GamerGate

[Ultimate Paragon]

I honestly think Gamergate lost this battle when Anita had to call off her talk at USU.  At that point, the mainstream media picked up on this and took a look and the results...aren't pretty.  New York Times ran a front page article on this with the leaders of Gamergate consciously absent.  Of course as Gamergate has no leadership but is an amorphous blob of points and counter-points, its what I expected.

THEN THERE'S THIS!  A great way for Gamergate to change their tone, get some PR, and completly show everyone what they actually are about and...they fail.  Badly.  Just...badly.  This has never been about gaming journalism ethics, such as they are.  It's been cloaked in that.  A very badly torn cloak with holes the size of beach balls in it.  The true core is just that.  Harassment of anyone who they find disagrees with their stated goals.  Or what they say are their stated goals.

Ironbite-kinda pathetic if you ask me.

1.  Gamers have been demonized by the mainstream media before.  We haven't lost yet, not by a longshot.

2.  That article in the New York Times was admirably neutral, actually.

3.  Are you seriously suggesting we fund our ideological enemies?  And Todd's not exactly an unbiased figure.  His girlfriend is one of Anita's friends.  Oh, and Todd, we do fight against harassment!  We tracked down the guy who threatened to shoot Anita.  And we should have already proved that we don't hate women when we funded The Fine Young Capitalists!

Dammit Todd, I like you, but that post was full of bullshit.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Sorry UP, but is this really anything else than different strokes for different folks?

Is it ok with you if she makes her game and people enjoy it even if you don't?

Well, like I said, it's not about her.  I don't care about her game being sexual.  What I do care about is the double standard.

[Canadian Mojo]

I get a kick out of the 'false flag' claims every time an anti gets doxxed or otherwise harassed in an unacceptable manner.

4-chan: end fathers day, bikini bridge, freed bleeding, etc, etc, etc.

Just because it is exactly the kind of shit you would pull doesn't mean your opponent will do the same... but it is very understandable human nature to assume they will since we tend to view the world through the filter of our preconceived notions.

Before you rush to claim the GG is not 4-chan and 4-chan is not GG allow me to point out two things:
1. no true Scotsman
2. the Finland problem -- you may think of yourselves as nothing more than co-belligerents fighting Russia, but the rest of the world thinks you're allied with the Nazis.

[Sigmaleph]

3.  Are you seriously suggesting we fund our ideological enemies?

Interesting. Is Anita Sarkeesian an ideological enemy of GamerGate? Sure, she opposes the movement because she perceives it as an excuse for harassment, but she does not oppose its stated ideology of pushing for ethics in game journalism. One might even go so far as to say that her goal and GamerGate's are aligned: serious critical analysis of games and serious discussion of the practices of game journalism are both a push towards games being taken more, well, seriously.

Besides, GamerGate claims to favour free speech and being forced to cancel a speech because of security concerns is more or less the exact opposite of that. It seems to me that if there is a group within GamerGate who

a) seriously cares about their stated goal of improving the journalistics standards re: gaming

b) favours free speech, and

c) opposes harassment done in the name of GamerGate,

Then donating to Anita Sarkeesian in response to the USU shooting threats would be a more or less ideal move. Would that change her mind, or that of anyone who is already convinced GG is a convenient excuse for harassment? Probably not. But it would certainly be a useful data point for those of us looking from the sidelines and trying to figure out how sincere your intentions are.

[gomer21xx]

So, it finally happened.  My cohorts and I produced an episode of a podcast about this bullshit.

Here ya go.

I think I just accomplished being a whore AND contributing to the discussion! =D

[I am lizard]

I honestly think Gamergate lost this battle when Anita had to call off her talk at USU.  At that point, the mainstream media picked up on this and took a look and the results...aren't pretty.  New York Times ran a front page article on this with the leaders of Gamergate consciously absent.  Of course as Gamergate has no leadership but is an amorphous blob of points and counter-points, its what I expected.

THEN THERE'S THIS!  A great way for Gamergate to change their tone, get some PR, and completly show everyone what they actually are about and...they fail.  Badly.  Just...badly.  This has never been about gaming journalism ethics, such as they are.  It's been cloaked in that.  A very badly torn cloak with holes the size of beach balls in it.  The true core is just that.  Harassment of anyone who they find disagrees with their stated goals.  Or what they say are their stated goals.

Ironbite-kinda pathetic if you ask me.

1.  Gamers have been demonized by the mainstream media before.  We haven't lost yet, not by a longshot.

2.  That article in the New York Times was admirably neutral, actually.

3.  Are you seriously suggesting we fund our ideological enemies?  And Todd's not exactly an unbiased figure.  His girlfriend is one of Anita's friends.  Oh, and Todd, we do fight against harassment!  We tracked down the guy who threatened to shoot Anita.  And we should have already proved that we don't hate women when we funded The Fine Young Capitalists!

Dammit Todd, I like you, but that post was full of bullshit.

1.snorts
3.UP, I don't want get into a debate about if GG is sexist or not, you still can't just say anything good your movement does represents all of you and any group that does bad things is just a vocal minority

[Second Coming of Madman]

The entire movement needs to be rebuilt from the ground up before I even consider throwing my hat in, if you ask me. Ditch the Breitbart dipshit and throw his arse to the side.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

1.  Gamers have been demonized by the mainstream media before.  We haven't lost yet, not by a longshot.

Paragon, before evoking the royal "We" here, please consider that most of the critics of gamergate are also gamers!

2.  That article in the New York Times was admirably neutral, actually.

True, they did say it was a vocal minority in the movement. However the New York times isn't all of the mainstream media, the MSNBC's interview of Brianna Wu was far more damning.

3.  Are you seriously suggesting we fund our ideological enemies?  And Todd's not exactly an unbiased figure.  His girlfriend is one of Anita's friends.  Oh, and Todd, we do fight against harassment!  We tracked down the guy who threatened to shoot Anita.  And we should have already proved that we don't hate women when we funded The Fine Young Capitalists!

And this is one of Gamer Gate's problems right here, more focus on factions and personalities than on issues in gaming.

Also, there's a quote from the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics which has been troubling me re: the identification of this Brazilian chap as the sole source of the threats.

Balance a suspect's right to a fair trial with the public's right to know. Consider the implications of identifying criminal suspects before they face legal charges.

There is some interesting evidence pointing to this guy, but that doesn't make him guilty yet. He hasn't been arrested and charged yet or had his day in court. An ethical journalist wouldn't identify him by name in a public forum, let alone proclaim him guilty for something that hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If he turns out to be innocent and this leads to a witch hunt well...let's just say that GamerGate has been associated with enough online witch hunts already!

If GamerGate wants to rally behind the cause of ethical journalism then the least they can do is start acting like ethical journalists!

[Ultimate Paragon]

In other news, Todd has decided to use his dead friend as a weapon:

https://archive.today/kHvpl

Congratulations, Todd.  You just went full asshole.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

In other news, Todd has decided to use his dead friend as a weapon:

https://archive.today/kHvpl

It's quite clear from the content of that tweet that he was responding to someone else presuming to speak for the dead friend in question, if speaking for the dead is considered uncouth then you have to wonder what was said in Justin Carmical's name to provoke the tweet you are linking to!

[ironbite]

Wow.  Just wow.  You just...oh wow do I need a full keyboard

[Ultimate Paragon]

In other news, Todd has decided to use his dead friend as a weapon:

https://archive.today/kHvpl

It's quite clear from the content of that tweet that he was responding to someone else presuming to speak for the dead friend in question, if speaking for the dead is considered uncouth then you have to wonder what was said in Justin Carmical's name to provoke the tweet you are linking to!

It wasn't addressed to anybody.

Wow.  Just wow.  You just...oh wow do I need a full keyboard

Good luck with that, asshole.

[mythbuster43]

The entire movement needs to be rebuilt from the ground up before I even consider throwing my hat in, if you ask me. Ditch the Breitbart dipshit and throw his arse to the side.

The Breitbart dipshit in particular tweeted that gamers who "had their hands around controllers instead of tits" (or something similar) were losers only days before the GamerGate controversy first unfolded. Said guy is pretty transparently self-serving.

[Tolpuddle Martyr]

When addressing the pronoun "you" it's safe to say that person was probably responding to someone else-even if not in the form of a linked conversation thread. He's referred to a singular "you", presumably referring to someone who believes that the individual in question would have supported gamergate.

[Ultimate Paragon]

When addressing the pronoun "you" it's safe to say that person was probably responding to someone else-even if not in the form of a linked conversation thread. He's referred to a singular "you", presumably referring to someone who believes that the individual in question would have supported gamergate.

Then why didn't he name him/her?