Talk:Gamergate/Archive7

Is it really such a good idea to have Ryulong editing this page?
Or are we all strong believers of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" here? But considering you guys are apparently in trouble for tax fraud I can't say I'm surprised.204.15.145.33 (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It's Inceptionlike to realise that this JAQ is itself evidence the answer is "yes" - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I understand literally not a word of what you just said. I am a Gloobergay, but I wanted to point out that nobody's going to believe your article if a known [insert your favorite bad thing about Ryulong here] is basically the head of it. Reminder his distaste for GamerGate stems mostly from money and spite and not genuine concern. 204.15.145.33 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We seem to be doing a much better job of being believable than GG has ever been able to manage (having the facts on your side generally helps a lot with that), so I hope you'll excuse us if we avoid taking your advice. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, [insert excited greeting here]! That's the most [adjective] [verb] [noun] [noun] [noun] [pronoun] [noun] wombat! 20:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Money and spite" is an interesting way to put it considering one person gave me a very generous gift when I was already several months into being involved in Gamergate in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 21:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Throwing a fit over that was one of the dumbest things GG ever did. It was ex post facto with no reasonable means of prevention. What would you do, set up a system that blocks out people that have similar opinions to you? 21:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else love the fact that the majority of the BoN's this page attracts don't attempt to rebut its content and just badmouth Ryulong instead? It's almost as if halfassed character assassination is the only thing GG is capable of. Vulpius (talk) 20:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Be fair - they are also unparalleled masters of outraged whining. Queexchthonic murmurings 20:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The article reads like the diary of a madman. So to answer the OP question, absolutely. 50.171.35.251 (talk) 08:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi OP. 08:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite a growing number of female gamers (women now outnumber men as consumers of video games), video games are still predominately marketed to "masculine" tastes. That said, the shift in gamer demographics has led to an increase in games being marketed for women, the emergence of games featuring inclusive or feminist messages, and an increase in feminist criticism of the implicit and explicit sexism in gaming culture. The Catholics DESTROYED all that HISTORY and put it in Hay’s books, 10,000 years.
 * It seeeems fitting, but...

The Great Molasses Flood, also known as the Boston Molasses Disaster or the Great Boston Molasses Flood, occurred on January 15, 1919, in the North End neighborhood of Boston, Massachusetts, in the United States. A large molasses storage tank burst, and a wave of molasses rushed through the streets at an estimated 35 mph (56 km/h), killing 21 and injuring 150. The event has entered local folklore, and for decades afterward residents claimed that on hot summer days the area still smelled of molasses. The Catholics DESTROYED all that HISTORY and put it in Hay’s books, 10,000 years.
 * Everything can read like the diary of a madman, [quote about us all being a little bit mad]. 08:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol, the Great Molasses Flood. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 08:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yawn. We're not here to prove anything to the Gamergaters who are so inculcated that they're practically in a Scientology-style cult.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 09:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The zealot complains about zealotry. How ironic.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 11:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryulong may be a one-issue contributor, but I haven't picked up any notable ideologically-fanatical signs from him. Or are you implying being very anti-Gamergate automatically entails some sort of ideological fanaticalness? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryulong isn't as bad as you. You pretend to be this faux-centrist bullshit, when you're clearly not.  I'll take a zealot who's honest about it over one who's not any day.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 12:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I get a strong Dubya-vibe from that ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.") and not the first time, I might add.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make any sense. Ikanreed made a statement about sincerity, not allegiance. 13:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you're just an idiot who doesn't get human interaction but thinks this is everyone else's fault - David Gerard (talk) 13:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Not getting human interaction" (now that is a dog whistle I can hear (or click here, if you go for the NSFW variant)), cause I don't agree with Ryu or and am not zealous enough for ikanreed, either? All aboard the Dubya-train!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He's saying you're being a dick. Translation complete.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do know, that his defense of Ryulong doesn't go beyond that.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 13:32, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You appear to be defending yourself here by claiming that persistently being a dick is on the autistic spectrum, therefore you should be left to continue. It turns out this isn't the case - David Gerard (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't, I just caught you using a dog-whistle.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As a Robo-American, you may not understand how flesh-humans do this stuff, but that doesn't give you licence to randomly berate them for not deigning to top up your oil. Also, this has been your sole tone of interaction with Ryulong for months now, strongly suggesting he's not the problem here - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't say I'm an expert on how to deal with rashly assumptive, exaggerative and provocative accusations, but I don't think responding in kind is the way forward. What's that phrase, again? Ah, right: Can't we all just get along? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The nasty tone of this discussion is a shining example of why RationalWiki has so few active editors. Maybe that's the way folks around here want it?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Usually, the tone here is rather laid-back, except on some... hot-button issues and GG is one of them.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 14:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't about Gamergate. It's about how you've been repeatedly an asshole to me on these talk pages. What is the point?—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 20:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about I come up with a mutually beneficial solution for both of you? 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This isn't about Gamergate. It's about how you've been repeatedly an asshole to me on these talk pages. What is the point?—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 20:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * How about I come up with a mutually beneficial solution for both of you? 21:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The ad hom here is mean, pointless, and rampant. Stop. Nobody cares what you think about Aris, David, or vice versa. 14:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)




 * Notice how any discussion of Gamergate generates a one-sided controversy either way? Look at Wikipedia and its 500/30 protected talk page. Usually the ad hominem or the subject goes rampant. It's fucking ridiculous. I got banned because of that shit just for sticking my nose in. And for this thing about the "nasty tone of this discussion is a shining example of why RationalWiki has so few active editors," Rationalwiki has had few editors in the first place! If anything irrational beings like Gators are invading Rationalwiki. Dandtiks69 (talk) 23:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did not say that Gamergate was the cause of RW having so few active editors but that this talk page is an example of why that is the case. Not hard to see that nastiness and way, way too much snark in member interactions is off-putting to new members.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 04:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Better earlier than epic and later. 04:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's hard to give unsigned members respect in this talk page, considering Gators invaded Wikipedia and caused the 500/30 bullshit rule. I think Ryulong is doing his job here. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Obsessing over gamergate and puzzle and dragon is a full time job you know. 50.171.35.251 (talk) 12:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Am I harming anyone? Does what I do here affect you in any significant way that you came back after a month to make similar useless arguments?—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 13:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He's just jealous of you. He has to be someone he knew you of already to be making these  . Dandtiks69 (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
That GamerGate page is such a joke. This wiki is supposed to be rational. This page is so irrational, and full of personal opinions like "should have been covered by the press instead".

"Although the misogynistic underbelly of gaming culture has been known of for years, it was fully uncovered by Gamergate as it began in August 2014 when" : what's the relation with "Eron Gjoni posted a massive tirade". There is no direct relation those two parts. GamerGate did not even exist at that time. This is just a personal opinion without facts.

"which is inaccurate on all three counts" : this means GamerGate does not present itself like it is said.

"right-wingers, MRAs, neo-Nazis, and other reactionaries and neoreactionaries" : straw man fallacy, in which MRA is presented as a hate-movement, worst than neo-Nazis, which is another lie. Feminists use a lot of straw man fallacies against MRA.

"several people within Gamergate abandoned it entirely when they realized it" : false narrative without proof. (Oh I remember that fake "gamergater" video)

"The only other group that has supported Gamergate are a handful of disgraced game developers who are trying to use the easily swayed reactionary mob to take revenge on the writers that had critically panned their pisspoor creations." We just read five groups were supporting the GamerGate, but now only one? The whole sentence is personal opinion.

And I read some great arguments here. "He's just jealous of you." : ad hominem fallacy. So much for the "constructive dialog" on the front of this wiki : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Constructive_dialogue

I fully agree : Ryūlóng should be banned. --Vouze (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * knock yourself out 13:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * great argument. You prove my point. --Vouze (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You said dragon2 should be banned. I pointed you to the proper venue for seeking said ban. What does that prove? 13:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC) Well, edit: it proves I'm trying to be a helpful asshole for once.  14:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "GamerGate did not even exist at that time." - the same yahoos who would make up GG had already started the shitshow around Anita Sarkeesian, for example, proving that you're either powerfully ignorant of the subject or straight up dishonest. I'm leaning towards the latter. Remember the last time you posted at RW, with some mealy-mouthed JAQing off on the Sarkeesian article? Yeah. Also - MRAs are very definitely a hate movement. you either buy into their tripe, and have an interest in defending them, or you simply haven't been exposed to what they actually say and do, as opposed to what they claim they say and do. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You want to ban Ryulong? Go right the fuck ahead. Make your case in the Chicken Coop. I need some non-anti-Zionist entertainment. --Castaigne (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a point. 14:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The good ol times, when GG was the major shitfest on RW...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For real though, gators are far more amusing than any side of any Israel-Palestine-related debate. 14:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And there were coupla people permabanned over GG. How many people were permabanned over Israel/Palestine?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * None of y'all had the huevos to ban -Mona-?—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * She hadn't really done anything to deserve it yet. Personally, I was going to gleefully wait for Greenwald & BigTimeJournos to expose me as a "Zionist". --Castaigne (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The same people involved in Gamergate are the ones who attacked Anita Sarkeesian (namely /pol/ and /v/).
 * Gamergate presents itself a certain way but that way is inaccurate to its actual behavior.
 * It's not a straw man fallacy when the MRM is considered a misogynistic hate movement and that hatred seems to be coeval with the neo-nazis.
 * There are plenty of people who have gone on record as no longer supporting Gamergate because they realized no one in it actually cared about ethics, but of course whenever this happens Gamergaters come out of the woodwork to gaslight that person.
 * That's not what that sentence says. It adds a group aside from the easily lumped together reactionaries. How was that so difficult to read?
 * And go ahead and coop me. See how that works out for you, guy with 4 edits 3 of which are to this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 03:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

[really long title clipped]
Original really long title: We already know this is what they think, but this is still further proof that they are blind to their actions and that they have it all backwards, therefore they are the ones that socially engineer their audiences Gaming journalists began pumping out a new message: games were no longer about personal enjoyment or artistic expression. Now, games would be about social engineering. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh..... That's a stretch.  They're defensive babies, but they're not necessarily hypocritical about that specific thing.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This heading it too goddamn long. It ain't a userpage, you know?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Speaking of pennies and long headings and userpages, what's LM up to these days? 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Who's LM?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 20:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OH WOULDNT THE STATHEIST WANT TO KNOW /s 00:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 08:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's start here. Other such took place all over. 09:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Stories in general have always had some sort of didactic tone, although much weaker in videogames. The way these anti-SJW people are making it look is as though socially-themed games are actively trying to condition their audiences Brave New World style. So they are hypocritical shielding themselves this way. Oh, and the heading's awesome.Dandtiks69 (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

...the lack of an editorial "separation of Church and State,"
This is in the paragraph discussing real ethics in videogame journalism, but the sentence above doesn't make much sense to me. What is it metaphorically referencing? The whole paragraph I have trouble understanding, but it might make more sense to me if someone can explain this quote. Dandtiks69 (talk) 01:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Separation of church and state means an adequate separation of journalistic content and advertisements.—Ryūlóng (琉竜 ) 03:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The for-profit video game press's income comes almost entirely from advertisements from the companies that produce the same games they cover and review. The video game press is also heavily dependent on game developers granting access to game previews/press events/etc. and providing free advance copies of games to review. As a vivid illustration of this (mentioned in this article), Jeff Gerstmann was fired from Gamespot for giving a negative review, after the developer threatened to pull its advertising. The point vis-a-vis Gamergate is that they loudly proclaim they're fighting for "ethics in game journalism" but spend all their time harassing women involved in video gaming and compiling lists of who donated $20 to some indie developer, rather than critiquing and investigating the game press's symbiotic relationship with the giant game development companies. --Ymir (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "separation of church and state" is a usual phrase in journalism for separation of editorial and advertising - David Gerard (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The equivalent in business is 'Chinese wall', which is perhaps more appropriate in this case but more difficult to determine the meaning of from context. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it go obsolete upon discovering Dynamite? 14:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it certainly shits up the map with extra stuff obscuring what you need to see on the hexes. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What the hell doesn't do that? 14:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Moai? Maybe? Queexchthonic murmurings 15:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, okay. 15:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I get that business term but isn't it unlawful in some way? Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope! You have a first-amendment right to lie directly, let alone have no firewall between advertising and editorial - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Big business's negative practices are often the loudest and the most corrupt.Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Fun:Bingo
Can we make one? 17:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So, naturally "it's about ethics in games journalism" is the free square. I contribute "critical commentary is censorship".  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Objective reviews", "Actually, we're liberal," "Faked their own harassment." Hipocrite (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Some sort of #NotYourShield space is needed because someone showed me a blog where I was name dropped and the author was a female robotics scientist who supported Gamergate. Also something about the charities. And by the way, we haven't covered it but Ian Cheong did a 180 and is now pro gator.—<font color="MediumAquamarine">Ryūlóng (<font color="SteelBlue">琉竜 ) 20:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Thing 5.2," "Thing 5.3"...Dandtiks69 (talk)

Leadership?
''Jennifer Allaway, a sociology student, had conducted a game development survey that Gamergaters found and swarmed to, bombarding her with misogynistic messages such as "suck my dick" and "go kill yourself." After the experience, Allaway argued that Gamergate met every criteria set out in a study that outlined the definition of a hate group, including leadership, recruitment, social-psychological techniques, and dehumanization.''

I thought Gamergate had no leadership or recruitment like Anonymous, which is why it made it weak in the first place. Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the citation.—<font color="Olive">Ryūlóng (<font color="SpringGreen">琉竜 ) 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

RPGCodex source
This 1500+ page thread seems like a good compilation of stuff about gamergate, and for criticism for gamergate. RPGCodex is one of the few gaming websites to mostly be against gamergate. We can use it as a source for the fact that not all gamer websites are pro-gg, and we can use it for other informations too.Deofex (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But most gaming websites are in fact not pro-GG.—<font color="MediumAquamarine">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkSlateGray">琉竜 ) 11:41, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * [morgan_freeman_hryk.jpg|300px|(pointing up) He's right, you know.] 19:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Careful, this can approach tokenism territory. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Volokh Conspiracy
So, I know a number of times people on this website have posted Zoe Quinn's (possibly former) legal name, and the statement has been deleted on the grounds that it is "doxxing". I don't know if anyone here follows Volokh Conspiracy? Eugene Volokh, Professor of Law at UCLA, and arguably America's foremost expert on First Amendment Law, has posted on his blog - one of the top legal blogs on the Internet, and nowadays hosted by the Washington Post - the name in question. When someone's real name is posted by the Washington Post, is it doxxing to repeat it? GhamerGhazian (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In a sane environment, nobody cares that it is or isn't "doxxing," but whatever. 08:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A new account called GamerGhazian (when the preferred term on the sub is 'Ghazelle') posting a leading question about whether personal details are now sufficiently public to justify repeating them here? Hmm... Queexchthonic murmurings 08:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It really should be GamerGhazino tho. 08:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * http://weknowmemes.com/generator/uploads/generated/g1351818797666933765.jpgOh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton&#39;s king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the demonym associated with Benghazi to be Benghazino, therefore I would expect... eh it's the Internet. 09:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correcting according to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benghazi and if that's not reliable enough https://www.facebook.com/al.ghehad Hopefully you also realize GamerGhazi (identical to his username minus two letters) is a popular anti-Gamergate movement. Oh right down south in the land of traitors, rattle snakes and alligators! Where cotton&#39;s king and men are chattles! Union boys will win the battles! (talk) 09:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm aware. 09:38, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My choice of name should be considered as completely random and as having no meaning. The fact that it resembles somewhat the name of a particular subreddit is nothing more than flippancy on my part. GhamerGhazian (talk) 09:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. Thank you for that somewhat unexpected clarification. 10:00, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I think Eugene Volokh's amicus curiae brief, arguing that Eron Gjoni is a victim of a violation of the First Amendment, is an important legal development in this saga, and should be mentioned in the article. Eugene Volokh is widely acknowledged as one of the leading scholars of the 1st Amendment, so Eron Gjoni is very lucky to have him fighting for him. I would add these facts myself but the article is locked. His blog post about his brief The brief itself [links removed] GhamerGhazian (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An amicus brief (singular, one) is an important development? You realize they're the feel-good armchair activism of law, right? 09:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We're still not posting links about Quinn's name here, even if it is by a pre-eminent and libertarian lawyer. Also the legal battle between the two is dutifly covered elsewhere on the site.—<font color="Olive">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkSlateBlue">琉竜 ) 10:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is what I don't understand - why is it wrong to link to the Washington Post website? Because it publishes someone's real name? What's so special about that person's real name that it means links to the Washington Post have to be removed? I'm not talking about comments users have posted on it; I'm talking about a blog post by an eminent law professor who is employed (or whatever exactly the business arrangement is) by WaPo as a professional blogger. GhamerGhazian (talk) 10:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply put, nothing. But whacking about with someone else's credentials doesn't help. 10:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Volokh's blog is simply "syndicated" by WaPo last I read up on him.—<font color="Orange">Ryūlóng (<font color="Maroon">琉竜 ) 10:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not "syndicated" by WaPo. "Syndicated" would imply that WaPo was republishing something republished elsewhere, but they are not. Since moving to WaPo, his blog no longer publishes at its original address (volokh.com), which is kept only as an archive and redirect. All new posts from him and his co-bloggers go on WaPo's website only, and they are protected by WaPo's (rather lose) paywall. I am led to believe he has some sort of financial arrangement with WaPo, although he has not revealed the details of that. GhamerGhazian (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'm not correctly remembering what I had read a month ago. The point is thusly: the reason the link was removed because for the past year Zoe Quinn's privacy has been violated by hundreds of people because video games. Just because this prominent person with a blog that isn't a self-hosted wordpress abomination posts it doesn't make it any more relevant.—<font color="Orchid">Ryūlóng (<font color="Aqua">琉竜 ) 10:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As an eminent law professor, it is quite common (and entirely appropriate) for him to post amicus curiae briefs he submits on various cases which are notable for various reasons. And, since the lawsuit is filed in a (misspelling) of the name you insist no one mention, he is legally required to use that name repeatedly in the amicus curiae brief. What has he done wrong? I don't think he has done anything wrong. Whatever else some people have done or tried to do to Zoe Quinn (and no doubting, some people have done as such), I don't see how he can be fairly accused of "violating her privacy", or doing anything else inappropriate toward her. So, if there is nothing wrong or inappropriate with his posts, how can you seriously argue it is wrong or inappropriate to link to them? GhamerGhazian (talk) 10:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because he (and he is not alone) seriously holds a worldview which involves a conception of privacy. It's contradictory from the onset. 10:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll bite; what's so contradictary about privacy? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:55, 25 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * An account created to doxx, desperately keen to find an excuse to doxx, says is a previous doxxer (for which it would have been blocked), has posted two revs that needed revdelete already ... we don't actually need to wait on this one - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (EC) Context. As you point out, he no choice in the legal brief because of technical accuracy. Outside of a stringent technical requirement, using that name is a complete arsehole move. WaPo or not makes no difference, same as if it was somewhere in the Daily Mail's voluminous opinion columns. You're not really doing a good job of convincing me you're not JAQing off, here. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because he is required to use what the court calls someone does not mean we should do the same. Did you seriously just create your account for the sole purpose of seeing what would happen if you linked to Volokh's blog?—<font color="SpringGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="Orchid">琉竜 ) 10:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not like they're hard to make... 10:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah but why put in the effort when he could just use a proxy IP?—<font color="Plum">Ryūlóng (<font color="GreenYellow">琉竜 ) 11:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because anyone familiar with wiki culture would know users with accounts are afforded slightly more respect. Not everyone is completely unaware of social context, even among the gamergate crowd.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True, although for videogame wikis like and  that's unnecessary.
 * Just out of curiosity, what are some good proxy programs? Not like I've ever had to use it in this site... Dandtiks69 (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Very first sentence of this article
Gamergate is a reactionary backlash in the video game playing community as well as the "movement" (more like an angry mob) perpetuating the backlash.
 * Can't even work out what this is trying to say. Very first sentence. Although the rest of the lede is surprisingly good (but way too long). Tielec01 (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 08:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense now. Tielec01 (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Much better opening sentence. But the lede.... nearly 600 words? Really? Then there is a Brief summary section. Surely that's what the lede should be?--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've cut down the lede to a more managable size.—<font color="OrangeRed">Ryūlóng (<font color="Red">琉竜 ) 23:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "reactionary" ? What does that even mean ? This is a push of personal POV --Vouze (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hell no, it's not. Gamergate is almost entirely defined by its reactionary perspective.  What it means, for your edification, is an extreme resistance to liberalism or progressiveness, often idolizing ideological conformity(ironically often from an extremely unpopular perspective) and the past.  I'd have a hard time characterizing any element of gamergate's philosophy as anything but reactionary.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, there is no such thing as NPOV on RW. Since you are a new, ah, GG supporter here, you might want to check our SPOV policy before you start ranting about personal or non-neutral POV. --Castaigne (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You get bonus points for complaining to Wikia staff and/or any similarly irrelevant authority, though. Double extra if it's the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. 14:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This shit again? Maybe the wording is wrong here but I've seen GG supporters as a completely reactionary group (I used to think they were neoconservatives but that's too narrow of a definition for GG), and we've discussed this already. But since there's a new Gator here we might as well give him sense. Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate Investigative Commission
So the All-Gamergate Emergency Commission for Combating Counter-Manbroism and SJWs has been formed. Their goal is, and I quote: "The goal of the Commission is two-fold. Firstly the Commission it will establish an objective archive of the history of GamerGate. Upon the establishment of a timeline, the Commission will answer the question of whether or not GamerGate actually is a "racist/sexist harassment campaign." Other questions may be investigated by the Commission as well." I guess they've decided that since it's been a year they can pretend to do McCarthy hearings in front of Voat, KiA, and the Chans. Relevant links as follows: I can already tell this is going to be a source of hilarity. --Castaigne (talk) 04:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) https://voat.co/v/GamerGate/comments/461017
 * 2) http://forums.ggcommission.com/index.php?
 * 3) https://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/3iv1r4/im_volunteering_for_the_gamergate_investigative/
 * I predict "It was third party trolls" and "#BurgersAndFries has nothing to do with Gamergate" to be topics of discussion.—<font color="DarkOrchid">Ryūlóng (<font color="Maroon">琉竜 ) 05:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, they're going to try to get AGGers - I assume from Ghazi - on the "Commission" and replace them with "neutrals" if they refuse. Considering their idea of a neutral is the Ralph Retort, weev, or TotalBiscuit, I'm sure that will work well. --Castaigne (talk) 21:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's being run by a guy who was banned from the AgainstGamergate debate sub for trying to sic baph on a Gamergate stream he didn't agree with, only to get doxxed by baph in turn. His idea of neutral is laughable.—<font color="DarkGoldenrod">Ryūlóng (<font color="DodgerBlue">琉竜 ) 11:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is laughable: TotalBiscut and Milo Yiannoupolis are in the list. Dandtiks69 (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Only jumping in to say the article here on GG is part of why I joined. In fall of '14 my Twitter timeline became overwhelmed with something called "Gamergate," and it was utterly clear that this was a deeply polarizing and hot issue for many people. And me, I could not figure out WTF? Finally, I found this article and the mess became as clear as it is possible for it to be. At one point, some nuts on Reddit posted a thing claiming I am an "SJW." This is because I tweeted the phrase "trigger warning" in the clinical sense -- the way psychologists use it for people with PTSD. I had no idea what an "SJW even is. I sure do now.---Mona- (talk) 04:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We're glad we could help you understand, Mona. If you still need any help understanding any pseudoscience, injustices, or crazy events, just come back here to RW or contact me or any productive user. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Who was deleting my talk page comments?
Were they unproductive? Annoying? Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes.—<font color="SeaGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="Turquoise">琉竜 ) 05:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How so? Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You removed the problematic comment just now.—<font color="Olive">Ryūlóng (<font color="Chocolate">琉竜 ) 05:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed it so it wouldn't get in the way or create any more conflict. I don't get though how it was a bad thing. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I took it off for precaution. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless it is clear vandalism or abuse, as a general rule I think deleting or editing other editors' talk page comments is very bad form.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 06:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I know that, but if I end up offending anyone with a comment can't they just go to me and tell me? Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't remove talk-page comments because they may be offensive to someone; even if they are your own comments. Otherwise you'll get sent to the naughty corner with the dunce hat on. Tielec01 (talk) 06:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But I didn't remove other's talk page comments! Well, it doesn't matter, the past is past. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 06:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's naughty corner talk son. If I have to look back on my talk page comments with a mixture of depression, rage and embarrassment then you must too. Tielec01 (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I mean I removed my own comments because common sense told me that the two I put in are stupid enough to infuriate an editor, so as a precautionary measure I just removed them. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also there were a couple of editors arguing over my own comments.Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Now what's the point of having the whole thing closed? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because it doesn't have to be here.—<font color="Maroon">Ryūlóng (<font color="SteelBlue">琉竜 ) 06:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then somebody else (other than us two) delete this thread because it's embarrassing how we had to learn not to delete others' talk page comments like this, also Ryulong asserts this whole thing irrelevant to GG doesn't have to be here. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Article rating
I think this article has matured to the point where it deserves a silver brain. Possibly even a gold one. It's exhaustively-sourced, comprehensive, and relatively well-structured. Good job, folks. -Shtrominer (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's possibly a silver - aspects of it are still not sourced (eg. the claim that depression quest was well received by critics) and as you go further into the article the language becomes increasingly convoluted. Definitely true that the start of the article is much improved. Tielec01 (talk) 05:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So this means all the snarky section titles get renamed to their sterile versions?—<font color="Orchid">Ryūlóng (<font color="Gray">琉竜 ) 05:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The previous section titles were cryptic and unhelpful. They did little to tell people perusing the TOC what kind of content to expect. And, on further reflection, the prose in this article could use further improvement. Many are sentences somewhat run-on, and the use of semicolons strikes me as excessive. But, overall, it's a good article, and certainly warrants a silver brain in my mind. -Shtrominer (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 *  Many are sentences somewhat run-on - Muphry's Law in action? Tielec01 (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Muphry's law." ;) -Shtrominer (talk) 06:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Silver it. Tielec's objection is that the article exists - David Gerard (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone who created this article and wrote large portions of it, I'll leave it to others to give it a silver brain if they deem it worthy. -Shtrominer (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Always happy to hear your insightful comments DG. How's the board going? Had a meeting yet? Tielec01 (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Votes for silver

 * 19:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) —<font color="DarkSlateBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Red">琉竜 ) 20:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) --Cosmikdebris (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 3)  23:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * 5) David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Yup, much improved. Needs to be changed extensively to get to Gold though. Tielec01 (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) --Castaigne (talk) 14:08, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Should be gold, but good enough for me. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Votes against

 * 1) TL;DR. This unwieldy monster of an article is about as interesting as the lover's-spat-mutated-into-net-wide-shitfest it discusses.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Goat

 * 1) I should not really vote at all as I am as about as likely to read this article as I am to find three-day eventing of sudden sporting interest. I am open to bribes though. Less visually offensive use of quotation marks in the article might even be enough.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate Glossary
So, over here I posed a question about "Full Macintosh" being added to the list and the reception made me realize I'm asking the wrong place. So, continuing that conversation, does Gamergate need a glossary article? 08:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really I think. The forced memes of Gamergate, including "Full McIntosh", are designed to sneak claims into discussion, and the claims have a page - David Gerard (talk) 09:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To add on to David, a short jargon glossary would go fine on the claims page, so long as it was used in order to point out said sneaking. --Castaigne (talk) 14:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye, I've already discussed such a definitions section. All this Internet/Gamergate talk can cause confusion with those inexperienced. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Article length
Alright, what's making the article so long? Is it quality, depth, and/or redundancy? I wouldn't say it is quality considering this is getting it a silver rating, but I'm going mostly with redundancy. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Arisboch is just being himself.—<font color="Navy">Ryūlóng (<font color="Silver">琉竜 ) 20:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Heulsuse...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's exhaustively and comprehensively documenting that there's no "there" there, how the entire purpose of this is to generate smoke and say "look! fire!" - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This seems like something I'd find on Conservapedia
I've mostly just been a casual reader of Rationalwiki for a few years, but this is a definite change in quality and content than the rest of the articles--somehow, the Conservapedia entry on Gamergate is more 'rational' and less charged than this. A great deal of these arguments are based in emotions, and only really serve to be a pro-GG mouthpiece. I don't know much about GG, which is why I went here, but this article is so obviously biased that I'm surprised it is being considered for a silver medal.

I don't think I'd do very well at editing it, but I think the people who were editing it before should be removed from the situation, and 'neutral' editors on Rationalwiki moved in to rewrite it from the ground up. Raxal (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't know much about GG as you claim then how can you tell if this is biased? To touch on other points, "rational" doesn't mean "emotionless logic", "neutral" doesn't mean that there should be a balance fallacy (which is all there is with Gamergaters complaining about "bias"), and RationalWiki isn't written to be neutral anyway.
 * You, the obvious Gamergater, have come to this page to whine that it doesn't reflect what you want Gamergate to be described as, as with what is happening over at Conservapedia's page on the topic which cites the bastion of unethical journalism and heavy reactionary bias of Breitbart multiple times. It's factually inaccurate on multiple points which are covered in detail on this page as well as List of Gamergate claims. It also seems to not focus at all on ethics in video game journalism and instead spends a lot of time talking about Zoe Quinn and how much Gamergate focuses on a perceived "liberal (feminist) agenda".
 * But feel free to list parts of this article you believe are factually inaccurate so it can be clarified to show how wrong you and everyone else who is going to end up on the wrong side of history are.—<font color="Red">Ryūlóng (<font color="Chocolate">琉竜 ) 11:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can claim such a thing because every other article on this site is radically different from this one, whereas the others at least introduce viewpoints or 'legitimate critcisms' (I don't really know how to link to other pages using this, but I would link to the Richard Dawkins one here, or the section in the Holocaust Denial page about 'Functionalism and Intentionalism.') this one just seems to make cartoonish strawmen of both sides. The bit about charities in the beginning of the article seems like something I'd see on Infowars.
 * I don't really know what Breitbart is, but I do know that the actual article itself is far more even handed--yet again comparing this article to others on the site, the ones here (Like in the Holocaust Denial page, or the Christian Science page.) It introduces what the actual thing is about somewhat neutrally and even handed, this one flat out states '...mercilessly attack independent video game developer Zoë Quinn at the behest of her ex-boyfriend Eron Gjoni'. Right at the beginning. I first came to this article because a friend mentioned Gamergate and I wanted to learn more about it from someone who wasn't a member of it, but it seems like I've just stumbled onto the opposite end. From what he told me the sentiment behind it existed for awhile already because of games like 'Gone Home' or somebody called 'The Doritos Pope', and the Zoe Quinn thing was just a springboard. I don't actually know if that is true or not, and I was hoping to learn more about that, but all I can really find is 'Gamergate evil, other side good.' (Speaking of which, what does 'the other side' call itself? I saw a link to a subreddit called 'Gamerghazi' at the bottom, but I don't know if that is the name for it or not.)
 * I don't actually know what is incorrect or not is the thing, I do know though that this seems really politically charged one way, and unlike on other articles where it feels like the 'reasonable' way, reading this just makes me feel like neither side is reasonable at all. I'd be very interested in starting a project that is neutrally charged about the topic to see what is 'true' or not, and if you knew anybody who could help me with that that would be great, I might even start my own wiki for it, it'd be fascinating to put the 'neutral' timeline of events right in between both sides accounts of them, and see what is different and what is the same, from what I understand so far is that both sides think the CSI episode was totally lame, I don't watch CSI, so I wouldn't know. Raxal (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What viewpoints are missing? Ones that sing the praises of Gamergate? And again, neutrality is not the focus of RationalWiki so stop complaining about that. No one ever said this page had to be neutral. All it has to be is accurate to what the real world and what rational people see when it comes to Gamergate. There is no forcing of a balance fallacy that Gamergate supporters want so dearly. It calls out Gamergate for what it is rather than what its supporters say it is. It is not a consumer revolt against unethical journalism of video games. It is a reactionary mob that hates feminism and other liberal points of view. it has nothing to do with anyone derisively called "Doritos Pope" and it only vaguely has something to do with Gone Home because the people who support Gamergate believe it was unfairly praised because it has nothing resembling normal gameplay and it is a story about lesbian teenagers falling in love. There is no defined "other side" either. There are people who oppose Gamergate but they are not a unified front as Gamergate and you believe they are. It's a bunch of people either directly victimized by Gamergate supporters or those who don't believe their bullshit that are against it. And these people are not for corruption in video game journalism. They're against the reactionary nature of Gamergate because Gamergate has absolutely nothing to do with ethics considering their biggest names are the most biased and unethical journalists out there.
 * This and Wikipedia, now that here are stricter controls on who is being allowed to contribute to the page over there, are the most accurate websites that have covered this. However at RationalWiki (as I'm saying for a third time now so I get the point across) there is no "neutrality" policy to allow people like yourself to try to rules lawyer in anything resembling a completely fringe point of view on this topic, which is the point of view of Gamergaters themselves. Not that the page doesn't describe their views. It just goes into enough detail to say those views are completely and utterly wrong, just like pages on RationalWiki point out how anti-abortion (and anti-Planned Parenthood) is wrong, how anti-GMO views are wrong, how climate change denial is wrong, how creationism is wrong, how ancient astronaut theory is wrong, how Obama birthers are wrong, how Benghazi conspiracy theorists are wrong, and so on and so forth. This page is no different. Gamergate's many stances are either flat out conspiracy theories or flimsy excuses for their actions which were formed from conspiracy theories. So please, present some argument other than "not neutral" or say what part of the page is wrong.
 * Also there was no CSI episode. It was Law & Order: SVU.—<font color="Blue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Lime">琉竜 ) 13:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * New here and making demands? I see.
 * To quote the Daleks, REQUEST DENIED!
 * There is no neutrality or NPOV here. The editors editing it are doing a fine job. There is no need to rewrite.
 * That is a lie. This article is no different from others on the site in format and terms. The only difference is length.
 * Criticisms are located on the list of Gamergate claims page. Learn to read. --Castaigne (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a lie. This article is no different from others on the site in format and terms. The only difference is length.
 * Criticisms are located on the list of Gamergate claims page. Learn to read. --Castaigne (talk) 14:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile...

 * The problem is the following: Ryulong is more or less the only editor of GG articles here and he's, as you saw, on his anti-GG crusade that got him booted from Wikipedia. Almost anyone else, including me, doesn't give enough of a shit about GG to actually edit these articles besides snark at Ryulong an the talkpages a lil.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not know about his background, but it's a shame to hear about the lack of editors, and that other thing as well, I've used the site a few times to help with homework assignments relating to Theology and Debate class, and I'm surprised to hear it doesn't have an active userbase.
 * Does Rationalwiki have any rules about using it as a source? I might just make that wiki when I have time, although I wouldn't make the best editor. Raxal (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This wiki has a regular userbase, it's just that they mostly don't give a damn about GG, that's all. About citing RW, have a look at the license info at the bottom left corner.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 12:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop feeding these fucking idiots lies about me Arisboch. I was not banned from Wikipedia because of my edits about Gamergate. I was banned because of bullshit tone policing rules that they have there when it comes to engaging with complete fucking idiots participating in bad faith like you and Raxal here. Stop fucking talking for me and gaslighting me you insufferable prick.—<font color="Maroon">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkSeaGreen">琉竜 ) 13:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia not only isn't your personal army, but also not your personal battleground (you have the GG-articles for RW for that and even here, you were de-sysopped for a while because of some stuff related to that, IIRC).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Arisboch, you should probably stop lying about Ryulong - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't using it as a fucking battleground. I was banned for tone policing and because I had developed a bad habit for Wikipedia's standards of trying to fix things on my own after having been burned at every attempt of cleaing up after messes and seeking administrative help for doing so because I get into fights with stubborn idiots over shit as stupid as including scholarships and endowments on articles on the NCAA leagues or over the use of a colon to separate a subtitle from a title. Pointing out obvious concern trolls and Gamergaters and not being kind and nice about it on Wikipedia is what put the final nail in the coffin for me there, at least until January. But I am not going to sit back and watch you spout off completely wrong and ingorant bullshit about my own life experiences so you can constantly play contrarian douchebag at my expense, Arisboch.—<font color="LawnGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkViolet">琉竜 ) 13:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * QED *leans back*--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice welcome for the new editor. Two posts and he or she is called a "complete fucking idiot". --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He had the insolence to question His Holeyness (this is not a spelling error) Dragondragon teh First, of course Dragondragon'd get his panties in a bunch because of that and start huffing and puffing.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not playing nice with someone obviously JAQing off.—<font color="Olive">Ryūlóng (<font color="Crimson">琉竜 ) 13:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, "playing not nice" did get you booted off Wikipedia, according to your own admission above (when one is to condense your post above down to it's bare facts and ignore your whining).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop being a fucking tool. I was using the kid gloves until you had the gall to lie about me.—<font color="Maroon">Ryūlóng (<font color="Coral">琉竜 ) 13:33, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You call that "kid gloves"? But the net doesn't forget and if one would search a lil... What marvels could one find about you... --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

What I wrote before you posted your bullshit is what I call kid gloves. The only thing I called him was an "obvious Gamergater". But you can fuck right off.—<font color="DarkGoldenrod">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkSlateGray">琉竜 ) 13:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, the net does not forget, especially, if one's memory aid is a few spins of the scrolling wheel away.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, that's after you showed up to post your bullshit about me. I specified that bit.—<font color="DarkOrchid">Ryūlóng (<font color="Peru">琉竜 ) 13:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But why call  him  names because  I  posted so-called "bullshit"?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 13:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the kid gloves are off now.—<font color="Purple">Ryūlóng (<font color="Turquoise">琉竜 ) 13:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So for you, "kid's gloves off" is ranting at everyone because of everything... Nothing new here, I might add.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Collateral damage.—<font color="DeepPink">Ryūlóng (<font color="Coral">琉竜 ) 14:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A keyboard is much more precise than even a drone. This ain't no excuse.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This evolved from a statment buy a dude to ryu and arisboch arguing, great Bubba41102is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 14:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 *  D evolved, but that's how GG-discussion with Ryulong usually end here.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't have happened had you not been a complete asshole to me. This has nothing to do with discussion of this topic. It has to do with what you've said and what you have told the other guy about me. I am not going to sit back and let you talk shit nor am I going to play nice with someone posting in bad faith repeating the usual Gamergate talking points.—<font color="DeepPink">Ryūlóng (<font color="Coral">琉竜 ) 14:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hm, you called him asshole, cause I said something or cause he said something about GG you don't agree with? You have to decide for one version of the story (there is one infamous quote in German about that kinda stuff, but it doesn't translate into English at all. Pity that).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Drop the brogressive STEMlord bullshit. And I've only called you an asshole.—<font color="Coral">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumBlue">琉竜 ) 22:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, what "brogressive" or "STEMlord" means and look at that
 * It's right up there...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see the word "asshole" in there.—<font color="RebeccaPurple">Ryūlóng (<font color="Orange">琉竜 ) 22:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "complete fucking idiots" OK, I got that wrong, big diff, sry .--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean, after the GG brigading that got him booted. Let's be honest.
 * That is absolutely kid gloves. I would not have been quite so pleasant.
 * Also, you do argue in bad faith on Gamergate. Raxal is obviously a single-purpose account, also arguing in bad faith, as is shown by the neutrality rhetoric he uses and his immediate call for the current editors to be removed and replaced. This is not a lie. It is fact.
 * Christ, dude, if you don't like Ryulong so much and want to badmouth him all the time, why don't you just SWAT him like a proper Channer and be fucking done with it? --Castaigne (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cause I ain't no channer and calling the cops on some clown on the net is complete over the top?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have such despite for Ryulong, you should at least have the balls to be a man about it and take direct action, rather than this badmouthing bullshit. So, no, it wouldn't be over the top. It would be justified. Then you could go brag to Based Milo and Vox and Cernovich and Ralph and et all about it. Serious MANBRO points there, dude. --Castaigne (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you seriously can't tell an obvious gator at that distance, then you are yet again literally failing to understand everything about humans and really need to stop embarrassing yourself - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cause I ain't no channer and calling the cops on some clown on the net is complete over the top?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 15:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have such despite for Ryulong, you should at least have the balls to be a man about it and take direct action, rather than this badmouthing bullshit. So, no, it wouldn't be over the top. It would be justified. Then you could go brag to Based Milo and Vox and Cernovich and Ralph and et all about it. Serious MANBRO points there, dude. --Castaigne (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you seriously can't tell an obvious gator at that distance, then you are yet again literally failing to understand everything about humans and really need to stop embarrassing yourself - David Gerard (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

To the new user
Propose a specific change to a specific section for at least one reason. Ignore all the Ryulong/DG/Arisboch/etc. drama. 16:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like there isn't a section on the Witcher 3 drama that occurred a few months back, from what I understand, Americans started complaining about the treatment of 'PoC' people in the game, or rather the complete lack of them. The defense for it that I've seen is that the Witcher 3 was made by a Polish development team, and that it was a game based on a series of Polish novels about Polish mythology, and that PoC actually DO exist in the universe, and have an entire nation, among other things.
 * Another thing I noticed (Just in general) that due to the efforts of people like TotalBiscuit, pre-ordering and other shady tactics AAA developers use to exploit their customer base are being lambasted and considered bad far more than it used to be, to the point where 'You shouldn't preorder at all' has seemingly become the mainstream opinion. And I think that deserves a mention in the 'Actual Ethics in Video Game Journalism' section.
 * After researching a little bit more about some people like Anita Sarkeesian, and their 'reviews' of games, it could be mentioned also that she also has a tendency to present the 'facts' in specific ways to make things seem worse than they are (Things that immediately come to mind are the videos she made about Hitman and Fallout New Vegas.) While ignoring things that don't fit a certain narrative (With those specifically, Hitman is a game about killing people, just because you can kill woman wouldn't make it misogyny, and in Fallout New Vegas, there are prostitutes in the vegas section of the game--not only are a great many of them also male, but there are plenty of female NPC's that aren't that.) And it happened again during the Bethesda presentation at e3 (She went on twitter to complain about violent video games, like Doom, being violent, or the crafting system that will be in Fallout 4 being 'obsessed with killing people' when they spent a lot more time talking about how you could build houses and settlements.) It seems like it could be mentioned that some of the criticism sounds like something that happened way back in the 90's, basically.
 * Sorry for posting three ideas, I'm bad at organizing my thoughts or making major decisions, it's why I asked for someone else to come in and edit the article instead of me, While I disagree with the actual content of this article and how it is presented, I don't think turning it into a rambly mess would make it any better. Raxal (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Learn to indent.
 * I have seen a few Tumblr/Twitter people complain about POC in Witcher 3. I have not seen this being a criticism in mainstream media. A few Tumblr/Twitter people having a random bitch doesn't a section make.
 * The decline in preordering has nothing to do with rhetoric from TotalBiscuit or anyone else and has everything to do with crappy pre-order bonuses. Not GamerGate related.
 * Items about Anita Sarkeesian would be suitable on that page and the Tropes Against Women subheading. Also, her criticism is just that - standard cultural criticism. Her opinion is not invalid because you don't agree with it. You also don't even show the slightest understanding of the Bechdel-Wallace Test or any other standards Sarkeesian is using in engaging in criticism. I recommend engaging in some reading/taking some classes/educating yourself on cultural criticism from a variety of perspectives before making edits. --Castaigne (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The preordering part just may be part of "Actual Ethics in Videogame journalism." However, just like the "Chinese Wall," that may barely overlap Gamergate content. It would be more suitable for the Video Games page. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The "Witcher 3" drama was a reviewer pointing out how the game solely features white people and the excuse is that this fictional land is based on Polish folklore and Poland apparently didn't have non-white people. His arguments were also rooted in how another video game had recently rolled out an update that randomly applied skin tones to player avatars in a way that the player could not ever change it and it caused an uproar. This had nothing to do with Gamergate until Gamergate attacked him for his personal opinions.
 * I've never heard "Don't pre-order" come up in any discussion and it doesn't seem to be related to Gamergate at all.
 * Well you've brought up Hitman which shows you are a Gamergater because no one other than them constantly harps on and on about that one apparent inaccuracy in her description of the game. That and her personal criticism of DOOM and Fallout 4 are unrelated to Gamergate. She's allowed to have opinions on things, and one of those is that graphic fantasy violence isn't something she enjoys in video games. This has nothing to do with Gamergate to an extent that it needs to be covered here.
 * A lot of the issues you raise are on other pages on RationalWiki like Timeline of Gamergate, List of Gamergate claims, and even Anita Sarkeesian and even Thunderf00t/Criticism of Tropes vs. Women. This page is as succinct as it can be on Gamergate.—<font color="DarkGoldenrod">Ryūlóng (<font color="Crimson">琉竜 ) 22:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the things Gamergate does are irrelevant here because of the argument by association. Sarkeesian's disgust with Doom 4's blood and guts and the de-evolved crafting system in Fallout 4 have almost nothing to do with Gamergate's hatred of women, just their targeting of this social critic. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Clean up
''Their other primary activity is defending the mob's name by insisting on social media and all comments sections on articles that sometimes barely mention "Gamergate" that Gamergate is a "consumer revolt" against video game news websites over breaches of "ethics in video game journalism", a front concocted from allegations of infidelity Gjoni made against Quinn in the manifesto that started it all. ''

This must be cleaned up a bit without it losing its meaning. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then do it.—<font color="Orchid">Ryūlóng (<font color="Indigo">琉竜 ) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

B.S. Sarkeesian Effect Documentary
We need a point-by-point rebuttal for the documetary Sarkeesian Effect, just like for Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Also, how can one watch the movie without paying for it? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We don't "need" a point-by-point rebuttal for something that nobody saw. Expelled: etc. was something a lot of people saw and fell for. 00:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So how can I see this movie without giving these misogynists my money? Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait for a torrent like people on KiA.—<font color="Coral">Ryūlóng (<font color="Black">琉竜 ) 01:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No matter how much one thinks that to be morally justified in this scenario, you will get malware that was coded by Lucifer running his nails along a spinning disk of fire. 07:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And worse, you'll end up watching The Sarkeesian Effect - David Gerard (talk) 10:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be wearing protective eyegear for this. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would wait for Futrelle to finish his review, honestly. There's not much to be said that he won't say. --Castaigne (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @betsyinferno live tweeted it yesterday.—<font color="SlateGray">Ryūlóng (<font color="Tomato">琉竜 ) 18:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks boring as fuck, maybe not worth the 700 megabytes the movie is going to occupy in my hard drive. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: a torrent now exists for the documentary. Pirating has never been so quick and simple.
 * Currently 50 people are hosting it. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did someone upload that horseshit on Youtube or something already?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Vimeo. Where you can rent it for 48 hours for US$4 or own it for US$8.—<font color="SteelBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="SteelBlue">琉竜 ) 21:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd neva eva waste moneyy on that kinda horseshit.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:29, 15 September 2015 (UTC):::
 * You don't have to: just get the torrent. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not worth the effort. Is there somewhere a streaming pirate copy I can pirate on my PC?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For that you would have to wait a couple more hours (days, maybe) until someone puts it up on Youtube. All I did was torrent it, and that was free. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How about putting it up on Mega.nz and posting a link here?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were to do that here won't we get trouble?
 * I'll just tell you this: looking at this video is arduous. It's shameful. Pretty much everything that's in the Gamergate page talking negatively talking about it is in the video, plus graphical nuisances, cheap effects, unrefined narrative/interviews (making the video last 2.5 hours is the result of this), and inconsistent framerate. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Apparently something can be worse than Zeitgeist Petey Plane (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Kevin Logan is doing a parody reenactment of the whole thing, which David Futrelle thinks serves the purpose - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

First impressions on Sarkeesian Effect
Horsecrap.

Aside from the amazing flaws, MrRepzion's videos looked better than this; this "thousand dollar budget" video looks like a 1980s documentary. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This article isn't even enough to cover the atrocities: it's only a slice of the shitcake of misogyny and tokenism. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Separate page for pro-GG

 * 1) Should there at least be some mention of the doxxing attacks against prominent members of gamergate, especially by people who focus more on GamerGate's hypocrisy than their mistreatment of women?
 * 2) I'd like a separate page for the pro-GG folks so that they don't complain to us about "censorship" or whatever, given that almost every other personality on YouTube has blocked their comments section. It also serves as a place to demonstrate to the rest of us their ignorance of patriarchy theory.

Withoutaname (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also I don't know if this has been pointed out yet but given the larger role Milo, Cathy, CHS, et al have been given to GamerGate I don't think we can say with certainty that they are a "leaderless" movement anymore. Withoutaname (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer question 1, there hasn't been anything like that. No one in Gamergate has been doxxed (certainly not to the extent or maliciousness") by people critical of Gamergate. Gamergaters only seem to dox each other, which is covered in detail here.
 * To answer question 2: no. They have plenty of their own spaces to say what they want. We are not required to give them a forum on this website for that.
 * And for your third comment, Gamergaters still hold on to being "leaderless". They don't follow the orders of Yiannopoulos, Young, or Sommers. We point these people out as figureheads though.—<font color="DarkRed">Ryūlóng (<font color="Maroon">琉竜 ) 17:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with Ryūlóng. The alleged doxings of pro-GGs appear to actually originate from pro-GGers, much like the bomb threats at pro-GG events originated on GG's home base of 8chan.  One of the few circumstances where a false flag may be true.Petey Plane (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A popular youtuber, boogie2988, whom I've had rather mild respect for despite him joining GamerGate (he turned "neutral" almost immediately afterwards) claimed to have been doxxed by the "anti-GG crowd" and as I've taken at face value people's claims of being harassed by GamerGate, I feel obligated to do the same about him. Of course, it is not nearly on the same level as GamerGate's harassment campaigns but I would not say it was nonexistent. Withoutaname (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * List of Gamergate claims Boogie was never doxxed by "anti-GG".—<font color="LawnGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="Tomato">琉竜 ) 17:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I'm more ambivalent now about the truth of the doxxing claims. I sort of wonder if it's possible to be a GamerGater and someone who supports Anita Sarkeesian.
 * Anyway, GamerGate holds these figureheads up as representative embodiments of the ideals they hold. Would it be easier to point out the flaws in their worldview now that there are names and faces attached to some of them? Withoutaname (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's done already with regards to their world views and such. And you can't be a Gamergater and support Anita Sarkeesian. She's a feminist after all, and Gamergate's only concrete stance is anti-feminist (among other causes).—<font color="Purple">Ryūlóng (<font color="Navy">琉竜 ) 19:44, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, GG has moved so far beyond (if they were even there to begin with) their "ethics in game journalism" claims, that that original excuse goal is now completely separate. GG is now a neoreactionary/right-wing, anti-feminist movement.  While ethics in journalism of any type is a worthy cause, you won't find anything that constructively advocates for such a cause left in the GG movement.Petey Plane (talk) 19:54, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Amen. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 23:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * i an (extremely, extremely reluctantly) compelled to point out this, but only to clarify a slightly innacurate claim above. Agg -has- included a doxxer, but said doxxer was called out both by themselves and the community.66.87.78.142 (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Lifestyled didn't dox anyone. I saw the original posts. I saw the evidence he withheld. He did everything possible not to give this guy's dox but rather dug too deep when revealing someone who claimed to be in the gaming industry for 10 years was actually some college kid who had a one year internship. Also one person opposed to Gamergate doing something that's Gamergate's bread and butter doesn't somehow cancel out Gamergate's guilt. He says he fucked up and owned up to it. No one in Gamergate apologizes for what they do.—<font color="LawnGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkMagenta">琉竜 ) 22:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Notice that at no point did I say that, in any way, justified GG's behavior. I felt I kinda made it incredibly clear I'm not on GG's side with my post. I was responding to this claim:
 * "No one in Gamergate has been doxxed (certainly not to the extent or maliciousness") by people critical of Gamergate"
 * Which is, I'm sorry, false. It's completely possible to point out that GG is shitty without trying to claim that nothing negative has ever happened to them, and everyone who has ever disagreed with them is sinless. My main thrust is that, in combating GG's dishonesty, we don't engage in our own.72.12.220.26 (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

"Gabrielaknight"
"Female Indie Dev’s Perspective on the Culture of Intimidation in the Indie Game Dev-Journalism Scene" Has anyone read this? What do they think of it? Blacke (talk) 23:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems a bit ... all over the place, IMO. She starts complaining about nepotism, using Quinn as the prime example (which is apparently moot). She then complains that people against social equality don't get kickstarted as easily as more liberal people (and mentions it's the same for other games industry types). To which my reply is that kickstarter is a public thing, and thus a lack of funding doesn't mean there's a conspiracy to stifle certain projects. It either means that people don't like your project, or they don't like your position on social issues.
 * After that she divides games into 'real' and 'not-real', and says everyone, even women, who play 'real' games don't care about story or sexist stereotypes, and that most women gamers don't play 'real' games anyway, and that forcing games to have feminist messages hurts game quality. It's a long paragraph. However, every female gamer I know does play 'real' games, does care about story, and does care about the stereotypes. I get the feeling that just because she, the author, doesn't, she's projected that onto every female 'core' gamer.
 * As for game development, as far as I know how that works (which, admittedly, is hardly at all), game developers produce games they think will sell. (I'm lumping actual developers and publishers together, just FYI.) Thus if there are more games dealing with gender equality than before, it's because the devs think they'll sell. (Aside: isn't it normal for art to deal with trendy social issues?). Thus her complaining about it seems to me more that she's angry/sad that the world is changing, and games are evolving.
 * After that she enters a tirade against ... feminism? I think. She's got a quote from a Mormon, iterates that Quinn's (non-existant) sex-to-the-top is bad and that feminism apparently supports that (I don't know enough on the matter to say whether it is or not). However, she apparently thinks men and women are different species, as she says "How do you make a cat equal to a dog, or an apple equal to an orange?" Onychoprion (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The point that stuck out to me was the first couple of screenshots of posts she had at the beginning. People who had bad personal experiences, and then speak about those experiences, and the anti-GG side attacks them. Blacke (talk) 02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no anti-GG side. Dandtiks69♪♫ (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hang on, there are at least two sides here. There are people who support #GamerGate, and the people who oppose it. Whether you want to call one "pro-GG" and the other "anti-GG", or whatever terminology you like, I don't think you can deny those two vague amorphous groups of people exist. There are also plenty of people - the vast majority of earth's population in fact - that either know nothing about this dispute, or else know something about it yet don't care either way. (I myself don't clearly identify with either side - I don't care much about video games, which also implies I don't care much about video games and gender, and video games and journalism, and a bunch of other video game related topics.) Blacke (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Being against something doesn't lump people into a single uniform "side," as referred to with "the [...] side." As an example, let's say I was against Nintendo games. Am I lumped into a single "anti-Nintendo" side? I could be siding with Microsoft, Sony, or nobody at all. As you said, "at least two sides." 08:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Anti-Gamergate" as a defined group is a myth developed by Gamergate to suit their persecution complex, like any other cultish group out there. Someone can be opposed to or critical of Gamergate, which is a reactionary hate mob that has nothing to do with "ethics in video game journalism", but that doesn't make them part of an "Anti-Gamergate". Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu aren't members of an "Anti-Gamergate". They're victims of Gamergate. Their friends and supporters don't comprise an "Anti-Gamergate" either. There's no structure or form to people opposed to Gamergate (again, a hate mob) as much as Gamergate has its own internal structure to organize attacks and harassment of its targets and the amorphous nature to deny culpability, as they're doing with Joshua Goldberg presently.—<font color="Blue">Ryūlóng (<font color="OrangeRed">琉竜 ) 08:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a definite something that people at GamerGhazi are part of, which is broader than just GamerGhazi. But conversely, I could simply deny that "Gamergate" has any "internal structure to organize attacks and harassment of its targets". What is this structure? A bunch of people with social connections between them and common hangouts, who often (but not always) think alike, that to a certain degree coordinate their own activities (for better or worse)? That just seems to be a description for human social behaviour in general. Ryulong, I think you've convinced me that your pet obsession of "Gamergate" doesn't exist. Blacke (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * GamerGhazi is where people opposed to and critical of Gamergate congregate but they are not a monolithic "anti-Gamergate". The fact that you conflate the two shows me you are actually a Gamergater (there's no "neutral" stance on Gamergate, as that's another invention by Gamergaters because ignorance isn't neutrality) and are using your time here to JAQ off. Gamergate is a thing, even if its form isn't concrete, because it has clearly done things that have had impacts. "Anti-Gamergate" inder any definition is nothing similar, parallel, etc. because as a "side" it's nonexistent. I think we're done here.—<font color="Chocolate">Ryūlóng (<font color="Navy">琉竜 ) 08:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just ignore Ryulong, he's our village idiot. Tielec01 (talk) 09:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The first time I respond to this guy and he alludes to a reputation preceding me says more about his intentions than it does about my character. It's not like the list of claims page doesn't go into the same detail about how "anti-Gamergate is something Gamergate came up with to play the victim" as I have here.—<font color="DarkSeaGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="Olive">琉竜 ) 09:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is he wrong, Iielec? --Castaigne (talk) 13:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, people who disagree with you are "monolithic" but people who agree with you aren't "monolithic". Seems like a case of special pleading. The idea that, if there is some raging Internet war about whatever, neutrality is impossible (except for the ignorant) is black and white thinking ("everyone either supports us or else they are the enemy"). And, what does it mean to JAQ off? RW's own page on this defines "Just asking questions" as "attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements". What wild accusations am I making or trying to make? Blacke (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Gamergate is a thing that exists and people decide to support. "Anti-Gamergate" is a non-existent entity invented to deed a persecution complex. People can be opposed to Gamergate which would make them I suppose "anti-Gamergate" as an adjective but there is no "anti-Gamergate" as a noun. Disliking oranges does not make a person part of a group called "anti-orange". Finding the Westboro Baptist Church reprehensible does not make someone a member of a group called "anti-WBC". Being against the actions of Gamergate to drive Zoe Quinn to kill herself, threatening to massacre people who attend a speech by Anita Sarkeesian, threatening to murder Brianna Wu, driving up to Randi Harper's workplace to take a photo of themselves brandishing a knife, spreading lies and false accusations about Sarah Nyberg just because she documents the worst of the worst of Gamergate, falsely accusing Dan Olson of being a pedophile, digging so deep into people's lives just to find one thing they did years ago to justify hating them presently, etc. does not make someone part of an entity called "anti-Gamergate". Again, it is a moniker applied by Gamergate supporters to their targets and opponents to justify their actions. it is the sign of a persecution complex and playing the victim to garner false sympathy in a balance fallacy. There is no such thing as a "neutral stance" on this subject. Either you actively support Gamergate or you don't. Choosing not to vocally oppose it is not a neutral stance. Remaining or feigning ignorance isn't really neutral either. Either you support a hate mob that harasses people that are predominately women with progressive social views or you think harassment is fucked up and think people who are harassing others over what they constantly claim is "ethics in video game journalism" is fucked up and you think that should stop.—<font color="SpringGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="Aqua">琉竜 ) 09:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to harassment of anyone. But then people like Cathy Young or Christina Hoff Sommers claim that there is something more to Gamergate than harassment. And I am inclined to believe them on that point (whether or not I agree with them on other issues), because I don't think Young or Sommers are threatening to rape or murder or massacre people, or anything else like that. Blacke (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. They're just agent provocateurs in the reactionary driven culture war and the fact that you've name dropped them is telling.—<font color="DeepPink">Ryūlóng (<font color="DeepPink">琉竜 ) 10:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not they are right in their views is irrelevant to my point - they may well be grievously wrong about feminism and gender issues and a bunch of other things - the point is, if they are part of "Gamergate", and if they are not involved in harassing people, then there is a part of GG not involved in harassing people, and hence they would serve as a counter-example to your claim that GG is nothing other than pure harassment. Blacke (talk) 10:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Their involvement in Gamergate is to solely use it as a proxy in their culture war with progressives.—<font color="DarkSlateBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Fuschia">琉竜 ) 10:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So their involvement in Gamergate is not about harassment. So there is part of Gamergate which is not about harassment. Which contradicts your position that Gamergate is nothing other than a harassment movement. Blacke (talk) 13:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was simplifying earlier. Gamergate is a reactionary hate movement that primarily harasses. That's why they have attracted the reactionaries like Young and Sommers and Yiannopoulos and Cernovich.—<font color="Navy">Ryūlóng (<font color="Aqua">琉竜 ) 19:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They may not be directly responsible for harassment, but they are fostering an anti-feminist/anti-women culture that condones and excuses such harassment. Withoutaname (talk) 22:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How do Young and Sommers foster/condone/excuse harassment? Blacke (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily them, but GamerGate's harassment of small-time female developers and game journalism websites' ad revenue (they nearly shut down a few) for being critical of them resulted in a chilling effect for the rest of the industry, just look at Felicia Day's example. Not to mention their frequent rhetoric about Anita Sarkeesian, which is mostly "Harassment is wrong, but...[list of reasons why Sarkeesian should be doxxed]" Withoutaname (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * First you tell me Young/Sommers are "fostering an anti-feminist/anti-women culture that condones and excuses such harassment". When I ask you for specific examples of Young or Sommers fostering/condoning/excusing harassment, you respond with "Not necessarily them", then talk about things that other people (not they) did. You have no evidence for your assertion that Young/Sommers are fostering/condoning/excusing harassment. Blacke (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You were talking about GamerGate as a whole being a "harassment movement", not specifically Young/Sommers, and I responded to that. But if you want we can take CHS as an example. Her rhetoric decrying the third-wave feminism as "victim" feminism paints many modern-day feminists as trying to claim a "victimized" position in order to further their own agenda, which engenders disbelief at women's claims of actual harassment (you can even make a parallel here as to rape apologists doubting a woman's claim of being raped). Withoutaname (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I never denied that sections of GG were involved in harrassing people. But there are other sections of the movement not involved in harrassment, which you haven't denied. There is no such thing as "GamerGate as a whole"; the whole is nothing more than its parts. And I don't think CHS has ever said that genuine cases of harrassment (online or offline) never happen; she is concerned that some cases may be blown out of proportion (which I don't think is an illegitimate concern to have), or even faked (which I don't think is particularly common, but it happens). Blacke (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "there are other sections of the movement not involved in harrassment" Seriously, what part of They may not be directly responsible for harassment, but they are fostering an anti-feminist/anti-women culture that condones and excuses such harassment do you not understand? Withoutaname (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Young and Sommers are not "fostering an anti-feminist/anti-women culture that condones and excuses such harassment". Blacke (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cathy Young is a libertarian columnist for Reason who has written extensively about denying rape culture and how the progressive left is trying to set up some sort of authoritarian state by taking over the media. Christina Hoff Sommers is an anti-feminist author hired by the American Enterprise Institute to be their resident woman conservative speaker to say third wave feminism is bad and women have it all right, denying rape culture, wage gap, etc. These women exist to tell men that they're doing the right thing by pushing anti-feminism.—<font color="SpringGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="LawnGreen">琉竜 ) 01:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They express opinions with which you disagree. That doesn't make them responsible for internet harassment. If a bored fifteen year old decides to tweet a death threat to Anita Sarkeesian, that's not Young or Sommers' fault. I doubt said bored fifteen year old has ever read any of their works. Blacke (talk) 02:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has said that they are responsible for that. They just enable the culture.—<font color="Gold">Ryūlóng (<font color="Navy">琉竜 ) 05:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Christina Hoff Sommers is a conservative rape apologist pretending to be a feminist, but all she ever says is criticizing feminism using lies. Her "equity feminism" is just a balance fallacy under different name. If she defends Gamergate, that is enough evidence that Gamergate is a hate group. --Petra (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Or you could read List of Gamergate claims so I don't have to keep repeating myself.—<font color="DarkRed">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumAquamarine">琉竜 ) 09:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * When did I claim that either the movement or the counter-movement are unified? I would say both exist but neither are unified or monolithic. You seem to be conflating existence of a (counter-)movement with its unity or homogeneity. Blacke (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no antithesis or counter movement to Gamergate. That's it. Gamergate exists and that is a fact. But there is no opposition group. There is an opposition but it is not unified or homogenous to the extent that Gamergate claims it is to make themselves out to be anything other than what they are.—<font color="DeepPink">Ryūlóng (<font color="DeepPink">琉竜 ) 10:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Person, who spends every waking hour fighting gamergate, claims that a group opposed to gamergate doesn't exist. Convincing. Tielec01 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear. Blacke (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no defined antithesis to Gamergate.—<font color="DeepPink">Ryūlóng (<font color="DeepPink">琉竜 ) 10:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously don't bother arguing. Once people's thought processes have degraded enough that their entire cognitive repertoire is to try and redefine words all hope is lost. Tielec01 (talk) 09:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) I get where you are coming from. But he treats this part of the site like his personal fiefdom, which irks and disheartens me. If he went and started a blog or something, and kept his obsession to there, I doubt I'd visit it much. Blacke (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You have been a member of this site for a month and you haven't touched this page or been party to anything involving me until tonight. Your true intentions are showing through and I'm not going to sit here and play nice anymore when it's clear you're not here to be part of some sort of good faith discourse. You've repeated multiple examples of the usual Gamergater talking points throughout this thread. "There's two sides." "I'm neutral." "Anti-Gamergate exists in some form and by that I clearly mean GamerGhazi." Drop the act.—<font color="Orchid">Ryūlóng (<font color="LightSlateGray">琉竜 ) 10:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why do you presume to know what my intentions are? That's just paranoid conspiratorialism. You assume bad faith just because what a person says resembles (even if only in your own mind) what other people have said. (Everything resembles everything to some degree, so if you go looking for evidence of conspiracies you'll be sure to find them.) Blacke (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to be neutral about GamerGate once you've learned what it is (whether from GamerGate advocates or people deploring it) the same way it is impossible to be neutral about the KKK once you've learned what it is. However no reasonable person who expresses an opinion deploring the racism of the KKK would call themselves "anti-KKK"; unless they've actively coordinated efforts to try disrupting KKK meetings (and AFAIK no one has actually done that with GamerGate). Withoutaname (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's strange how people claim that GG is an "anti-women" movement, yet simultaneously two women (Young and Sommers) are counted among its leaders. How many African-American leaders did the KKK have? Comparing GG to KKK is a very misplaced comparison. Blacke (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid its a very apt comparison. KKK's claim of "protecting the white race" is a self-justification intended to alleviate its members of the criticism of joining a racist organization (one of the problems of political correctness is that people are more worried about appearing racist than actually being racist) just as much as the "protecting gamers (read: cis white male majority) from liberal SJW agenda corrupting journalism" is a self-justification for GamerGate's members. Also GamerGate is about as representative of the gamer demographic as the KKK is of white people.
 * By name-dropping Young and Sommers you've resorted to the friend argument which demonstrates ignorance of the existence of internalized misogyny (for an extreme example of this, see Phyllis Schlafly). example of a black person in the KKK Withoutaname (talk) 23:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ron Stallworth is not an example of the KKK welcoming an African-American leader. It is clear that many of the KKK members/leaders he interacted with, including David Duke, thought he was white. Young, Sommers and Phyllis Schlafly aren't my friends and I never claimed they were (I don't know any of them), but I don't believe they are misogynists. I disagree with Phyllis Schlafly on many things (for example, I support liberal abortion laws, she considers them to legalized murder), but she is not a misogynist. She's a woman, she doesn't hate women, she doesn't hate herself, or her mother, or her daughters, or her many other female family friends and colleagues. How many women has Phyllis Schlafly lynched? Blacke (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised why we have to show reactionaries demonstrating actual physical violence against another person in order to show hatred of them. Misogyny doesn't just mean physical abuse of women, it also includes things like treating women as property. There's literally reams of literature about internalized misogyny out on the Internet and I suggested you get started on them.
 * Oh, and if you support the idea that Phyllis Schlafly's arguments supporting men's right to women in marriage or attacking women who go to college is not an example of misogyny, then there's nothing to discuss. Because then you're just another reactionary anti-feminist. Withoutaname (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Schlafly has old fashioned views on many issues, which I completely reject. But, overuse of the term "misogyny" is bullshit. If Schlafly was a misogynist, it would follow that (as a woman) she must hate herself. I don't see any evidence that Schlafly hates herself. On the contrary, I think she thinks of herself quite highly. Blacke (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're saying she's not a misogynist, she just promotes misogynist ideas, such as women being only fit for Kuche, Kirche, und Kinder and they should get the hell out of politics, academia, and the workplace? That's an interesting (read, bullshit) viewpoint.
 * Also, you are incorrect that a misogynist woman must hate herself. That's an assumption that's not part of the standard definition. Misogyny can manifest in different ways. Phyllis is most like Serena Joy in the Handmaid's Tale, almost a direct copy in personality and attitude. Phyllis IS a misogynist. --Castaigne (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If Schlafly thinks women "should get the hell out of politics", why has she been so active in it? If she thinks that women are "only fit for Kuche, Kirche, und Kinder", how does her own participation in public life fit into that description? I agree that Phyllis has outdated views on the role of women in society, but having outdated views on that issue is not the same as hating women. For centuries, millennia even, most men and women agreed with her - does that mean most men for centuries/millennia hated women (hating their own mothers, sisters, wives and daughters?) Did that mean that most women for centuries/millennia hated women - hating their own mothers, sisters, daughters - and hating themselves? That does not seem historically plausible to me. Blacke (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Continue justifying yourself to us about how centuries of slavery was really about teaching savages the ways of civilization. How it's more "historically plausible" that slaveowners practiced slavery because they wanted to show Christian love, not hatred. In fact, I think I have a black friend who supports slavery, and I don't hate him. Withoutaname (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Phyllis Schlafly's views on the role of women in society have nothing to do with slavery. If you go back a century or so, traditional roles of women are close to a cultural universal. Slavery, in the sense you are referring to, was a phenomenon restricted to the Atlantic region in the post-Columban period. (Of course, slavery existed in many other places and times, but that was the only context in which it was closely linked to "race" - in ancient Rome, slavery existed, but slaves could be of any "race", indeed they were often of the same ethnic/racial background as their masters.) Blacke (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You can fuck off.—<font color="DeepPink">Ryūlóng (<font color="DeepPink">琉竜 ) 10:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Insightful. Maybe in the future don't come at new editors with your paranoid persecution theories. Keep the bat shit crazy behind closed doors until they have had a chance to get a feel for the social mores here. Tielec01 (talk) 10:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, if you discuss long enough with Dragondragon, that's an answer you get before too long.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 10:44, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He's repeating the same old tired talking points as every other Gamrgater I've ever encountered and you're enabling him. I'm not going to sit back and take it, particularly from you. He name dropped those batshit anti-feminists in sincerity. What sort of idiot do you take me for?—<font color="Orchid">Ryūlóng (<font color="LightSlateGray">琉竜 ) 10:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whenever a sealion shows up ("I'm a new editor but you should totally get rid of Ryulong and here's some completely standard Gamergate claims"), Tielec and Arisboch will reliably bring a bucket of fish out - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If the fish is fresh, I'm gonna roast it and eat it myself *burp*--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is Tielec's problem, anyway? I thought he was old-school. Is it that he's a slymepitter like Smerdis? --Castaigne (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"Neither are unified"
(edit conflict) Gamergate has unity and leadership. Unity is whole point of the movement, its draw, and its driving force. Those selected for AirPlay are the elected representatives of Gamergate. 10:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, amusingly the article says the opposite in the lede. Tielec01 (talk) 10:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say they are leaders per se but unified is definitely apt.—<font color="Crimson">Ryūlóng (<font color="SpringGreen">琉竜 ) 10:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Does opposition to Gamergate exist?
Ryulong says above:
 * There is no antithesis or counter movement to Gamergate. That's it. Gamergate exists and that is a fact. But there is no opposition group. There is an opposition but it is not unified or homogenous to the extent that Gamergate claims it is to make themselves out to be anything other than what they are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This is just confused hairsplitting. He says there is no "antithesis" or "counter movement" or "opposition group", but that there is an "opposition" but that it is not "unified or homogenous to the extent that Gamergate claims it is". I agree that there is an opposition, and I agree that it is not "unified or homogenous". I don't see why we can't also use the words "antithesis" or "counter movement" or "group" to describe it though. He seems to read those words as implying unification or homogeneity, when as a simple matter of English I don't think that's true. Blacke (talk) 10:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course there is opposition to Gamergate. There just isn't a unified counter movement or antithesis. Anyone who insists otherwise is just playing into a persecution complex or balance fallacy. Now stop JAQing off. It's repugnant.—<font color="Purple">Ryūlóng (<font color="Black">琉竜 ) 10:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I asked this before and you didn't answer me. RW's own article on JAQ defines it as "a way of attempting to make wild accusations acceptable (and hopefully not legally actionable) by framing them as questions rather than statements". What wild accusations am I trying to make acceptable? Or are you just throwing around the label "JAQ" without caring about what it actually means? Blacke (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are asking leading questions that you already know the answer to in order to debate in bad faith.—<font color="DarkSlateBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Fuschia">琉竜 ) 10:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. And haven't you ever heard of "assume good faith"? (I know that, unlike WP, it's not official policy here, but it's a good rule for life nonetheless.) Blacke (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My issue is with your numbers. "One." A single "anti." 10:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But conversely, if there is not one "anti", there is not one "pro" either. If you look at a list of notable names who are somehow associated with the "pro" side - Eron Gjoni, Cathy Young, Christina Hoff Sommers, Milo Yiannopoulos, Mike Cernovich, Adam Baldwin, etc - these people are not a "unified" or "homogeneous" group, but a lose association of individuals with different and at times conflicting agendas. So if there are many "pros" and many "antis", I don't think that makes it inappropriate to criticise the actions of "pros" or "antis", even though of course any criticism of either will only apply to a subset of them. Blacke (talk) 10:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is indeed one "pro" and that is Gamergate as a whole. We are not talking about individual people here. Those people you list are figureheads in the group. Gjoni is the only one whose agenda doesn't match the others. He started Gamergate to get back at Zoe Quinn for breaking up with him. The others are using Gamergate which they latched on to after it coalesced to recruit obvious conservative reactionaries to their own pet causes or just for monetary gain.—<font color="DarkSlateBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Fuschia">琉竜 ) 10:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Any logic which justifies treating the "anti" as plural also justifies treating the "pro" as plural. What is your actual evidence, that a homogeneous / unified / singular "pro" group exists? I don't think you have any. And people like Young, Sommers, Cernovich, etc, I'm sure if you put them all together in a room and asked about their opinions in general (beyond this controversy) you'd find they disagree on many things. Your own wording of "their own pet causes" points to the plurality of the causes (and hence agendas) they pursue. Blacke (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, there's multiple "pro" groups. But there's just one Gamergate. There are outside pro-GGers, such as Alex Jones (the guy hosting the no-longer-around gamergate.me), but they're not "GG." GG is one group. 12:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And Ghazi is one group. But "anti-GG" is not Ghazi. 12:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and all that matters, why? --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Narky, if there is a "group" called "GG", and something distinct called "outside pro-GGers", how do we decide who belongs to one and who belongs to the other? Blacke (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a sincere question, or befuddlement? "How do we decide what is a carnivore or an herbivore, if horses eat birds and wolves eat grass?" 12:42, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt the coherence of the distinction you are trying to draw. You would go some way to answering my doubts were you to give some rule/principle/definition to distinguish the two. Blacke (talk) 12:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If they regularly use the hashtag or hang out on GG boards/subreddits/etc., and they associate themselves with any of the leadership, they are a GGer. 13:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But people who "hang out on GG boards/subreddits/etc" are not one group, they are many groups (just as GamerGhazi is just one group). And the collection of people who regularly use a given hashtag are only a "group" in a very loose sense of "group". So it doesn't seem to me that there is a "group" (in a strong sense of that word) called "GamerGate", just a whole series of distinct (yet somewhat overlapping) groups with a positive attitude towards that label; conversely, there is also a whole series of distinct (yet somewhat overlapping) groups with a negative attitude towards that label. Blacke (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then who is this antitheisis, this counter-movement, this group? Who are their leaders? Where is their base of operations? What are their "ops", such as those the GGers have? Do they have a Baphomet hit squad of their own? Answer these questions successfully to my satisfaction and I will agree with you. Groups and counter-movements have these things.
 * Never, ever, EVER assume good faith. We're not pollyanna hippies here. Or at least, I'm not.
 * If you seriously can't trace the series of leadership and communication amongst GG, which is only one small part of the greater NRX/MRA Alliance, then you are either dense or a shill. In the unlikely ev3ent that you are not, start with this web and begin to draw expanded links. --Castaigne (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a red under every bed. Blacke (talk) 13:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is something that acts ridiculously like a group, and you'd have to be disingenuous (as you are) to claim they didn't. RW has spent many years dealing with the disingenuous and has a lot of experience with people who repeat a standard list of claims while asserting they are utterly unlinked and neutral - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's such a crazy thing that I must be imagining Roosh talking about it publicly. No, there's no attempt to combine "the men’s rights sphere, religious conservatives, gamers, and even white nationalists." Not at all. --Castaigne (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Demarcating between "Pro" and "Anti" GG is just a rhetorical convenience. Of course there is a broad spectrum of views within both camps.  I think trying to granulate each side into more specific sub-groups misses the point of this article's attempt to summarize the broad thrust of what GG has become, which is again, by and large, a right-wing/neoreactionary anti-feminist movement.  That some still believe in "ethics in game journalism" motto the movement was supposedly founded on is kind of a moot point when the majority of Pro-GGers conform to the movement's current neoreactionary state.  Consider their recent conference where the panels spent no time or "ethics in game journalism" and all of their time on attacking feminism and "SJWs" (before a bomb threat was called in by one of their own).  At the end of the day, what more needs to be said about an "ethics in journalism" movement that has Yiannopoulos as a figurehead. Petey Plane (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is something that acts ridiculously like a group, and you'd have to be disingenuous (as you are) to claim they didn't. RW has spent many years dealing with the disingenuous and has a lot of experience with people who repeat a standard list of claims while asserting they are utterly unlinked and neutral - David Gerard (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's such a crazy thing that I must be imagining Roosh talking about it publicly. No, there's no attempt to combine "the men’s rights sphere, religious conservatives, gamers, and even white nationalists." Not at all. --Castaigne (talk) 14:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Demarcating between "Pro" and "Anti" GG is just a rhetorical convenience. Of course there is a broad spectrum of views within both camps.  I think trying to granulate each side into more specific sub-groups misses the point of this article's attempt to summarize the broad thrust of what GG has become, which is again, by and large, a right-wing/neoreactionary anti-feminist movement.  That some still believe in "ethics in game journalism" motto the movement was supposedly founded on is kind of a moot point when the majority of Pro-GGers conform to the movement's current neoreactionary state.  Consider their recent conference where the panels spent no time or "ethics in game journalism" and all of their time on attacking feminism and "SJWs" (before a bomb threat was called in by one of their own).  At the end of the day, what more needs to be said about an "ethics in journalism" movement that has Yiannopoulos as a figurehead. Petey Plane (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Castaigne: Roosh is interested in building an alliance between GG and white nationalism. Are other GG "leaders" interested in that? Gjoni, Young, Sommers, Cernovich? This is the point - GG is not an organisation, it's a vague amorphous mass of conflicting ideas and agendas, which anyone can join simply by declaring support for it. Just because Roosh wants to ally himself with that variety of unsavouriness doesn't mean others "in" GG do. Cernovich has publicly criticised white nationalism on Twitter. And the neoreactionary movement and GG are distinct: Have Gjoni/Young/Sommers/Cernovich/etc spoken positively of Mencius Moldbug and friends? Or vice versa? This seems like classic left wing conspiracy theory - next thing you'll be telling me that GG is controlled by the Koch brothers. Blacke (talk) 23:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's about as useful as declaring that the KKK is a "diverse" movement with a lot of conflicting opinions; some of them like neo-Nazis, some of them don't; some of them like particular Christian values, some of them don't. Withoutaname (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Appears so.
 * Ayup.
 * No, not much involvement with the libertarians, aside from ancaps like ClarkHat and Cernovich. --Castaigne (talk) 00:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some evidence for your assertions, please. Evidence that Gjoni wants to build an alliance with white nationalism? Same question for Young, Sommers and Cernovich. Where/when did Gjoni speak positively of Mencius Moldbug? Same question for Young, Sommers and Cernovich. Blacke (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Do your own homework. I'm not here to educate you. I'm especially not here to educate people who I consider to be concern trolls. Disbelieve me if you like, I truly do not give a shit. --Castaigne (talk) 00:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A variation on the Courtier's Reply. Blacke (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Caveat: is largely irrelevant to the opponent's argument and since it is very relevant it's not Courtier's Reply. Here's a deal Gooblergobbler, why don't you show us evidence of corruption in games journalism? Withoutaname (talk) 00:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He's already said he has no interest in video games or video game journalism. He's concern trolling for the sake of concern trolling.—<font color="Orchid">Ryūlóng (<font color="Peru">琉竜 ) 01:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said there was any corruption in games journalism. There may or may not be. I am not pro-GG, I am more anti-anti-GG. Blacke (talk) 01:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're parroting all of Gamergate's talking points. And we've already pointed out that there's no "anti-GG" side (again, a noun encompassing all opposition to Gamergate). You're a Gamergater. Specifically one of the facetious "neutral" fencesitters who actually has made up his mind on the subject. And FFS if you're "anti-anti-GG" then that means you're pro-GG. Stop wasting our time.—<font color="Navy">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkSlateGray">琉竜 ) 01:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did I get interested in Gamergate? Well, in part because I am a fan of Young and Sommers, and they are interested in it, so naturally I became somewhat interested in it as well. Probably many other Young/Sommers fans have become interested in it in the same way too. That doesn't mean that every Young/Sommers fan is a Gamergater - far from it. I don't care about contemporary video games that much (I like 1980s / early 1990s ones though). Blacke (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're an anti-feminist libertarian d-bag. Got it.—<font color="DarkViolet">Ryūlóng (<font color="Chocolate">琉竜 ) 01:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with labelling Young and Sommers as anti-feminist. They criticise much of contemporary feminism, but they do so from a position which accepts much of historic feminist thought (most of the first wave, and at least a significant chunk of the second wave). I think the phrase "contrarian feminism" is more apt. And I myself, I don't identify with the label "anti-feminist". Feminism is such a "broad church", there are so many different feminist thinkers espousing so many different views, I don't think disagreement with feminism as a whole is a particularly useful perspective. (And politically, I'm not much of a libertarian; economically, I lean centre-left.) Blacke (talk) 01:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Third-wave feminism is needed as much as first-wave and second-wave feminism is, because of two main reasons:
 * Intersectionality.
 * Sex-positivity.
 * For an introduction to modern feminism and the lingo it uses: Feminism 101 Withoutaname (talk) 02:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether in your opinion it is needed or not, doesn't justify labelling Young or Sommers as "anti-feminist" for rejecting it. Blacke (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think feminism, whatever wave it may be on atm, remains necessary and important to this day. Intersectionality is vital though it actually should've been a trivially obvious thing from the getgo. Being sex-positive is generally a good thing, but it shouldn't feel like an obligation or condemn people that just don't like sex all that much. I also don't think labeling feminists that don't fully/enthusiastically support third-wave feminism or abortion rights "anti-feminist" a particularly commendable strategy. Though I have to wonder if any of this is still particularly relevant to discussing GG. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:04, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Given that Young and Sommers are two of the "leaders" of GG, and they are attacked as "antifeminists", and the label of "antifeminist" applied to them is connected to their support of GG - I think it is relevant. Blacke (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether in your opinion it is needed or not, doesn't justify labelling Young or Sommers as "anti-feminist" for rejecting it. Blacke (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think feminism, whatever wave it may be on atm, remains necessary and important to this day. Intersectionality is vital though it actually should've been a trivially obvious thing from the getgo. Being sex-positive is generally a good thing, but it shouldn't feel like an obligation or condemn people that just don't like sex all that much. I also don't think labeling feminists that don't fully/enthusiastically support third-wave feminism or abortion rights "anti-feminist" a particularly commendable strategy. Though I have to wonder if any of this is still particularly relevant to discussing GG. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:04, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Given that Young and Sommers are two of the "leaders" of GG, and they are attacked as "antifeminists", and the label of "antifeminist" applied to them is connected to their support of GG - I think it is relevant. Blacke (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Leaders how exactly? I admit I'm not very informed about their activities or involvement in Gamergate. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:11, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * I don't think they are leaders much at all. I don't think that "GamerGate" is much of a thing - just a vague amorphous mass of competing agendas. But Ryulong &co seem to believe that GamerGate is well-defined "group" with "leaders", and they count Young and Sommers among those "leaders". Blacke (talk) 03:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Somehow I doubt that's an accurate representation of Ryulong's view. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:16, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Is it possible I am misinterpreting him? Sure, but it's rather hard to get a clear perspective on what his view is, because attempts to engage with him are met with relentless hostility towards anyone who doesn't clearly share his perspective. Blacke (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have never said that they are "leaders of Gamergate". I've named them as "figureheads" and referred to them on the article as people who have latched on for personal gain because both of them make their money attacking liberals. And Gamergate is defined enough and an entity of neocon fuckery that it can be identified as something when you seem to think the opposite and insist that "anti-Gamergate" is an equal and opposite entity for something you claim is nonexistant now.—<font color="Gold">Ryūlóng (<font color="Navy">琉竜 ) 05:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to be part of the Third Wave to be a Feminist, but you can't oppose the Third Wave and be a feminist. Part of the whole thing about Feminism is giving women a choice, and if they choose to avoid sex for whatever reason, that's their right just as much as it's their right to screw with anyone else that's willing. CorruptUser (talk) 03:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the choice to be a feminist while opposing the third-wave? ;) 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:20, 19 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * When have Sommers or Young said that women should not have the choice whether to participate in sexual activity or not? If a woman wants to be celibate/asexual, go join a convent even, I don't think either Sommers or Young would be opposed to that choice. Conversely, if a woman wants to have sex - well, Sommers was married for many years (recently widowed), and I believe she has children, so I'm pretty sure she has had sex. I have no information about Cathy Young's personal life, but I bet you she has a sex life too - so I don't think Sommers or Young are opposed to women having sex either. Blacke (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Christina Hoff Sommers makes me gag. So no, Blacke, you are not me. ;) I admired her work at one time but she's gone over to the neocon dark side and takes pay from and promotes the heinous American Enterprise Institute. I read some of her stuff on GG and found it unpersuasive and shallow.---Mona- (talk) 03:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * AEI has many positions I disagree with - it is pro-Iraq war and I am anti, it is climate change sceptic and I am not. But I think Sommers' work should stand or fall on its own merits, not on the basis of whom she chooses to associate with or work for. (I don't even necessarily agree with everything Sommers says - I think her perspective is interesting and worthy of attention, but that doesn't mean everything she says is right, nor that all of her arguments are valid.) Blacke (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and Cathy Young is also on my shit list at this point. Her tired formula of: "on the one hand X says, and on the other Y claims, and both are partly right and partly wrong" is more than I can take any longer. Also, I got into several shitfests with her on Twitter, and she was just incredibly dumb. ---Mona- (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Sommers' work should stand or fall on its own merits" Obviously. My disgust with her where AEI is concerned is a moral matter of poor character and judgment. And as I said, I found her GG "analysis" shallow -- a canned thing she whipped out without really grasping all of the aspects of the controversy -- she just wanted to issue her "Sommers' feminism decree" on the topic.---Mona- (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * While doing her "don't worry, sweeties, you're all better than everyone else because you listen to me" thing. And then some GGers compliment her on being "not condescending." I think they've gotten "condescending of the viewer" and "critical of the viewer" mixed up...
 * Also, on a side note, she sometimes does arrive at a good or alright conclusion... Using insane troll logic. If she does everything right, she casts the conclusion aside. 09:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Awright, so...
...neither pro-GG, nor anti-GG are unified movements or organizations, amirite?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Arisboch, I agree with your analysis. I suggest you be bold, and update this article to reflect that point. Blacke (talk) 00:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. GG is a unified thing. Just because Blacke has spent the past day JAQing off about it doesn't change everyone else's stance on the subject. GG organizes things in its various places and has pathways of news dissemination. There is no equivalent entity that does similar things that opposes it and to the same extent. "Anti-GG" isn't a thing. GamerGhazi on Reddit does exist but this is not the entirety of the opposition to Gamergate and its existence is continually used to conflate the existence of an "anti-GG". There are people opposed to or against Gamergate but they do not form a single entity. Zoe Quinn isn't against Gamergate for the same reasons (necessarily) as Anita Sarkeesian or Brianna Wu. Meanwhile, all of Gamergate has an established agenda against these women.—<font color="Maroon">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkViolet">琉竜 ) 01:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And before you ask me again, Blacke, I'm using the phrase "JAQing off" to describe how you've been asking leading questions and ignoring the answers presented to you because you have your own interpretation that is not likely to change as a result of whatever is said.—<font color="SlateGray">Ryūlóng (<font color="DeepPink">琉竜 ) 01:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong you say "doesn't change everyone else's stance on the subject". But there are at least two other editors here (both more respected and long-standing than I, or you for that matter) who appear to agree with me on this particular point: Arisboch who opened this section, and Tielec01 who above says "Person, who spends every waking hour fighting gamergate, claims that a group opposed to gamergate doesn't exist. Convincing." Blacke (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They're also RationalWiki's resident contrarians and anti-SJWs so that doesn't prove much.—<font color="Navy">Ryūlóng (<font color="Fuschia">琉竜 ) 02:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Tentatively, I agree with Ryūlóng on this point, but would like to be pointed to the best of the contrary arguments.---Mona- (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ADDING: I take no position on the feud between him and Blacke.---Mona- (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona, let me turn it around and ask the question in a different way - why do you think that "GG is unified but opposition to it is not"? I'm inclined to think both "GG" and "anti-GG" are amorphous masses of multiple (and at times conflicting) agendas, so I don't think "unified" is the right term to apply to either. Why do you think the term "unified" is apt? Blacke (talk) 03:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's put it this way. Gamergate is a banner people voluntarily rally behind. They either buy into the "ethics in video game journalism" lie or see the existing community as something they can exploit for their own personal means and then they begin to parrot the usual debunked talking points and participate in the dogpiling and harassment. Tweeting #StopGamergate or saying Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian don't deserve any of the vitriol sent at them does not mean people have become part of "anti-Gamergate".—<font color="SteelBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Teal">琉竜 ) 04:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They do rally like that, and seem to concoct plans of attack out of 4chan (or did when it was allowed). Then they swarm en masse to do whatever vile shit got cooked up there. But I don't know of any organization of people operating under the anti-GG banner.---Mona- (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Mona, there are a bunch of people hanging out on 4chan or 8chan or whatever and plotting harassment, and maybe they do indeed deserve the term "organisation" or "unified" (although I think that even they are too amorphous and anarchic to deserve those phrases). But then you have people who choose to associate themselves with Gamergate - maybe out of completely misguided reasons - and who as far as I am aware are not involved in plotting harassment of people. Take for example Elizabeth Finnegan ("Lizzy" / @lizzyf620). As far as I am aware, Lizzy has not been plotting to harass people, and she chose (at least for a time) to identify with "GamerGate". In fact, Lizzy has been a victim of quite vile harassment, by some parties (I'm not going to get bogged down in speculation about who was responsible for her harassment, or what their attitudes towards "GamerGate" might have been, since I don't know, and Lizzy has discouraged people from speculating on that point). So, if there are people in GG who are not plotting on 4chan/8chan/etc to harass people, how is coordinated harassment committed by a subsection of it justification to call GG as a whole "unified"? (And, you may well find some of Lizzy's political opinions or associations objectionable - and at least in part I would agree with that - I think that even when she makes valid points, she wastes too much time pointlessly bashing "progressives" - but I don't think that actually negates my argument here.) Blacke (talk) 04:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Lizzyf620 was doxxed by posters on 8chan's baphomet, which was formed on 8chan after Gamergate moved there. Her participation in Gamergate is because she's an anti-feminist/anti-SJW/conservative like CHS and Cathy Young. Just because you can name random people that don't allegedly participate in harassment doesn't mean Gamergate isn't disproportionately responsible fo harassment. Blacke, your arguments are really poor and reaching.—<font color="Teal">Ryūlóng (<font color="Turquoise">琉竜 ) 05:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, from what I've heard (1) Baphomet's admins say they didn't approve of her doxxing, and kept on trying to delete it, but it kept on getting reposted (which raises the interesting question of whether Baphomet's admins believe in a doxxing free-for-all, or if they only believe in doxxing people they dislike - I suspect the later, because as much as they like to dish it out on others, I reckon they wouldn't appreciate at all being doxxed themselves); (2) she herself has told people not to blame Baphomet for this (does she believe their explanation? She likely has more information on what actually happened than you or I do). I think we should believe the victim, and if the victim says Baphomet wasn't responsible, we should believe her. And you seem to be ignoring my argument completely - whatever Lizzy's political motivations for associating herself with GG, the involvement of people like her undercuts the argument for GG being "unified". Blacke (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe all of that's true regarding Baphomet's admins, but what about the non-admin people on it? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:41, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Okay, but as far as I'm aware (and I might be wrong about this, because frankly I don't want to touch 8chan with a ten foot pole), anyone at all can post to Baphomet, just like here. So obviously by definition, if something was posted at Baphomet, a non-admin user of Baphomet posted it. But that doesn't mean that any Baphomet regular did it, or any pro-GG person at Baphomet did it. Maybe it was a pro-GG person who did it. But it's also possible that someone opposed to GG did it. For all we know, Ryulong did it. (And, Ryulong, I'm not accusing you of doing it - I have absolutely no evidence to point to you - I'm just making the point that absolutely anyone could have done it, so trying to pin it on "GamerGate" makes just as much sense as pinning it on anyone else.) Blacke (talk) 05:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd expect the percentage of Gators visiting something that's known to be a GG hive to be quite substantial compared to any other people there, though. Even if the admins didn't agree with it, knowing Gators, I bet plenty of 'em still happily jumped onto the harraxxing (a word I just invented :P) bandwagon, regardless of whoever it was that made the initial post. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * I still don't think that is any reason to justify the conclusion that a GG supporter had done it. Imagine you were an anti-GG person who wanted to doxx pro-GG people - why not go to Baphomet to do it? As well as all of its other advantages, it has the added element of false flag operation to it. (But I'm not accusing any anti-GG person of doing it - I don't think anyone really knows who did it, nor whether they were pro or anti GG - people who are claiming to know who did it are just engaging in unwarranted speculation, in contravention of the victim's publicly expressed wishes that people don't do that.) Blacke (talk) 06:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Doxxing is the action of Gamergate because it is borne of 4chan and Internet anonymity's one weakness. The only people who have doxxed Gamergaters are other Gamergaters. It's their bread and butter.—<font color="Plum">Ryūlóng (<font color="Olive">琉竜 ) 06:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryulong, why, when the victim of this harrassment (Lizzy) has publically and explicitly asked people not to blame GG for what was done to her (I'm sure you've read her post to KiA which I'm refering to), do you publically disrespect her wishes? It seems to me that you are big on respecting the victims of harrassment only when they are ideologically aligned with you, not when they are your ideological opponents. Blacke (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To quote her very words "BOTH sides: this was not the work of GG, or anti-GG, or KIA, or Ghazi, or 8chan, or Baph. Don't blame groups, don't guilt by association. This is the responsibility of whoever posted it, and no one else. My life and my family are not politics, nor are they chess pieces in a match. They are mine, and only mine, and I ask that both sides respect this." Why won't you respect that? Blacke (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're putting words in my mouth. But no one in "anti-GG" as you want it to be called posts on /baphomet/ so use the "third party troll" excuse like all your forebears.—<font color="LightSlateGray">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumBlue">琉竜 ) 07:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * How am I "putting words in [your] mouth", when you just said "The only people who have doxxed Gamergaters are other Gamergaters", despite her request that no one blame GG for doxxing her? Blacke (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well is she a Gamergater now or not? Because that seems to change depending on which house Jupiter is in and whether or not Vivian James saw her shadow on February 2. The point is thusly: doxxing is predominantly done by 4chan-types and Gamergate is rife with them. The bulk of all legitimate harassment and attacks on Gamergaters comes from within. Lizzy was doxxed on baph. Baph isn't home to "anti-GG". And as far as I'm aware, Gamergaters include her in lists of people harassed by "anti-GG" despite her requests that her private life not be politicized and the origin of the attack being an apparent lone wolf as she wishes it to be referred to using the one forum that vile harassment of Gamergaters' targets is generally organized on. So forgive me if I think something's rotten in the state of Denmark here.—<font color="MediumVioletRed">Ryūlóng (<font color="Chocolate">琉竜 ) 08:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that at the time she was doxxed, she publically identified as a GamerGater. Since then, she has said she no longer identifies as one, although I get the impression she remains sympathetic to the movement even if she no longer formally identifies with it. To my knowledge, she hasn't provided a precise explanation of her changed identification - of course, we can all speculate the various ways in which the doxxing might have led her to that decision, but I think it's better that we don't. People who publically list her as a victim of "anti-GG" (something I myself have never done) are not respecting her wishes, but you are not doing so either, and their failure to do so does not in any way justify or excuse your failure to do so. Blacke (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By "sympathetic" I guess you mean "will still show up at explicitly Gamergate meet ups as of a few months ago". And I've not said she was targeted by a specific group. I said what happened to her is only done by a certain kind of person that certain groups overwhelmingly contain.—<font color="DarkSlateBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Black">琉竜 ) 09:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Your hair-splitting here would make a Jesuit proud. Blacke (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, my stance has been fairly consistent. The only people that dox (and call in fake bomb threats) are the people that make up certain groups in this shit fest and the one you call "anti-Gamergate" is outside of that Venn diagram.—<font color="Orange">Ryūlóng (<font color="RebeccaPurple">琉竜 ) 10:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also it turns out she was involved in harassment at some point, particularly in the attacks against Mangotron.—<font color="Black">Ryūlóng (<font color="Silver">琉竜 ) 05:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did she harass Mangotron? I don't know - this is the first I've heard about her harassing anybody, although I don't rule out it could be true. (The link you've given is scarcely evidence of harassment though, since there is no context of what Lizzy herself said to judge whether she was harassing him, and his tweet isn't even necessarily accusing her of harassment - a plausible reading is that she said something about him which he took objection to, which might not however have amounted to harassment.) Blacke (talk) 05:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what she said regarding the Mangotron guy. All I know is that it was part of a larger period of attacks on him. Also, we can't really be sure what was said because (AFAIK) she dumped all her social media after the baphomet dox drop.—<font color="Plum">Ryūlóng (<font color="Olive">琉竜 ) 06:12, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, Ryulong, let's just be clear about what you just did here. You publically accussed Lizzy of misconduct (Twitter harrassment), despite all your evidence being (1) an ambiguously worded accusation, bereft of any context, published around the same time as other harrassment (2) an argument from silence ("we can't really be sure what was said because (AFAIK) she dumped all her social media after the baphomet dox drop") (which amounts to "guilty until proven innocent".) What do you think about the ethics of what you just did? Don't you think it is unethical to publically accuse people of misconduct despite having only very flimsy evidence that they are guilty? (And, while I don't have any particular reason to believe she is reading this, given its public nature, she quite possibly might stumble upon this at some point, and if she chose to take offence at your behaviour, she would be justified in doing so.) Blacke (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh look I found context. She clearly participated in the attacks on Mangotron's owner. Also it seems that she didn't delete everything permanently. Also if you actually lead Lizzy to read this shit I will go headless chicken mode on your ass.—<font color="LightSlateGray">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumBlue">琉竜 ) 07:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear what she did here: she felt that a website was financially exploiting supporters of GG, so she urged people not to visit it. She used a Whois search to identify who was behind that website. Is that Twitter harrasment? Is publishing (a partially censored) screenshot of Whois information "doxxing", when anyone who wishes can in a few seconds do the same Whois search themselves? Since she is (or, if you don't consider her worthy of that title, at the very least she aspires to be) a freelance journalist, would this kind of research be unethical for a journalist to perform, or to publically share the results of? Can it remotely be compared to what was done to her? (which I understood to include posting pictures of her children on the Internet?). (In any event, I've never spoken to Lizzy, so I don't plan to encourage her to read this page, but I can't see anything wrong were someone to bring it to her attention either.) Blacke (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's something quite wrong with one of the statements she's making. Would you like me to explain how I can legally get the phone numbers of your various family members, Blacke? 08:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, she's a Drudge Report reader. Whoo boy. 08:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, err, my first statement wasn't a threat. It's also not a statement of anything other than "screw that one justification." 08:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) She blacked out all the phone, email and address information in the screenshot. She only included the bare minimum of personal information required to make her argument, which would be compatible with responsible journalism. She shared the WHOIS record because she believed it revealed a conflict of interest (i.e. she had a good faith belief, where mistaken or not, that she was acting in the public interest.) I don't have any domains registered to me any more, so you won't find any of my personal information in any WHOIS records. (That didn't used to be the case, but if I ever registered a domain again I would use WHOIS privacy.) I've actually had the conversation with my uncle, who has a domain registered in his home address and phone number, to encourage him to use WHOIS privacy, but he didn't care. Blacke (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The original information wasn't redacted. She got it second hand after it was redacted. You and Gamergate have ridiculous notions of what constitutes a conflict of interest because it doesn't look like there was even a monetary gain to be made but I'm willing to hear you out on what interests were conflicted.—<font color="SeaGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="RebeccaPurple">琉竜 ) 08:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether the original information was redacted or not. To the best of my knowledge, in the form Lizzy posted it, it was redacted. If someone else posted it in unredacted form, I can't see why Lizzy should be held responsible for that. Also, I'm not saying that there was a conflict of interest - since the concept of "conflict of interest" is not very clearly defined anyway, that's a matter of opinion. But I understand that Lizzy had a good faith belief that one existed. Even if she was mistaken about that (some of this revolves around understandable confusion between Dan and his brother, since they used the same name/address to register domains they each used), I think she had a good faith belief that she was acting in the public interest, and she posted the minimum of personal information necessary for her purpose. Whether or not what she did was a wise course of action, I think it is grossly unfair to her to paint it as a case of malicious doxxing. And likewise, I think calling her conduct "harassment" is unfair. Blacke (talk) 08:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Clearly the onus of whether it was harassment lies in the target, and it's clear the website's owner didn't like the attention. What happened to him was harassment and Lizzy was there to justify it for the masses.—<font color="Lime">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumSpringGreen">琉竜 ) 08:54, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Apparently the screenshot was not originally redacted from wherever it came from. Also, read DanMangotron's posts in the thread. Clearly he felt Liz wronged him and apparently was falsely directing the mob at him.—<font color="MediumVioletRed">Ryūlóng (<font color="Chocolate">琉竜 ) 08:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand why Dan is upset at what Lizzy did. But where does he actually accuse her of "harrassment"? I don't see where in his posts on KiA (or anywhere else) he actually makes that specific allegation against her. Maybe what Lizzy did was justified, maybe she was unfairly jumping to conclusions. If she publically makes accusations against him which turn out to be unfounded or based on a misunderstanding - well, that is certainly regrettable, but isn't in itself harassment, and if other people choose to harass him or his brother as a result, that's not her fault. (Can you be certain Ryulong you've never made unfounded allegations against anyone publicly - even if you haven't done so in this particular case - I still don't believe Lizzy harassed anyone, but I admit the matter is a bit more nuanced than I originally thought - can you be sure you have never done it? Especially given the amount of time you spend on the Internet criticising the actions of others? Were you to do so, would that constitute harassment on your part? If someone reads an allegation you've posted about someone, which turns out to be false - or even which is actually true - and then decides to harass the person the allegation was made about, is that harassment your fault?) Blacke (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I was saying Lizzy was making a justification for the harassment Dan was already receiving as a result of Gamergate digging up whatever they did. That's certainly why she ended it with the random accusation that he supported Phil Fish. And I think this conversation has reached a point where it's no longer even remotely constructive seeing as you're JAQing off again.—<font color="DarkSlateBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkKhaki">琉竜 ) 09:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how she was "making a justification for the harassment Dan was already receiving". She was making allegations against him which she honestly believed to be true - even if they were possibly based on a misunderstanding on her part. She was defending herself against allegations that she had been engaging in unethical conduct. Having, as a result of all of this, fallen out with Dan, she is even engaging in a bit of Schadenfreude at his expense: was that Schadenfreude at him being harassed? Or was it Schadenfreude at him having a shitty website that was being overrun with spambots advertising cheap Chinese shoes? I don't know. I don't think that was particularly noble of her, but I still don't see it as her harrassing him. Nowhere in the tweets you've linked to does she tell anyone to harrass him or his brother. I'm not saying she is necessarily right in all the things she's said or done, I'm certainly not arguing for her canonisation as Saint Lizzy, but I still don't think the weighty charge of "harassment" is justified against her, especially when the victim of the harassment hasn't (to my knowledge) applied that label to her. And finally, I think all this talk of "JAQing off" is just your way of saying "You won't accept my viewpoint, so I'm just going to pack up my toys and go home". It's extremely common for Internet debates about just about anything (whether that be politics or religion or culture or whatever) to end with all parties involved keeping their original positions intact, because that's just how humans are like. I'm unlikely to change my mind and you are unlikely to change yours, because that's human nature for you. All this "JAQing off" whining is just an immature response on your part to the realities of debate. Blacke (talk) 09:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In any event, my original point was that there are a bunch of people who choose to associate themselves with GamerGate, without engaging in harassment, so no matter how "unified" the harassment aspect of GG may be, there is a non-harassing section of it which does not participate in that unity, hence the whole cannot be labelled as "unified". I cited Lizzy Finegan as an example of a non-harrassing GG supporter. I still believe that description of her is (or should I maybe say, was) true, but even if it is not, she was just meant as an example of my point, and my point still holds even if this particular example doesn't. Blacke (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone accusing her of engaging in unethical conduct, and certainly not from someone who opened up his website to allow her opinion to be hosted, unless he took that down after she began these tweets. And you don't get it do you? When someone like her being a figurehead in Gamergate at the time decides to go off on someone publicly, that's pretty much an invitation to her what is it 1000 followers to attack. Do you seriously think that people like Milo or Ralph et al. say "harass this person for me"? No. But these people with thousands of likeminded followers singling someone out leads to harassment and in the insane world of Gamergate where allegations come first and verification or justification comes later that happens all the time. Rogue star retweeted me once and I was swamped. Milo mentioned me once and I was swamped. Why else do you think everyone uses block together these days? And me telling you you're JAQing off is my way of saying your arguments are getting to the point where you're clearly fishing for something to use against me or anyone else. Your mind is clearly made up which is why you've spent two days trying to weasel something into the page that matches your viewpoints and the viewpoints of Gamergate as a whole. What is it you're looking for with that whole "have you harassed anyone" line of questioning? I'm a nobody on the Internet. I'm no one of consequence. Saying something to the hundred or so people that follow me on Twitter is nothing to the thousands other people boast. I'm not going to lead to someone being dog piled. My complaints of perhaps a couple of shitty journalists who wrote hit pieces on me or completely and willfully misinterpreted their interactions with me for the sake of their own ego and story pales in comparison to them spreading lies about me and using their positions to do so. That's why I'm tired of you. You keep pulling this balance fallacy garbage. "There's an anti-Gamergate." "You've spread lies too." There was clearly no merit to whatever shit video or blog you posted last night, there's no merit to insist that "anti-Gamergate" is an entity and yet Gamergate isn't. And there's no point in continuing this conversation on whatever Lizzy Finnegan did or did not do. Stop asking leading questions. Stop rwisting everyone's words around to fit what you have in your mind. You came in with a chip on your shoulder and preconceived notions that only two other people who are regulars on this site share and even then their known for their stances as such so it doesn't really prove anything new. Nothing seriously new has come out of Gamergate in ages. The only thing that has is the guy who's currently undergoing federal psychological testing to see if he's competent enough to stand trial for his terrorism arrest.—<font color="OrangeRed">Ryūlóng (<font color="LightSlateGray">琉竜 ) 10:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone accusing her of engaging in unethical conduct people were accusing her of doxxing, which is widely viewed as unethical. So the accusation that she had done something unethical was there, at least by implication.
 * When someone like her being a figurehead in Gamergate at the time decides to go off on someone publicly, that's pretty much an invitation to her what is it 1000 followers to attack. If someone with a lot of Twitter followers decides to criticise or express disagreement with someone else publicly, it is not their fault if some of their followers decide to harass the target of the criticism. That's just a (non-legal) variant of the Heckler's veto - if others use your opinions as inspiration for their own misconduct, you are therefore obligated to shut up?
 * What is it you're looking for with that whole "have you harassed anyone" line of questioning? The point I was trying to make, is that if someone making genuinely believed allegations (whether true or false) against another person constitutes harassment, or becomes harassment when a third party is motivated by them to commit harassment, then by that definition you yourself probably are already guilty of harassment, or may become so in the future. It was a reductio ad absurdum against your overly broad definitions of harassment, not a suggestion that you have in fact harassed anybody.
 * your arguments are getting to the point where you're clearly fishing for something to use against me or anyone else Use what against you for what? I'd like to see some changes in the Gamergate-related content at RW. If that requires some degree of rallying other RW editors to the cause, so be it, I will attempt to do that (whether or not I succeed), but I have no interest in spreading any shit about you anywhere else on the Internet. I've never posted to KiA (I read Reddit sometimes, but I've never had an account there). I created a Twitter once, but followed hardly anybody and never sent a single tweet, and the last time I logged in was so long ago I doubt I could remember my password. As I've already mentioned, for a whole bunch of reasons I won't touch 8chan with a ten foot pole (among them, all this stuff I hear about CP hosted there).
 * Your mind is clearly made up As is yours. So what?
 * There was clearly no merit to whatever shit video or blog you posted last night I have never once in my life posted a video to the Internet (not counting personal videos posted to Facebook, which only my friends can see, and which mostly consist of my son running around the house, and similar non-topical content). I have never made a single blog post in my life on the topic of Gamergate. (My occasional blogging is primarily on IT-related topics, primarily on my employer's website - I will provide no more details than that, since I don't want my employer dragged into this, since it is completely irrelevant to anything.) In fact, the only times in my life I have ever publicaly discussed GG on the Internet have been on this very website. Blacke (talk) 11:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, here's the thing. The "heckler's veto" is fucking bullshit. The whole point of calling people out as a Gamergater is to make sure that people you're critical of for the most miniscule reasons get swamped by dozens if not hundreds or thousands of people who follow you because you attacked them in the name of Gamergate. They're doing it intentionally. When I got retweeted by RogueStar he wasn't doing it to be critical of me. He was mocking me and he was directing all of his idiot followers to do the same and attack me as well. For these reasons, there's no way I'd be liable for "harassment" even amongst my folowers. The approximately one hundred people that follow me aren't a rabid mob angry that the "SJWs is takin their vidya away from them". And I make sure that what I've said is accurate and if it isn't I can correct that. No Gamergater bothers with corrections. I guess they learned that from Breitbart. You're only on this page to concern troll. There's nothing you've done that remotely adds anything to any conversation on this topic, which includes the link to "Gabriellaknight"'s blog that you posted the other night. There's nothing else to be gained from this other than useless nitpicking at things I've said so you can "win" an argument. We're done here.—<font color="Coral">Ryūlóng (<font color="Indigo">琉竜 ) 20:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

rw user:Tarc is not wp user:Tarc
despite claims on User:Tarc, it appears to be a gator having "fun". (Twitter @tarc0917 does appear to be the WP one.) - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So why didn't you block him like I did?—<font color="DarkSeaGreen">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkKhaki">琉竜 ) 04:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe because we don't block people for millenia for off-RW activities, pinhead. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's someone impersonating someone else then that kind of shows it's not someone we want around.—<font color="DodgerBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Yellow">琉竜 ) 07:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Then open a Coop case, which is standard procedure for instituting a lifetime ban. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 07:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keen to lose your sysop powers again are you Ryulong? Tielec01 (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone's signed up here to impersonate someone else to attack them, why wouldn't a block be useful? Why is this always an issue? Why the wheel warring? And why is it always you two when this happens?—<font color="DarkGoldenrod">Ryūlóng (<font color="RebeccaPurple">琉竜 ) 07:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only times we have ever blocked somebody for impersonation is when they tried to impersonate somebody on RW itself. Otherwise, if we knew they were impersonating somebody outside of RW, we simply gave them a forced re-name. Gooniepunk (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want it to stop being an issue, stop abusing your ability to block. Tielec01 (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * David not slapping out a long ban ought have been a decent clue as to what NOT to do.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He wasn't even going to usurp the name. Paravant eventually did that. Why the constant unblocking though even when it's not several hundred millennia or several years? Why go through all this wheel warring just to say "Ryulong isn't doing things the way we like ever"?—<font color="SlateGray">Ryūlóng (<font color="DodgerBlue">琉竜 ) 11:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sheesh Ryulong, what are you trying to achieve by arguing like this? "it's not someone we want around" is not sufficient reason for banning people around here. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:39, 23 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Would "An account created with malicious and fraudulent intent is an account we don't want around" work better for you? - David Gerard (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends? Exactly how awful were the malicious/fraudulent things they did? 142.124.55.236 (talk) 16:57, 23 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Wikipedia user Tarc got banned from Wikipedia after tangling with gators. Someone (evidently a gator) created a Tarc account claiming to be wp user Tarc. It was not. There is no possible purpose for this impersonation other than malice. Do try to keep the fuck up - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, I'm not omnipresent all over the interwebs. <Jamaican accent> Chillax, man. </Jamaican accent> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 42015 AQD (UTC)
 * Don't invoke my name as a justification for bad ideas. I'm all for an indefinite on the jokester, I was just busy at the time. Ryulong's action was entirely correct IMO - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As you made the original post and took no action, please forgive me for thinking you were actually following RW policy. I shall try not to make that leap of faith again. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no obligation to a particular action (as you seem to now be presuming), so the absence of it isn't useful data. You were wrong, deal with it - David Gerard (talk) 12:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're a joke and an embarrassment to the wiki David. Tielec01 (talk) 22:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you'll contribute something other than talk page chat eventually - David Gerard (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

rw user tarc is now wp user tarc

 * FYI, I have recreated the account as my own, as confirmed by the twitter url (it wouldn't let me link it) on the web page. Thanks to the handful here that utilized common sense here as opposed to the other handful of...to borrow a term from one of them...pinheads. 21:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * per - David Gerard (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Honeypot?
Long time reader, first time checking this talk page... uh. Is this real or like a honeypot? Some comments here show signs of genuine mental health issues. Is this page here so you can get them help? If it is I'll kick in a donation. If it isn't you guys are enabling. Exploiting mental illness for free content or fighting against whatever is not cool. 172.98.67.18 (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * what?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My understanding: The people who comment on this article are a bit off. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:20, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * He's gaslighting. Ignore him.—<font color="Olive">Ryūlóng (<font color="Orchid">琉竜 ) 21:19, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, that's lame. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm pretty sure this BoN is one of the assholes grave dancing about me. IP allocates too web hosting service that's banned on Wikipedia for the next two years and was used to do boring vandalism to get my goat.—<font color="Orange">Ryūlóng (<font color="MediumBlue">琉竜 ) 21:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did he get your goat or do you still have it?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm starting an indiegogo to get Liam Neeson to get my goat back.—<font color="DarkSlateGray">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkKhaki">琉竜 ) 23:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Snark
I wish there was more snark on this page. I actually read through the whole thing and I feel it's as dry as any page on Wikipedia. Withoutaname (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You laid on the snark so thick that it eliminated factual statements. There needs to be a balance and that's not done by replacing "Gamergate began because Eron Gjoni enlisted 4chan to be his personal army against Zoe Quinn" with "Gamergate's mad because the industry doesn't kowtow to cis het white boys anymore".—<font color="DodgerBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="Lime">琉竜 ) 06:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that this applies even though the second form is completely the case - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * BOYS?! I think you mean men, damnit! What kind of sissy blah blah blah blah blah blah wombat blah blah 21:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

/r/kotakuinaction/
o noez were being trold 22:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wonder who Villiam could be.—<font color="Gray">Ryūlóng (<font color="Crimson">琉竜 ) 22:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

2 suggestions: Fall of Gamergate / Video about Anita Sarkeesian
I just read the entire article. I was sure I had read in the past year but it seems far more exhaustive and documented than what I remember. (Either that or I'm confusing it with elevatorgate.) I noticed I cannot make edits, and it's probably a good thing that this article is protected. Anyway, here are a few thoughts I had while reading up on this.


 * 1) I'd recommend the fall of Gamergate be divided (or subdivided) in to the section. The first part is documenting the descent of GamerGate, but the second part (starting with "In the end") is really a retrospective on the entire issue, and perhaps should be labeled as such. As I was reading I was not expecting the point of the section to change so suddenly. (This is clearly a minor, cosmetic change.)
 * 2) Can we embed YouTube videos? Because there is a fantastic video that summarizes everything that happened to Anita from posting her kickstarter to the end of the fundraising which might be eye opening for some people who weren't aware of the timeline of her harassment. It would help to add variety and break up the blocks of text. If not, perhaps I can get more images to help break up the wall of text on this page. (BTW: I'd recommend watching the entire series).

Great work. Thanks. ShawnTheHumanist (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit to add a third point: Also, should we list resources of being who have spoken out and some of their better articles from a gamer/nerd point of view. Examples: ShawnTheHumanist (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/reform-of-the-nerds-starring-arthur-chu
 * http://www.vocativ.com/tech/internet/gamergate-newest-nemesis-phd-student-natalie-zed/
 * A lot of these suggestions for new content is covered on Timeline of Gamergate. However the retrospective bit can be easily incorporated.—<font color="MediumBlue">Ryūlóng (<font color="DarkGoldenrod">琉竜 ) 22:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)