Talk:List of Gamergate claims/Archive2

Claim-rebuttal or SBS?
Should this be the present claim-rebuttal, or side-by-side? I'm not sure which is more readable.

Also, should we add numbering of some sort? I haven't seen a GG claim in months that isn't quickly answered with a reference to this marvellous article - David Gerard (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Christina Hoff Sommers is a feminist.
I tried to edit the article to be less harsh towards Christina Hoff Sommers. The most important of my changes was a clarification that she is, indeed, a feminist. Someone disagreed with this and reverted my changes. Let's discuss this. Personally, I think anyone who believes in gender equality should qualify as a feminist, but I guess not everyone feels that way? --BraindeadSlob (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See here. Christina Hoff Sommers --Castaigne2 (talk) 03:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Christina is not a feminist in the very least, and if she was then I would say shes a pretty damn backwards one. It's hard to take her seriously when she actively goes against any progress for women. Its easy for you to SAY you are a feminist, but mostly its just to cover up your ass so you can say whatever asinine bullshit you want. She is an anti-feminist. --Sandflapjack (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

So is supporting gender equality not the same as being a feminist? I've read her article, and it doesn't say outright "she is not a feminist" to my recollection. It says that she identifies as a feminist, and that her opponents despite her claim. That is factually correct and unbiased. "She is not a feminist." is neither factually correct nor unbiased. --BraindeadSlob (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * TBH we can make our point while saying she's a feminist. "Interestingly, Gamergate's only major feminist supporter is one who spends every single waking moment shitting on other feminists." 03:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd be okay with this. --BraindeadSlob (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is CHS is not in any way a feminist. She's a paid academic for a reactionary conservative think tank who does not in any way promote "gender equality" but rather advocates for the inequal status quo, shes about as feminist as the appointed lab-grown liberal on fox news roundtables. --Sandflapjack (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That bites too close to No True Strawman. She advocates for womrights in non-Western nations but appears to think that Western nations are sufficiently equal. If she's right, then her feminism is at least coherent. Is she right? No. But she does appear to support womrights, which means she meets the (low) feminist bar. 04:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So CHS is a feminist because she tells other feminists they should stop complaining about the patriarchy and instead work towards ending FGM. What seperates CHS from some wifebeater or MRA tart from saying hes a feminist if the only thing you need to be a feminist is to SAY that you are a feminist?? --Sandflapjack (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not whether she says she's fem, but whether she supports fem policies, and she at least supports fem outside the West. So yea, as you point out, a really bad feminist -- but not quite an MRA, who criticizes fem as not merely flawed but bad (CHS says fem in the West is a small positive, MRAs say it's a big negative). 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Sandflapjack, I really hope you don't respond to people who claim not to be feminists by sending them the dictionary definition of feminism, because that would make you a huge hypocrite. --BraindeadSlob (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please indent your posts. Secondly, please don't make brash assumptions of my character. --Sandflapjack (talk) 07:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy, another GGer registered to complain about us calling a spade a spade, and a duck a duck. Yawn. Typhoon (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * i apologize for not indenting my posts. Anyway, you're not calling a spade a spade, you're calling a spade a duck.  This idea that someone's interpretation of feminism can invalidates their status as a feminist is antithetical to what feminism is supposed to be.  And what do you mean "another?"  According to the talk page, I'm the first person to bring up this issue. --BraindeadSlob (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I will neither confirm nor deny that I am a "GGer," mainly because I can't be sure what it stands for. (From context, I infer that it means GamerGater, but didn't GamerGate end over a year ago?) However, I do know that I am a feminist, as is anyone who advocates gender equality, and to disregard that notion because of my perceived motivation seems unfair.  If I do not receive a response to this by the end of the week, I will give up on my mission to remove bias from this site and probably delete my account. --BraindeadSlob (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's telling that GG's "feminist" support comes from people who fail to see Western society as sexist. Ignore Typhoon's out-grouping. What more desire you? 04:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't about GamerGate. It's about language that's divisive to the point of inaccuracy. --BraindeadSlob (talk) 06:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What's your alternative, nondivisive text, then? 15:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "This idea that someone's interpretation of feminism can invalidates their status as a feminist is antithetical to what feminism is supposed to be." So by your standard, mearly calling yourself a feminist makes you a feminist, despite holding views that are antithetical to feminism? Petey Plane (talk) 17:12, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One who believes that the genders have equal worth and equal potential, and that they deserve equal rights, is a feminist. CHS believes that.  Her perception of reality is just very different from that of most feminists.  Also, my alternative text is in the edit history.  Check out this link.  http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Gamergate_claims&diff=prev&oldid=1640830 --BraindeadSlob (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Her perception of what she (and you) thinks most feminist believe in is very different from what most feminist actually think. Feminists aren't advocating female superiority, they advocate equality. CHS is obsessed with complaining about the straw-man feminism that she created. Typhoon (talk) 10:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If she believed that feminism was about female superiority, would she identify as one? This is neither true nor relevant to the point I'm trying to make, which is if that someone wants to identify as a feminist and advocates gender equality, they should qualify as a feminist. --BraindeadSlob (talk) 12:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Compare the main article on Christina Hoff Sommers to her section in this one. --BraindeadSlob (talk) 12:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any progress, and this site doesn't allow me to delete my account, so, uh, I'll just say I'm not going to self-bump again. I might reply again if someone else replies, but it's clear that I'm not making progress of any sort.  Thanks for indulging me thus far. --BraindeadSlob (talk) 10:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest editing the article? 10:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've tried, but someone reverted it. So, I came to the talk page, but it was locked, so I reverted their reversion, and then they reverted my reverting of their reversion.. and then a moderator unlocked this page, and here we are.  (The "they" is singular.  I don't know the person's gender.) --BraindeadSlob (talk) 13:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Entry for Comcept Community Manager under "Gamergate hasn't harmed anyone"?
Would an entry for the former Comcept community manager, Dina Abou Karam, be appropriate for the page? While it is something that occurred before Gamergate started, it is chock full of the exact type of harassment and hypocrisy the group is known for (and unsurprisingly, many of the people involved would later be involved with GG). A couple of the posts here (http://www.bumbleking.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7714&start=105#p426020) give a good impression of what happened (though one problem is that direct links to the some of the evidence he cites would be difficult because much of it is either deleted or barred within a backers-only forum).

I think more telling is that to this day, almost every discussion involving Mighty No. 9 on any GG-centric forum (and even some that are not) will have some tangent about how this woman ruined the game despite not actually being a developer. I think it's an interesting example because even though many GG members like to claim that their passions lie in more good games being made, there's a palpable sentiment of these people wanting this game to be bad just so they have a justification to continue crapping on it and the people involved (for many months people have declared the game is bad even though as of this writing, it's not even released yet). While criticisms of the game's numerous delays or beta gameplay can be understandable, it is somewhat telling that on these same boards you'll also see discussions of Shantae: Half-Genie Hero being almost completely positive, despite it actually being delayed even longer. It doesn't take too much digging to find why this is the case. And like with almost anything GG-related, the Mighty No.9 wikipedia page consistently has had Gators trying to cite conservative blogs and youtube pundits as "evidence" of Comcept's community management being mishandled.

Still, I'm not sure if it deserves a mention because again, it happened before GG started. It's another great example of the kind of tactics GG uses though, and one that clearly shows many of them don't actually care about games. 180.176.47.18 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it fit more in timeline, or perhaps a new article talking about the precursors? 14:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hatnote poll
See Talk:Gamergate - David Gerard (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Alistair Pinsof
The Section on Pinsof (under gamejournalpros) is not only erroneous but further contributes to Sagal's harassment. Any attempts to change keep being reverted, even though the original section isn't even properly sourced.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 50.53.3.117 / talk / contribs
 * To which the answer is - David Gerard (talk) 19:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Too much opinionated slanting here & off topic blabbering
Edited out an opinion. Should keep to strictly facts. Linking to two articles is fine, but claiming that those articles "easily tear apart" someone's argument is just weird bias, presumably by the author himself to make him look more like a "winner". RationalWiki isn't an epeen contest. More of this is probably prevalent on the page, but I don't care enough to check. Someone should though. That way the original author can be "easily torn apart" /rolleyes

Took another look and just a few lines down, there's this off-topic rant right after the list. Deleted the paragraph (maybe it should be moved instead) but clearly it had nothing to do with the category it was typed under (a list of people & what they contributed to the Pro-GG side).

This page is dripping with opinion. I don't know what GamerGate is exactly (Pro/Anti), but I can easily spot opinionated, biased garbage talk that has no place in RationalWiki pages. At the very least, it needs to be organized if not deleted entirely. Those two paragraphs I deleted were so off-topic & a pure opinionated rant that had nothing to do with the list of Pro-GG people. It started blabbering about panties in a specific video game, in the category of "People who were Pro-GG". This entire page needs a look over to remove or organize all the ranting & evidence-less opinion.&mdash; Unsigned, by: 68.97.63.120 / talk / contribs
 * Before removing large portions of text from a page, please wait to see if somebody replies to your talk page post first.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious the two large paragraphs have nothing to do with that category, but sure I'll abide by this rule. Albeit a bit of a silly one. However, the single line should indeed remain with the change. There is absolutely no basis for such opinionated slanting "easily tore these apart". My edit was to change it to pure factual based without such blatant bias. 68.97.63.120 (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious the two large paragraphs have nothing to do with that category, but sure I'll abide by this rule. Albeit a bit of a silly one. However, the single line should indeed remain with the change. There is absolutely no basis for such opinionated slanting "easily tore these apart". My edit was to change it to pure factual based without such blatant bias. 68.97.63.120 (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"Gamergaters"
One can obviously not like Sarkeesian, and send her a death threat, and still not be a Gamergate advocate. There needs to be some sort of proof beyond sending death threats, for a person to be labelled a Gamergate advocate. The threat makers may not even be aware of the existence of Gamergate --84.187.109.23 (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * threats being made one of the threatmakers showing that they are a gamergate supporter.204.11.142.106 (talk) 12:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are referring to this tweet by "owbobgaming", which may be a threat:
 * "ift.tt/1zat2Mr How would /v/ kill Anita Sarkeesian?"
 * The RationalWiki article says "Gamergaters sent her death threats". But this tweet was not sent to Sarkeesian -- her user account isn't mentioned, so she wouldn't have gotten a notification about it.
 * So this doesn't back up the article.
 * --84.187.109.23 (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

But okay, this is nitpicking and you probably could find death threats that back up the article.

My point is more that "Gamergaters sent her death threats" is only half the truth, as only some of the death threats may have come from Gamergaters.

This is like saying, when 2 Germans and 2 French guys rob a bank: "Germans robbed a bank". It's selective reporting.

--84.187.109.23 (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would someone care about Sarkeesian outside of being a Gator? Sending death threats to her is sufficient evidence of ones investment in Gamergate, because no one outside of Gators care.  Still caring about her in 2016 could also just mean you are a delusional turd who needs to find something more productive to do with your time.  Gators are now like the isolated Japanese soldiers still fighting WWII until the 1970s.  Petey Plane (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sarkeesian has received criticism not only because of supposed involvement in Gamergate, but also on other issues. And it's not like criticism of her appeared only after Gamergate. People who believe this criticism of her on other issues may have sent her death threats.
 * Kid gamers who have now clue what Gamergate is, who don't read much gaming press, just like to play some Xbox, might have just stumbled on her on Youtube, and then sent threats her way. This is not unthinkable
 * --84.187.109.23 (talk) 14:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We have overwhelming evidence that gamerate is obsessed with her through basically every gamergate site's constant discussion of her. We have pretty undeniable evidence of gamergate specific people sending her death threats.  We have the constant wider harassment with gamergate ideology mixed in.  Exactly how far up your ass does your head need to be to continue the "plausible deniability" argument this far?  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "We have the constant wider harassment with gamergate ideology mixed in"
 * Gamergaters started the publicity around Sarkeesian, which lead to the threats, no doubt about that. But! Consuming a post by a Gamergater certainly doesn't make one a Gamergater -- the anti-Gamergaters also read Gamergater's posts, for one. Then, agreeing with a single thing that the Gamergater says, does that make you a Gamergater? Like, if I agree that Sarkeesian's videos are subpar, would that make me a Gamergater? Even if I disagree with all other views the Gamergater espouses? -84.187.109.23 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "We have overwhelming evidence that gamerate is obsessed with her" Are you fucking retarded basically everything she says is fallacious, she is a conartists and uses games as lynchpin; of course gamergaters are obsessed with her; she is actively being supported by the media, getting massive amounts of donations for projects she never finishes and demonizes the SOLE THING that all gamergaters love GAMES!
 * Not even murder trials have burdens of proof this complex. -MasterofLogic (talk) 14:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not that complex an issue that instigators of threats and threat-makers are two different groups of people. Gamergaters = instigators. Gamers = threat-makers --84.187.109.23 (talk) 15:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a perfect example of the weird hoops and shark jumps you are making as you try and convince anyone gamers and gamergaters are entirely different populations. -MasterofLogic (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there's billions of gamers out there, and only thousands of Gamergaters, so yeah, I think they are different --84.187.109.23 (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Demonstrate that those accounts do not have any gamergate-related activity. They made death threats, posted in public, which is just as much "sending them to Anita" as directly mailing them, just like in Iron Man 3.204.11.142.106 (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Most gamers ain't GGers and not that all GGers are gamers.--(((The Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 15:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC) 15:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The anon is pulling a bait-and-switch where he tries to talk about "gamers", talking about a group that sent death threats, then talks about "gamers", all people who play video games. Best not to humor something so blatantly dishonest.204.11.142.106 (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Change request
Suggesting this change --87.179.47.101 (talk) 12:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Also note that this event has gotten almost no coverage by the media, which is an indicator for there probably not being much evidence of it -- it's a "he said, she said" thing. In light of the alleged purpetrator having already received death threats, we should be very careful when reporting such claims --87.179.47.101 (talk) 12:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Brad Glasgow
I don't want to get into this much but apparently, Brad Glasgow believes he has been misrepresented on our article. Any thoughts?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We have cites, he has tweets and assertions of Ghazi suppressing him on opinion grounds. We'd need him to provide something more than retweets by eggs - David Gerard (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)