2014, @07:10AM
Harassment is bad. Period. Worse still is legitimate death threat. Wu does not deserve this but I think we have to take into account on reaction to getting harassed. If a person is getting actual death threats, the most rational thing to do is to report to the authority AND stay quiet. Legitimate or not, complaining or even mentioning it on twitter is just going to stoke the ego of victim's harasser, seeing that he/she/they have the victim's attention and they know they have achieved their goal (that is to watch people reacting over it). This also sends another message to others that harassment is 'fun' seeing how it got a rise out of people. This just simply perpetuate the problem even further.
And if they are legitimate death threat and they are hell bent on ruining the victim, no amount of sympathy from twitter is going to guarantee the safety of the victim, trust the authority for the job. The last thing on the victim's mind should be tweeting this to his/her follower. Note this does not mean the victim does not have to suffer in silence, the victim can depend on his/her loved ones.
And of course, assessing whether a threat is valid or not is hard and it's up to the victim's discretion but declaring it over the internet is not good in that regards.
(Score: 2) by cafebabe on Tuesday October 14 2014, @04:23AM
I'm disgusted that this issue has a chilling effect on open discourse. In a typical discussion, about 20% of this forum's comments are anonymous. In this discussion, 167 out of 261 comments (64%) are anonymous. So, it is quite obvious that people do not feel able to speak openly about this issue.
1702845791×2