Essay talk:GamerGate

"The 4chan community was incensed" You can't just lump all the 4chan users into "the 4chan community". There are multiple boards, all with their own strong communities that a lot of the time even look down on each other, and most of those boards don't even care about video games or political things or internet activism. It would be like saying "the Reddit community was incensed" or "the Facebook community was incensed". It just doesn't make any sense. Too much generalisation there.

Furthermore, "The Fine Young Capitalists, a small radical feminist group". What is a radical feminist group and why do TFYC fulfill the criteria to be radical feminists? Last I heard on here they were just a for-profit video game crowd-funding initiative with a supposedly mildly feminist agenda.

I'm sorry, but it just doesn't look like you've done any research outside of the feminist blogosphere on any of the involved parties in this controversy. Nullahnung (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I describe TFYC as radical feminists because they explicitly say that they are. It is not intended as an insult. As for the bit about 4chan... you may be right, but I can't think of a better way to word it. Maybe just "4chan's /v/ board was incensed"?

I have done quite a lot of research on this topic, from both feminist and non-feminist sources. I am perfectly willing to concede getting some of my facts wrong, though, which is why I invited the discussion here. Abed Nadir (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked the bit about 4chan as per your comment. Also, I don't know what time zone you're in but it's like 4 in the morning here, so if you reply I won't be able to see it for several hours. :( Abed Nadir (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would anybody call themselves radical, I don't understand... oh well. About the 4chan thing, I believe it's better now, the way you changed it. Good night. Nullahnung (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Radical feminism is a thing. I have no idea whether TFYC qualify for it as I don't know anything about them.

Some of the key details in this essay are wrong, such as that Eron Gjoni suggested that Nathan Grayson wrote a positive review of Depression Quest in exchange for sex. This was an accusation made by other people - I don't know where it started but most likely 4chan - which Gjoni explicitly denies if you actually read the blog linked to in the article.

I don't know where you're going with this. Is it supposed to end up as a mainspace article? It's likely to be opening the door to endless quibbling by #GamerGate apologists as on the WIGO:Blogs talk page. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right about that particular detail. I had read the Zoe post a long time ago and had forgotten the details amid all the shitriol that followed.

I wasn't intending this to be a mainspace article, no, but only because I didn't think one would be approved; since there is now a relatively good article up in the mainspace, I've merged the only part of my essay that isn't redundant into that article. I would like any admin who reads this to go ahead and delete my essay as it now effectively redundant. Abed Nadir (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)