Talk:Gamergate/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 13 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>

, (new)(back)

I am this close to locking and deleting this troll-magnet.

This article is barely on-mission. Stop trading insults. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

All our articles are troll magnets. Come on, there's exactly one person here insulting anyone, and it's a new registration just to troll the article. Ikanreed (talk) 20:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

EC: I was about to say "Stop your bristling", when I realized that only Hypatia's hurling insults. What the hell does GamerGate have to do with anything on-mission? I don't care if it's an intersection of right-wing nutjobs and journalism. It's trouble we don't need, on a topic of dubious importance. Gaming Journalism is like restaurant or movie reviews. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I was sort of hoping that our coverage of this would end with the community discussions of it, the frequent coverage of the movement makes it seem more significant than it is --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This whole thing is interesting, I think Rationalwiki should keep it.--BlackProg (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Hypatia for 31.41 minutes. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the article itself is pretty good, I'm just not sure we need it. Then again, I don't think the Wikipedia article really does the subject justice, so if others support it then I'm not too bothered --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I want to agree with TheLateGatsby on missionality, because at this point missionality doesn't even mean anything anymore to me, seeing how everyone has a different interpretation of what that is. But I definitely agree with Drowninginlimbo that coverage is a big part of what makes Gamergate significant and I'd hoped it would end with the discussions we've already had. But then again it does sort of seem to be RationalWiki's thing to cover things like this ("gate's" or whatever you call these things), so it doesn't seem too inconsistent if this ends up staying. So yeah, if everyone else really wants this to stay I'm not too bothered. Nullahnung (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we could make the tone more derisive, more than anything I find the whole thing absurd. The fact that GamerGate has such a lengthy and bloated Wikipedia article is largely due to the press covering it so much. Not much has actually happened other than the harassment of Quinn (which I find disturbing whatever happened between her and her ex) and Intel's perplexing decision to pull advertisements --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Big companies are afraid of controversies on the internet because it involves people yelling at them, that's all there is to know about the Intel stuff.

As for changing the tone, I am against excessive amounts of personality or snark inserted into this article for similar reasons as the ones Shtrominer mentioned somewhere above. It's likely to invite useless side discussion on tangential things like the "how" of the article instead of the "what". Nullahnung (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just re-read the article and it does a pretty good job of snark at the present anyway --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If by "interesting" you mean "stupid, quibbling, and drama-tastic", you got it. I don't think we should give this an article and further perpetuate this crap, but perhaps this is just me being tired of the heated arguments that this topic invariably springs. Noir LeSable (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with you, except I have for some time now gotten the impression that "quibbling and drama-tastic" is a big part of RationalWiki. Nullahnung (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering tinfoil hattery tends to generate its own quibbling and drama, that is not incorrect. EVDebs (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Mmm, point. Noir LeSable (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"If by "interesting" you mean "stupid, quibbling, and drama-tastic", you got it." Ahaha, you read me look a book homie.BlackProg (talk) 016:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate is a veritable maelstorm of misogynistic nastiness. Its proponents are actively engaging in disinformation tactics to further their agenda. It's on-mission as an examination of sexism and discrimination, and also as, for lack of a better term, an exposé of a deliberate campaign of disinformation. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 - damn fine piece - David Gerard (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

To the extent that GamerGate (I prefer Gamerghazi for the sheer granfaloonacy of it all) is on-mission, it's because the whole thing is riddled with tinfoil hattery, outright lies, and a certain amount of something very akin to astroturfing. There are certain points that can be debated, but the origin of the whole mess as a smear campaign is really beyond dispute. EVDebs (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

We have numerous articles on the wiki regarding social justice that were deemed on-mission; this article is no different. As such, keep it. User:TokenSkepticMagician LITERALLY SATAN 09:30, 10 October 2014 (JST)

We've also never shied away from covering topics just because they're "troll magnets." -Shtrominer (talk) 01:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

For me, it's a splendid example of the activist mind at work, the various sophistries and lies trolls tell one another to protect their fragile egos and persuade themselves that their attention-seeking behavior actually furthers a holy cause.

I'm not entirely on board with feminist criticism of video game imagery myself. Creatives get to depict what they want and politics does not count. The sheer triviality of politicizing video games strikes me as the 'C' table picking on the 'D' table. But these things ought to be debated openly, not by trying to rouse Internet mobs with spit-acted sham outrage and hidden agendas. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 01:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Critique, not just "criticism". Critique is a thing you can do with cultural works - David Gerard (talk) 07:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't play many video games, so I have no idea what's up -all I know is that ridiculous shit happens to people who get involved. If you're all okay with that, sure. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 11:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Some popularity

The Gamergate trolls kept pinging the RW Twitter for us to cover the topic, so I made sure to let them know: [1] 109 retweets, I think this article might be getting a few hits. Polish! Polish! Polish! - David Gerard (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"Really sad when Encyclopedia Dramatica has the most accurate info."

It says a lot about a particular cause when the supporters of it feel that Encyclopedia Dramatica covers it more accurately than any other wiki. This is the same website that hosts stolen nude pictures and doxes --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"How can you call yourself rational when you won't take my side!?" --Paul S (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly relevant

Where this sort of rabid weasel batshittery comes from: [2] not only that a female dares say anything, but that other people pay attention to her is apparently intolerable. Not sure it links directly in, but it seems relevant to understanding this sort of online misogyny in general - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's a possible explanation of how this whole thing got started. There is no good way to include this without sounding like a persecution-complex paranoid conspiracy theorist, though. You really have to have experienced all of this yourself to have this be believable, hearsay from a random blog (never heard of seriouspony) won't do it. Nullahnung (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah, it just struck me as highly relevant to the actual problem. We'd need apposite and in-context quotes from the 3000-odd pages of bilge the gamergaters released, that people paying them attention was the problem or part of it - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, it's quite obvious that part of the chaotic soup of motivations behind a lot of participants was that "why is Sarkeesian/Quinn/Depression Quest getting so much undeserved attention, I must express my frustration somehow *rawr*". What we would need to support is that it is the primary mechanic and reason and that the way it got started was specifically through master troll leet hackers who also happen to be experts in social engineering. Nullahnung (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"doxing" or "doxxing"

This is a VASTLY IMPORTANT QUESTION!!! I thought it was "doxx"/"doxxing" myself ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it's either "drop dox" or "doxxing". Two Xs when there's an -ed, -es or an -ing (he doxxes, she doxxes, he doxxed, he is doxxing, etc.), one X if it hasn't got any suffix or whatever (I dox, you dox, we dox, they dox, to drop dox, etc.). DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{Take that, motherfucker!} 14:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a short paragraph on the issue here: http://www.onthemedia.org/story/problem-doxxing/ (which I found randomly while googling the correct spelling of doxing)

It appears that "doxing" is the "old, established and venerable" form while "doxxing" is the "new, fresh and hip" form. Nullahnung (talk) 14:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia favours doxing, as does RationalWiki mainspace. I've probably seen doxxing used more often on talk pages. It smacks of novelty internet spelling; I don't think there are any proper English words with a double x, or that it would serve any function in guiding pronunciation. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was intended as a novelty so much as an attempt at congruence with other words whose terminal consonants get doubled, such as "wrap[ping]," "bet[ting]" and "plan[ning]". No longstanding English verb ends with the letter "x" though (to my knowledge), so the applicability is dubious. I do agree that "doxing" looks better (could anybody read that as having a long "o"? doubtful), though I frequently double the "x" myself out of habit. Abed Nadir (talk) 09:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought "fax" is a somewhat more established word than "dox", and "faxing" is the only acceptable spelling there. So "doxing" it is. Abed Nadir (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Words like boxing & mixing have been around forever, and as I said above a double x would serve no purpose in words like these, in contrast to words where a double consonant is used to differentiate pronunciation such as "title & little or biting & sitting. I can't see how boxxing & doxxing could be pronounced any differently from boxing & doxing. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, both options look shitty and wrong. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER ^{Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow} 12:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"boxing and mixing" Aw shit, this is why I shouldn't edit when I'm tired. Abed Nadir (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there any way of fixing it? Sophie^Wilder 13:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

KiA brigade

Just thought I'd pre-emptively warn you guys of a potentital brigade from /r/KotakuInAction --Backway (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• Delusional mofos, aren't they? EVDebs (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That reminds me, I've been thinking about putting a note in the origins section about how these chuckleheads already hated Kotaku to begin with, since the page has been pretty sympathetic towards feminist and other social justice issues in the past. Just the mere allegation that this bastion of "SJW journalism" was implicit in unethical behavior was seen as justification in their beliefs and a call to arms action. However, this kind of thing is hard to source. --Paul S (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Kotaku has in the past had a bit of a shit reputation as a click-baity site that just reposts news material in a shorter form from other sources in the gaming media ("stealing from other agencies") from many gaming enthusiasts completely unrelated to SJ issues. I believe a fair amount of ill-placed confirmation bias was involved in growing the "journalist ethics" part of the GG movement. Nullahnung (talk) 09:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what bothers me, I don't understand why these people are so vested in trying to control what websites other people can read. Surely the boycott should have been enough for them if they find the content so offensive? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is ever enough in internet activism as rampant as this. Escalation is the food upon which it thrives. Nullahnung (talk) 11:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the craziest I've seen so far, a guy describes how he's going to go to College dorms and block access to the websites: [3]. I wish I'd archived it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:58, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Insert title here

This article doesn't really present both sides of the issue. People have looked into the details and found that Quinn has in fact lied and committed publicity stunts - for example, someone checked the agency that she claimed she would donate the proceeds from Depression Quest to and found that they hadn't received any money from her. She also released a picture of herself posing with a trophy that she made, if you don't think that she's enjoying the attention. Sadly I haven't been following this as closely as some people, but it's not within our mission to be presenting her as innocent. I feel someone with more information and references should rewrite the article. I don't agree with the extremes that Quinn's opponents have taken, but she is not without blame. Captain Lhurgoyf (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Quinn being "without blame" in some completely other arena has nothing to do with any of the supposed "aims" of GamerGate. Defending the "movement" on that basis is completely illegitimate as whether Quinn is somehow karmically worthy of being disliked sheds no light on the utter illegitimacy of the corruption charges and of focusing almost purely on feminist or critical figures over actual corruption. 128.187.97.18 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There are no "both sides," to this story. You are victim blaming. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, you write "found that they hadn't received any money from her." Wrong. [4]. When the facts change, do you change your opinion, or your argument? Hipocrite (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you? For instance her boyfriend at the time did not include her real name, he was trying to come out and speak about the relentless emotional abuse he suffered at the hands of a relentless victimizer. The catalogue of his pain is nothing less than heart wrenching. I'm sure you'd get pleasure berating a raped women as a whore should she gather the courage to come forward and speak of the violence done to her in the light of day. Indeed what that poor man went through at the hands of that absolutely devil, that truly heartless witch, is some of the nastiest, vilest, remorseless, and cruel displays of domestic violence I think I've ever seen. Those of us who have survived emotional abuse understand that it is far far worse than physical violence because the abuser emotionally manipulates the abused into not only staying of their own volition but causes the abused to think they are the sole source and cause of their own misery, all for the private pleasure of the abuser. This article is attacking a defenseless victim for the crime of merely giving voice to their pain and suffering all while it glorifies and vindicates the abuser and her ugly, skillful abuse. The narrative of an all out media smear campaign against victims of abuse everywhere is beginning to fall apart [5], you're role in sustaining and supporting domestic violence is certainly noted. A personal apology to Gjoni about what a horrible excuse for a human being you are, Hipocrite, is certainly in order. --Hypatia (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, not how this works. You don't get to go "people threatening the life of this person was okay because I discovered they had personal moral failings". Take your just world and shove it. This still doesn't make another "side". Ikanreed (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a relentless load of bullshit. That the two of them were in a broken relationship is obvious. Are you alleging the name she uses professionally is not her "real name?" What a joke. Go somewhere else. Hipocrite (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

That is correct. Zoe Quinn is just a current pseudonym, as everyone familiar with the topic is aware. I'm not going to dox her here... if you're curious, fifteen seconds or so of (gasp) actual reading (groundbreaking, I know) should clear this right up.

So you are saying that the name someone goes by personally and professionally isn't their name because it's not the name they were assigned at birth? Are you stupid or just playacting? Hipocrite (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki isn't under a mandate to remain neutral like Wikipedia. We can take sides, and we can be snarky, if we choose. I tried to keep this article as snark-free as possible, because I know it's going to be a magnet for disruptive edits, and saw no point in pro-actively sprinkling it with troll food.

There's no credible evidence to show that Quinn (or, for that matter, Anita Sarkeesian) is lying about receiving harassment. Gamergaters are grasping at straws, looking for any piece of "dirt" they can, in an attempt to poison the well against Quinn, Sarkeesian, and Alexander. I mean, the now-refuted claim that Quinn didn't pay the charity, Alexander's supposedly "racist" tweet from three years ago, etc. don't have any bearing on the validity of their criticisms of video games and gaming culture, or of their reports of harassment. It's all a transparent attempt at character assassination, and, sorry, that's not a machine into which we should put our quarter. -Shtrominer (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap! When did I mention anything other than Zoe Quinn’s disgusting and deliberate abuse of her partner and the general treatment of that poor young man by the media? Where? That’s right I didn’t. I pointed out where you’re wiki engages in deceitful libel against an innocent young man. He has a long history of depression and anxiety, two traits that makes a person particularly vulnerable to abusive relationships. I can’t fully express to you how painful and destructive the experience is when you discover someone you trusted with your heart and soul has been mocking you with your own misery.

His “8,000 words of slut-shaming” is anything but, check the lawsuit Zoe Quinn filed against him – he didn’t even use her full or real name. Granted he himself mentioned he was not in the right state of mind, but vindictive it was not. It was the post of a survivor of abuse coming forward and putting his true real life experiences into a personal blog post, not a professional piece of journalism or, say, a wiki site that claims to present to its users the straight “facts” (clearly the lot of you knuckleheads do not have any understanding of that word).

No, Zoe Quinn is completely responsible for that blog post as she was blatantly abusing a mentally vulnerable young man who she knew suffered from depression and anxiety. His post about her abuse may have made her life extremely difficult, but as the resulting shit storm isn’t Zoe Quinn’s fault neither is it Gjoni’s. He did the first thing anyone in modern society is taught to do: talk about it, write about it, and speak out speak up; all this he did without even mentioning her name because his exposition of his pain, suffering and abuse was NOT about Zoe Quinn. No, it was about his pain, suffering and abuse. Would you attack Emma Sulkowicz with the kinds of heartless vitriol you railed against Gjoni for outing her attacker by name despite the fact that there was wasn’t clear enough evidence of wrongdoing on the part of her rapist enough for the University to take action, let alone legal recourse? I don’t think so.

That article’s treatment of that innocent young man is beyond disgusting. After the internet exploded his reaction was of shock and expressed he never wished any of it to that far, he was simply trying to express his pain. Something I can't see anything wrong with. In the heat of it he immediately took to defend Zoe, worked with her, expressed public regret (though he has absolutely no moral obligation towards that hateful abuser) and her PR team to mitigate the fallout from the results of Zoe’s own abusive behavior (his post is not his fault, Zoe Quinn’s relentless abuse, however, is). He has stood firm in her defense and in spite of all of his remarkably decent and caring behavior towards someone who deserved no kindness from him whatsoever. In spite of that cruel woman has launched a law suit against him, that’s right she is continuing her abuse of that poor young man and the current reigning media smear campaign –right we can’t use the word “sides” – is aiding and abetting his emotional torture.

You know for a crew that claims to care about reason, knowledge, ethics, and the truth one has to look at all the logical fallacies launched with blind irrationality. It’s like I’m arguing with a bunch of bible thumping creationists, no that’s an insult to Christian Zealots as I’ve never come across any as delusionally self-righteous as this lot here.

Oh and Ikanreed domestic abuse is not a “moral failure” it’s a crime against humanity, much like your attempt at moral philosophy.--Hypatia (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The US torture garden is legal too, doesn't stop me from calling "enhanced interrogation" exactly what it is. Sustained emotional abuse in a sexual relationship is violence on par with rape. So yes, I consider sexual violence, be it against a child, young woman, or grown man to be one of the foulest crimes a person can commit. --Hypatia (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Also: "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Ikanreed (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the style of your prose, I'm talking about outright libel. --Hypatia (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty ironic to see a supporter of GamerGate arguing that something is libel --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm gonna call ^{[citation needed]} on Hypatia's bullshit. Present actual proof, or GTFO. --User:TokenSkepticMagician LITERALLY SATAN 09:26, 10 October 2014 (JST)

The article lays out it's own ethical framework which it then blatantly transgresses in a bizarre contradiction of the most basic logic. The internal inconsistency of the article in question IS what I am pointing out, it is the PROOF. Of course I can see for you facts, sources, reason, logic etc only matter when it's something you don't WANT to believe, all other times it's those rosy shades of faith full stop.--Hypatia (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words, instead of providing a source, maybe pulling a quote from what Gjoni's written to demonstrate, you will just attack the contributors here. Sixthhokage1 (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I don't get that, unlike Wikipedia you can bring pretty much any sources you would like here, even blog posts and raw data, and do your own research to improve the articles. Instead people attack the editors. If you can make the argument it will eventually find itself in the article --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Since it doesn't appear that Hypatia is going to come back with evidence, for the sake of being fair here's a look at how abusive the relationship was according to the Zoepost that is distanced from Gamergate and isn't slut-shaming shit. Sixthhokage1 (talk) 05:11, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Other things to cover

The renewed harassment of Sarkeesian, the targeting of Leigh Alexander, the reaction of 4chan/"moot" (not so certain about that last one). -Shtrominer (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also notes on how the climate that spawned this mess had been building up for the last two years or so. The growing hostility against SJWs, the campaigns and allegations against Sarkeesian, the Mighty No. 9 silliness and the shitlist of "SJW journalists" that was floating around to name a few things that built the powder keg. The Zoe Post was just the spark. --Paul S (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That these guys were too odious even for 4chan - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

TBH, considering the stuff they've done in the past involving doxxing and trolling, I think it might just be indicative of a personal values shift in moot and the upper brass of 4chan rather than being the WORST THING EVER on the site. Noir LeSable (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there have been rather a lot of unmentionable things in the past from some of the more unruly boards, mostly /b/, and people accepted horrible doxing and harassment as facts of life. This is either because of a personal values shift or because of the unprecedented influence and pressure from activists surrounding this controversy. A lot of people from the outside look at this and go "why is it that random people on the internet get horribly harassed and nobody cares, but as soon as it's a feminist issue, suddenly everybody cares". Nullahnung (talk) 07:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Because they worked so hard to get their fine work into the press, and once it was in there, actual normal humans went "what the fuck is this shit" - David Gerard (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's more likely that individuals have started holding "Moot" legally responsible for the content on the website and he is now trying to prevent lawsuits by removing content that could get him into trouble --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The mighty no. 9 silliness

Please don't tell me the creator did something crazy misogynist I hadn't heard about, I'm a backer for that project. Ikanreed (talk) 13:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Other way around. The creator hired someone who believes Women should be equal to Men, and has drawn art of the main charcter as... GASP... A FEMALE! [6] Hipocrite (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh phew. "This re-imagining of mega man might be different in some ways from mega man, maybe". Boo hoo. Ikanreed (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Stormclouds gather on the horizon

I think Weaseloid has a point. Our article on Sarkeesian needs some of the stuff that's written here in great detail and is a more relevant place to put this. This article can have a shorter summary instead, linking to the Sarkeesian article, to avoid duplicate material. Nullahnung (talk) 08:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to migrate the parts that aren't sufficiently relevant to the bigger picture to the Anita article. Adding such lead-up/background information was discussed above. I feel it helps provide some context, in the sense that it establishes that the hostile climate has been building for two years (possibly longer), and didn't just spontaneously materalize. -Shtrominer (talk) 08:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, the stuff about Sarkeesian's first video being delayed and the subsequent accusation that she is a "scam artist" are necessary. They're intended to lay the groundwork for coverage of the harassment of Sarkeesian that occurred during Gamergate, including the threats that forced her from her home. That's yet to be added to the article. The stuff about Thunderf00t's videos can go, though. -Shtrominer (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

These things aren't part of Gamergate; they predate it by like two years. Presenting these as the starting point for Gamergate is playing into the hands of people who claim it's a meaningful long term grassroots movement. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I actually think that removing the information in question would be playing into the hands of the 'Gaters. It would make it seem as if Gamergate emerged from nowhere, which would potentially lend credibility to the claim that Gamergate is a grassroots movement that coalesced in reaction to a perceived instance of journalistic corruption. The fact is that the campaign of harassment against prominent/outspoken women has been ongoing for two years. "Gamergate" is the point at which the pot boiled over, so to speak. I think taking away information on instances of harassment leading up to Gamergate wouldn't be providing an accurate picture of the scope of the problem. -Shtrominer (talk) 10:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Gamergate" isn't a pot boiling over, nor an ongoing campaign. It's a inane manufactroversy that started when some dude took a rage dump over his ex & a load of morons chimed in with ill-informed assumptions & opinions. Let's not lose sight of that. Parallels with what happened to Anita Sarkeesian are worth mentioning an appropriate point in the article, but when you stack them at the beginning of the Gamergate narrative as "stormclouds gathering on the horizon", you're making this a much bigger "gate" than it should be, much like the conspiracy theorists who frame it as an ongoing struggle within the gaming community. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved the lead-up information to an independent section titled "background" before you made the above post. I agree that the initial placement within the "Genesis" section and the sub-section title were a bit awkward. I nonetheless think it's myopic to view Gamergate as an isolated occurrence, rather than as a part of the bigger picture of targeted harassment in the gaming community. Gamergate is the moment which the pot boiled over in the sense that A) it's the first time a targeted hate campaign in the gaming community was packaged as a grassroots movement, B) it's the first time the harassers have seriously set their sights on driving out all of their ideological opponents ("SJWS") and not just individuals like Anita Sarkeesian, C) it's the first time that targeted harassment has gotten the level of media attention and pushback that it is has. -Shtrominer (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, once we've added coverage of the renewed harassment of Anita during Gamergate, we could potentially move the stuff in "Background." But I do think presenting a linear chronicle of events helps make the article more readable. -Shtrominer (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I think both Shtrominer and Weaseloid have a point. Afaik, GG started out as a manufactroversy (not yet connected with the whole anti-"SJW" issue) from a bunch of people taking sides in relationship matters and rumours. Then the anti-"SJW" connection was made (and eventually established itself as the main growth mechanism of the clusterfuck) when Quinn started standing up against her harassment publicly and feminists/"SJWs" leapt to support her. So, Weaseloid and Shtrominer are both kind of right. Nullahnung (talk) 20:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It's complicated because the harassment got out of control so quickly. The situation with Quinn and her ex wasn't really discussed in an intelligent manner. I suppose you could argue that you can't really discuss individuals private lives and sensational rumours concerning them without it being fairly invasive but the nude pictures of Quinn were posted alongside sexist insults from the first day. I don't know how anyone can seriously associate themselves with that. Even when the focus was on "corruption" it was still carried out in a sexist and hateful manner. In my eyes that's primarily the problem with GamerGate and with people playing vigilante online. Most still know very little about Quinns private life but there are now all sorts of rumours about her spread across the internet. I read some posts saying that she had supposedly murdered somebody finding some circulation. It's absolutely irrational --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

^This is what we should be focusing on in this article. Tropes vs Women is a separate story & already well enough covered in our articles on Sarkeesian & Thunderf00t. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:33, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh, it's pretty much an extension of the long-standing gatekeeping that happens in gaming spaces by the dudebros, taken to extremes with conspiracy theories for their justification. Sixthhokage1 (talk) 18:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. This is something that's been building up for a while. If you were to look at the comments left on articles on various game sites that concerned themes of sexism, exploitation, homophobia or other forms of bigotry or exclusiveness in games, you'll see a torrent of comments about how the PC police and the SJWs are ruining games, trying to censor them, how it's an attack on freedom and other bullshit. For instance, this article on Destructoid published in March where writer Jonathan Holmes responds to being placed on a "SJW Journalist to Avoid" list: [7]. Other examples include the response to some of the character designs in the new Super Smash Bros. title, such as the backlash against the criticism of Samus Aran (one of the very first action-oriented heroines in video games) being given rocket high heels along with her skintight bodysuit, seen as a shift from her stance as an action heroine to just another chesecake character. Or just a month before the Zoe Post, Todd Ciolek wrote on Anime News Network about the game Akiba's Trip (where the players find vampires by ripping their clothes off in public) and his distaste for it [8], and the comments are just what you'd expect at this point. The point is; yeah, this has been building up and it was always about shutting down those pesky feminists and their SJW allies. --Paul S (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I almost forgot about Dragon's Crown, which came out in the Summer of 2013. Basically, the game has some pretty out-there designs for the female characters, which lead to some criticism... and then a backlash against said criticism. If you want a good microcosm of this, again I refer to Todd Ciolek, who reviewed the game for Anime News Network. Despite giving the game a generally positive review (giving it an overall grade of "B"), enough readers took issue with Todd's distaste of some of the depictions of women in the game that they stretched the talkback thread for the review to 266 posts [9]. --Paul S (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to start a separate article to cover instances of sexism leading up to Gamergate in more detail. I think there's a balance to be struck between providing enough background information to accurately place Gamergate within the context of a larger, longer-running campaign of misogynistic harassment, and not bogging down readers with too much text before getting to the "meat" of the article (i.e. Gamergate proper).

Anita's take on the connection between Gamergate and earlier harassment, if it's relevant: https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/521721747154804736. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Perspective from somebody who doesn't give a shit.

Seriously, this just reeked out of mission the moment I saw the suggestion and I was proven right. How may I list the ways?

• We gave not one shit about previous tumblr and 4chan bitchfights, so why should we in this particular case?
• The genetic and spotlight fallacies are in the ripest abundance I've ever seen. Clearly, the orchard needs to be burned down.
• As mentioned by Null, this has no alternate viewpoints.

MadmanJohnson, we must dissent. --Madman (talk) 13:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)The Madman

Did I say this article has no alternate viewpoints? Where? I think it represents a few. What's an alternate view point anyway? Also, this particular event is important to internet people, so as a community of internet people we apparently are obliged to do a thing on it. Nullahnung (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

What alternate viewpoints? That's like demanding the well-founded views of creationists. There is literally no claim made by Gamergate that isn't provably bullshit. It's a huge abuse of the media for lies and crankery (mission 2 and 4), and one that just happens to be exceedingly well documented - David Gerard (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Which alternate viewpoints do you think this article should cover? I've only seen three alternate views of Gamergate put forward. There's the view that it's really a campaign for journalistic ethics, which, of course, is just a cover story concocted by trolls to hide/justify the fact that they're waging a targeted harassment campaign. I don't think we need to help advance their favourable spin when they've already got Know Your Meme doing it for them. Second, there's the view that video games are too trivial to warrant this kind of firestorm, and that the whole affair is an example of "first world problems." That may very well be the case, but the fact is that people are locking horns over video games, and we don't need to waste bytes questioning whether they should be fighting over video games in the article. The last view is the argument that, while it can't be denied Gamergate is a massive campaign of harassment, dudebros are the core market for video games and developers have an economic interest in catering to this demographic and not biting the proverbial hands that line their pockets — ergo nothing needs to be done to address the problematic portrayal of women in games. Which, frankly, is a fallacious. But at least it's an argument that's being made seriously, and it might warrant coverage. -Shtrominer (talk) 17:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

"ergo, nothing needs to be done to address the problematic portrayal of women in games [because if more women become gaming enthusiasts the market will cater to them anyway]" That's an issue more closely related to Anita Sarkeesian and the discussion she's inspired over tropes vs. women in video games, not this whole gamergate kerfuffle, which appears to be about real people, not fictional characters. Nullahnung (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even convinced Zoe Quinn exists. She's probably just a couple of kids or Dave Gorman or something. Fonzie (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: genetic fallacy. It would be a genetic fallacy if we said (for instance) "GGers are assholes, therefore gaming journalism is fine", but we don't say that. What we say is that the reason that Gamergate exists is to harass people, which is true. In fact, we state at the bottom that there is in fact some corruption in game journalism, which is also what GGers claim – but point out that they do very little about it when the fault lies with faceless corporations instead of financially and emotionally vulnerable individuals they can harass and threaten. Likewise the spotlight fallacy doesn't really apply when a movement was founded by people who were trying to get a woman to commit suicide. They aren't the lunatic fringes of Gamergate – they're its founding fathers.

I second what DG said. There is no reason to lend credence to the claims of a movement that exists to harass. Frankly I think the article as it stands now, particularly the paragraph beginning "A number of op-ed pieces...", is if anything too nice to Gamergate. Abed Nadir (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate is, if nothing else, one of the most splendid and transparent examples of how naked aggression clothes itself in moral bullshit. It's the transparency provided by the trivial event that started it, how this was seized upon by malefactors with a deep inner need for drama, and how they persuaded people to jump on the bandwagon of their trumped up cause. At the least, all of these things make for a shining teachable moment. And I think all of these things bear a fairly obvious relation to the mission statement. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 03:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Except that Gamergate isn't a "movement that exists to harass". If you took some time to read through the comments left on Twitter and 8chan, you would find that harassment is condemned and not supported, including the recent doxx of Brianna Wu. http://imgur.com/a/927x9#0 (Archives provided where possible, but the whole of /gg/ will be archived soon.) Sure, there may be a few harassers, just like there are a few on the anti-GG side, or any position of any topic; but these harassers do not represent GG itself, because nobody represents GG; a decentralized consumer revolt against corrupt games journalism. In many respects, whats happened to GamerGate and Atheism/Atheism+ were similar; both were attacked by social justice warriors with an agenda, and both were denounced as hateful/mysogynist. The major difference in Gamergate is that 14 corrupt game journalist websites were complicit because they were pulled into line by the GameJournosPro mailing list, and it was a chance to divert attention away from their unethical practices that Gamergate itself called into question; and unfortunately, many people see them as trustworthy news sources and believe them. I also fear that this entire article has been taken over by activists. For instance, it claims #NotYourShield to be "a tag created by underrepresented groups within the gaming community to counter charges of rampant sexism in video games and the culture surrounding them", when in reality, #NYS is, to quote its creator (a black dev who, after creating the tag, was doxxed and fired after SJWs rung his job): "A tag to.. demand the SJWs stop using you as a shield to deflect genuine criticism"; which has also extended as a way for women/minorities to fight back against SJWs that stereotype them and all of GG as 'misogynist white males' and then try to speak for the women/minorities themselves. With not only biased, but incorrect information being posted here, I strongly urge more long-standing moderators to step in, or simply delete this until it can be re-written neutrally.^{— Unsigned, by: 122.148.72.109 / talk / contribs}

Nobody in your image is condemning doxxing, in fact they are all behaving like conspiracy theorists claiming she is doxxing herself based on... well nothing. - π 06:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The very first tweet that ever used #GamerGate was exclusively about Zoe Quinn and her supposed sexual conspiracy. Nothing about integrity there. Just harassment. The IRC log from #burgersandfries, the IRC channel that started Gamergate (mostly 4channers at this point) focuses almost exclusively on doxing Zoe and her supporters. These people started everything. They are the whole reason it exists.

I do read comments from #GamerGaters on Twitter (though I wouldn't log onto 8chan if my life depended on it). There are the token "we don't support harassment" people, who support a movement that was created with the explicit goal of trying to get Zoe Quinn to commit suicide. ("What if she suicides?" "Good. Then we get to troll #Rememberzoe") I was formerly willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in assuming that most of them are simply unaware of how this movement started, that they joined on when they saw the "death of gamers" articles and felt upset by ill-formed blanket statements about a broad group of people that includes them, but ignorance can only excuse so much. Anyone still on board by this point must be aware of the level of abuse for which the creators of Gamergate are responsible, yet are more upset by the phrase "death of gamers" than by the idea that women are being driven from their homes by rape and death threats that include home addresses and phone numbers. Abed Nadir (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Also: "taken over by activists"? "Rewritten neutrally"? What site do you think you're on exactly? We exist to take sides, and "rape threats are bad" is a side pretty much everyone on this site is on. Abed Nadir (talk) 07:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've heard of people supposedly losing jobs because of "SJW's" before. There's rarely any evidence. One guy I had asked point-blank about it gave me a link to an article where a gater (who was astonishingly ignorant of the doxing, rape threats, death threats, bomb threats, misogynistic slurs, etc. that his cohorts were responsible for) said he was afraid that speaking in favor of this hate movement would be "career suicide." Of course he didn't bother to clarify whether or not he was actually fired, presumably because he wasn't, and that would prove that supposed SJW's aren't actually the harassment machine that gaters are. If you have an actual piece of evidence that these apparently heartless SJW monsters are actually doing anything other than speaking out against death threats, by all means, present it. We've certainly shared plenty of gater harassment. Abed Nadir (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"I also fear that this entire article has been taken over by activists." Do you have no idea that what you are doing is trying to change the article from an activist perspective? Almost everybody believes that their opinion is neutral but antifeminism is actually a pretty extreme ideology --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not that extreme, really. Antifeminist activism is pretty extreme, maybe, but the average guy who is comfortable with the status quo has a high probability of getting annoyed at people telling him he's privileged or perpetuating a patriarchy. Nullahnung (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well yeah but not being a feminist isn't the same thing as being antifeminist and actively campaigning against it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Probably true. Nullahnung (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and here's a couple of "fun" details: Wu wrote "I was literally watching 8chan go after me in their specific chatroom for Gamergate... They posted my address, and within moments I got that death threat." Quinn also described a typical 8chan thread (with links, because we "SJW's" actually cite our fucking sources): "hi zoe won't find misogyny here neener" 2 posts down "zoe you should be a whore because no one will work with you". This is blatant misogynistic hatred. Abed Nadir (talk) 08:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Twitter is a medium that is very conducive to trolling (provoking people for the sake of provoking people) due to the one-dimensional messaging (character limit) and subsequent escalation. I am not sure how much of this harassment is in fact just trolls that feed on attention. Nullahnung (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering it came from 4chan I'd say much of GamerGate is trolls that feed on attention, that doesn't make it any less damaging for the individuals targeted --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure there are a substantial amount of people who initially jumped on the bandwagon due to ill-placed confirmation bias, ignorance and good intentions... and who have stayed on in the movement because they aren't going to listen to "feminists spreading evidence" or if they are going to listen, then the backfire effect will kick in and keep them in the movement regardless. Nullahnung (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that fits much of what I have read --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 09:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So where is the evidence? The article just mentions that someone pinky sweared it ain't so. --Someon (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is the evidence for which part? Abed Nadir (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"because they were pulled into line by the GameJournosPro mailing list" ahem. Sixthhokage1 (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of this stuff needs to be added clearly to the article, especially the suicide angle and the Adam Baldwin connection. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Perspective from somebody who actually doesn't give a shit.

Looks mission-worthy to me. Carry on. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How to make everything even worse

The journalists are really dropping the ball on this one with the massive generalisations and self-righteousness: the equivalent would be an anti-ISIS op piece which suggests:

• That ISIS actually is representative of the majority of global Islamic opinion rather than just thinking it is, and
• That in order to be considered a moderate, one must perform a series of acts of public contrition as defined by the writer to "distance" themselves from the actions of people they don't agree with towards people they've never heard of.

The most obvious answer would be "why are you telling them what they already believe rather than emphasising their wrongness, and why do you think I care whether or not you'll deign to refine your opinion I'm a horrible person if I jump through the right hoops?"

And for that matter, what do they think is going to happen if we "condemn" them, is it going to turn into a care bear stare and make them turn nice if enough people do it?

What this is is a bunch of far-right troglodytes who happen to be gamers imagining all gamers are just like them, and a bunch of college brats with useless degrees arguing that they're absolutely right. King Skeleton (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You know you have a good sense of perspective when you are comparing video game reviewers to ISIS. Hipocrite (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

He didn't! Reread it. Nullahnung (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not, I'm comparing gamergate participants to ISIS. The reviewer is the one writing the op piece. Also, you may wish to look up the extended analogy fallacy: an analogy is not a statement that two things are precisely equivalent to one another. King Skeleton (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

You didn't compare GG to ISIS, you simply compared the op-ed pieces to anti-ISIS op-ed pieces. There's a huge difference. Nullahnung (talk) 12:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm half asleep. Yeah, the comparison was between the pieces. Point was, it certainly wasn't saying games journalists are like ISIS, I'm not sure how you could read it that way. King Skeleton (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that demonstrates that he's got a good sense of perspective. Wait, no it doesn't. Hipocrite (talk) 12:16, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you conceded your mistake of misreading before going on the attack again. That would help create a climate more conducive to mutual understanding. Nullahnung (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I misread your analogy. Hipocrite (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

An analogy is not a statement that two things are precisely equivalent to one another. If I told you that my car steers like an oil tanker, would you start telling me that my car doesn't have a rudder? King Skeleton (talk) 12:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Analogies are always flawed, especially when you don't care about scale or magnitude while looking for a comparison that can still make a point. (Which is why in my personal opinion analogies should never ever be used in a complex discussion). His point was that the journalists painted with brushes that were a bit too broad, which I partly agree with. Other things he said... well, I kinda think that if you're going to say anything about the controversy it would help if a condemning was involved, otherwise it seems like there's a skewed sense of what's important to note in the controversy. Nullahnung (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Ok, let's try it this way. "Bullshit. No Journalist has told you that Gamergate is representative of "people who play videogames' opinion." "Bullshit. No Journalist has told you that in order to critique the ethics of game journalism you have to do something to distance yourself from GamerGate." Easy enough to prove me wrong.Hipocrite (talk) 12:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hipocrite is correct on this one. No journalist that I'm aware of (I'm assuming King Skeleton means the "gamers are dead" journalists) has said that GG is representative of gaming enthusiasts (gamers means something similar to gaming enthusiasts in this context, not just people who play games). Nullahnung (talk) 12:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The no middle ground rhetoric is mostly journalist tweets rather than articles, so you'll forgive me for getting back to you on that one since I'm about to go to bed, and I'm fairly sure I can drag up quotes regarding ridiculous generalisations. But if you can't wait, try this: look at the "gamers are dead" articles without parsing them through what you, an equally outraged person, think the author is saying, or in light of the clarification articles posted later. Bear in mind that most of the people they're speaking to take "gamer" to mean "person who plays games" and when you're speaking to someone it matters what they think a word means, not what you think it means. Read them as a disinterested person who thinks of themselves as a gamer and has no idea who these women they're talking about actually are. King Skeleton (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

(EC) If you're arguing against ridiculous generalisations then repeatedly talking about "the journalists" as an undifferentiated group, without examples, & throwing in phrases like "bunch of college brats with useless degrees" doesn't seem very insightful. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 Nullahnung (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I sort of figured it was obvious from context which journalists I might be talking about. And yes, I'm prone to being obnoxious at times, mea culpa. My tablet constantly adding "omnivore set" into my posts at random is not at all helping with this. >:( King Skeleton (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, some things to note:

1.) Tweets are horrible and don't prove anything to me. It is impossible to converse with the necessary nuance that individuals will have through Twitter's character limit. This is why everyone sounds like a shouty, one-dimensional extremist on Twitter. Try not to hate them too much.

2.) Communication is multi-sided (not two, multi, but that's a side point), so it does in fact matter what the person who used "gamer" thinks it means as well as what the person who hears "gamer" thinks it means. They should both be given due consideration to eliminate miscommunication. Also, when you're trying to put a multitude of people in a box labeled gamer, you're always going to unfairly generalise.

3.) Personally, I think the "gamers are dead" articles are trying to say that gaming media should move beyond core gaming enthusiasts, especially because they have been behaving so badly (<--unfair generalisation here). I am disappointed that they'd do this as they are essentially saying "gaming enthusiasts have problems that are difficult to fix, let's move on to bigger things" instead of saying "we as gaming enthusiasts have problems, let's fix them!" Nullahnung (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

The Escapist

Just published a whole treasure trove of developer interviews. Perhaps useful? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 16:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, what a bunch of assholes. I'm so glad for getting Brad "I'll sexually harrass my employees if I want, they can leave if they want" Wardell's opinion. There's a couple of centrism seeking quotes on there, but, seriously, these are a bunch of really shitty opinions. Ikanreed (talk) 17:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, no female quotes. None. Ikanreed (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ikanreed that it's not a collection of terribly insightful or broad-minded opinions, and that the "centrist" ones might be best in those respects. (Disclaimer: I am generally biased towards centrism and compromising opinions, as I feel like those are the kinds of opinions formed by exploring a greater variety of view points. I am aware that this may be a huge flaw of mine.) Nullahnung (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, after a minimal amount of attempting to wade through, I found something that may be worthwhile to read: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/gamergate-interviews/12392-Greg-Costikyan-GamerGate-Interview

I won't paint this with my own judgment, as I am all too often guilty of doing. Judge for yourself. Nullahnung (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This article, too, is provably horrible bullshit. They literally compiled it by going looking for views on 4chan. [10] As far as I can tell, there is literally no claim of Gamergate that isn't bullshit - David Gerard (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

We now have a section on this article. It was tempting to a cover more of Desborough's history of nastiness, like his "In Defence of Rape" article from 2012 (it's a defense of rape as a fictional trope, but it still demonstrates a marked lack of sensitivity), and his transphobic remarks.[11][12] But I tried to restrict coverage to things relevant to Gamergate, specifically his implicitly misogynistic tentacle rape card game and his explicitly anti-SJW card game. Also, Desborough's Indiegogo campaign to fund publication of a Gor game, which Archon of The Escapist (the person who agreed to interview GG-supporting devs from 4chan) apparently donated to, a fact that was seemingly not disclosed in the The Escapist's interview of Desborough. -Shtrominer (talk) 06:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Not worth mentioning in the article, but hey

Seth Motherfucking Rogen is now officially anti-Gamergate, telling Adam "I don't care if she was just driven out of her home by death threats from Gamergaters, I just want her to apologize for blaming Gamergaters for it" Baldwin to "stop supporting this stupid cause." In other news, I have just pre-ordered two tickets to The Interview. (OK not really 'cause I was already planning to see it.) As always, only read others' responses if you like getting angry at liars on Twitter. Abed Nadir (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Twitter is bad for good conversations. I'll pass. Nullahnung (talk) 09:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Deadspin article

Anything mentioned in this Deadspin article that isn't covered in the RW article as yet? If the skeleton of the timeline is complete, it's possibly time to start hanging all the details off it - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

IDK about the Deadspin article but there's another GM post on Kotaku about it, from this morning[13]--"Shut up, Brx." 14:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

+1, this should be a usable framework for all detail - David Gerard (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I note also that the Wikipedia article is pretty good for sourcing, but the actual article has been edit-warred into unreadable splurge. If we can hit every reference and make the result readable, that would be a big win - David Gerard (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we talk about Jeff Gerstmann?

You know, the guy who got fired from GameSpot after giving a bad review to Kane and Lynch? I think it would be perfect to bring him up here. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This is mentioned brieftly in the "Substantive efforts..." section. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Gee. This article keeps changing so much I must have missed that version. I need another nap... Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

DARVO

I don't exactly know how to work this into the article, but I think it needs to be said. Much of Gamergaters' behavior fits DARVO, an acronym for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender – the behavior of abusers. They repeatedly deny that Gamergate is responsible for the death threats, they attack their supposed "SJW" enemies, and they reverse the roles by casting themselves as victims of censorship and oppression (from, again, SJWs). The more I thought about this, the more sense it seemed to make. Thoughts? Abed Nadir (talk) 06:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Worth noting somewhere. A "tropes, claims and methods" section perhaps - David Gerard (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

New intro

I prefer the old intro to the new intro that was just introduced (although I admit that, as the author of the old version, I may very well be biased). I think the old version is more succinct. I think it's too broad of a statement to claim that Gamergate always targets "financially vulnerable feminists" or that threats "always contain the victim's home address." I also find the ant factoid clever and interesting, and think it serves as a small poke at Gamergate, in the sense that it proves they didn't invent the word. -Shtrominer (talk) 06:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've switched the broad statements to describing "those most active and organized" in this clusterfuck of a "movement". Nullahnung (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we could change "always" to "usually" if we're picky, but the main reason I reworked the intro is because it's not a "controversy" (that is, an event) so much as a "movement" (a group of people with specific goals), and that needs to be made clear from the outset. It also does no good to waffle around calling it a harassment campaign right from the start of the article – after all, it was a harassment campaign right from the start of its existence.

The ant thing would work better as a hatnote, the same way it does on the page on crank. Putting it in the main text just seems weird to me, and frankly irrelevant. Abed Nadir (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How's that? Abed Nadir (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the hatnote works in conjunction with the top quote. It looks too cluttered and out of place. Anyway, while I like the ant thing, it's not something I feel too strongly about it. I find defining Gamergate as a "movement" to be problematic, as I feel that, to some degree, this lends legitimacy to the claim that Gamergate is a grassroots campaign for journalistic ethics. I think that Gamergate fits the definition of a "manufactroversy" to a tee — that is, it's a manufactured controversy. Gamergaters are attempting to manufacture a controversy about gaming journalism as a post hoc justification for their war of harassment against feminists and "social justice warriors." -Shtrominer (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The new intro also omits the year, which is important for dates mentioned later in the article. -Shtrominer (talk) 07:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I kind of agree... like 75%. I mean they are attempting to manufacture a controversy where one doesn't actually exist. That is absolutely true. I disagree in that you're saying that's what Gamergate is. If Gamergate is the controversy over journalism, then the death threats against Wu (who is not connected to any journalism story even by Gamergaters) aren't part of Gamergate. Bearing in mind that the harassment predates the journalism angle, I think it's wise that when asked "What is Gamergate?" we say that it is a harassment campaign, and mention the journalism stuff later.

I don't see how this lends legitimacy to any of their claims. I'm not claiming it's grassroots (depending on the definition of that term it might actually be grassroots, but that's beside the point), and I'm certainly not claiming it's for journalistic ethics. But it is a campaign – an ongoing series of attacks coordinated by a specific group. Other controversies, such as the Lewinsky scandal (just naming the first controversy that popped into my head), do not have a specific group deliberately creating and maintaining them (aside from media coverage etc.) This suggests to me that it is not purely a controversy in the conventional sense.

I will add the year in just a sec. Abed Nadir (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Characterising this as a movement rather than an incident and applying it to things that predate use of the phrase "Gamergate" by a matter of years is buying into the story touted by the pro-Gamergate crowd and deflecting attention away from the shit-stirring over Zoe Quinn's personal life (i.e. what Gamergate originally referred to). I find it disappointing that everyone so willing to go along with this. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it deflecting attention away from shitstirring to specifically state in the opening that the shitstirring is all that's happening? Abed Nadir (talk) 07:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It was shit-stirring about specific people, who now aren't mentioned till nearly halfway down the page. That is deflecting attention away. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point; fixed. Abed Nadir (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate is the latest chapter in an ugly saga of misogynistic harassment in the gaming community. I'm not alone in this view. I don't think it would be doing the topic justice to treat Gamergate as if it emerged from a vacuum rather than a climate that was already hostile toward women and social justice concerns.

Should we perhaps have a vote to decide what the intro should be? -Shtrominer (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. I wanted to add that Zoe Quinn herself has described it as a "movement". Her word. Abed Nadir (talk) 08:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It may have been a specific group of shit-stirrers with specific goals at the outset of GG, but since then many have latched on, ranging from extremist to mild but misguided due to wildly varying motivations. Both of these things are now part of GG, what it started out as and still has at its core and the clusterfuck that it has since evolved to be. Nullahnung (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's, as Shtrominer said above, the latest chapter in an ugly saga of misogynistic harassment in the gaming community. But it's not the first such incident, won't be the last, and I don't really see how it's the most important or the one that should characterise all video game related quarrels over sexism & harassment before or since. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's collecting them, and it's a new name, and now the common name, for a not-so-new thing. Brianna Wu notes this:

The Gamergate mob isn’t a new thing, though it’s only recently been named. They targeted my friend Samantha Allen back in July, when she dared criticize Giant Bomb’s decision to remain the only major site in videogames with a 100 percent white, straight and male employee pool.

They ran through their playbook. They targeted her on Twitter, they harassed her. They researched her past. They questioned her personal relationships. They threatened her. And they have done everything possible to try to quash one of the videogame industry's most insightful and powerful voices.

It’s a playbook that works. They used it against Jenn Frank until she quit. They used it against Mattie Brice until she quit. They used it against Leigh Alexander. They used it against Zoe Quinn. And they used it against Anita Sarkeesian who had to cancel a speaking engagement gig this week after a school shooting threat -- and now they used it against me.

- David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the new rounded-out intro works better than the original. It now gives an overview of the contents of the rest of the article. Which is what every well-written article should set out to achieve. -Shtrominer (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

4chan and 8chan

I'm thinking that this article should cover 4chan's decision to ban discussion of Gamergate and the subsequent mass exodus to 8chan. Also the way that Gamergaters decried 4chan's decision as ideological censorship even though their "movement" is nothing more than an attempt to silence feminist discourse on video games. Unfortunately, I'm having trouble finding good sources to support these things. -Shtrominer (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a good thing to cover, yeah. The problem with trying to find sources for "things gaters believe or have said" is that pretty much everything they say is just random posts on websites. Only Escapist is actually putting their words in a respectable format and they've since retracted. So... difficult but worth it. Abed Nadir (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Front page of the New York Times

Yeah. Guess this is serious now. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of being a fence-sitter in this whole ordeal. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Maaaayyyybeeee you'll think of me when you are all alone} 15:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand how you didn't think it was serious before. Nullahnung (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I knew it was serious enough to be talking about. But now it has come so out of hand that even the NYT thinks its front page news. I wish to sit back and laugh at how much news has been made out of junk. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Nullahnung (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It's still pretty weird to see it in print [14]. In other news, I enjoyed this article [15] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way

This article is excellent, and thank you all for your hard work to make this horrible shite comprehensible to the general public, who appear to be reading and referencing it in vast quantities. You're making the world a slightly better place - David Gerard (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Out of curiosity..

I've seen a lot of anti-GG people criticising the terms "white knight" and "SJW" as being inventions of the right, but I first encountered them being used by people in SJ spaces, meaning something similar to "nice guy" (ie, someome who cares primarily about scoring ally points). Which one is the original use? King Skeleton (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

We actually have an article on this! Whiteknighting Zero ^{(talk - contributions)}

Probably the SJ use, but it's become asshole code for "shut up and let me be a shithead to her". EVDebs (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Should we cover this?

There's a screenshot floating around which is seemingly of Gjoni admitting that he wrote "The Zoe Post" with "entertainment value" in mind because he feared that no one would read it if it was dull.[16] There's also the earlier revelation from Quinn's screenshots that Gjoni (or at least someone using the username "Eron") hung out in the "Burgers and Fries" IRC and gave advice to its members.[17] There's also his recent BuzzFeed interview, in which he expresses nominal regret over posting "The Zoe Post," but says he'd do it again ("If I could go back in time and tell myself not to do this. I wouldn’t. That is, I wouldn’t tell myself not to. Because it’s for the best."), and also downplays the nature and scale of the targeted harassment that's been occurring ("The scale is actually not that large. And gender doesn’t seem to be what sets off those harassment bouts, political ideology does.").

Is this material that should be covered in the article, or is it too gossipy/ad hominem? -Shtrominer (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure that a guy with username Eron in the 4chan IRC chat would actually be Eron Gjoni (as in, I don't know, it could be or not). I was wading through this when I found some guy with username Eron, when faced with whether he's the real deal, posting things like "Cyberserker, yes. But like, keep it secret!" and then "Cyberserker, okay, check my latest tumblr post. I'm about to add one extra period. ", which I sincerely doubt is the real Eron Gjoni. Nullahnung (talk) 00:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

About the "entertainment value" post, Gjoni appears to be referring to "tone", specifically, the way he referred to it suggests he's a fan of a certain kind of tone that he tried to put into the Zoe post (kind of like RationalWiki's adding snark to articles with serious topics to add entertainment value, because nobody wants to read a dry style). Nullahnung (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As for your original question of how we should cover this, I imagine you could insert something along the lines of "It appears he wouldn't take it back if he had the chance." Just one sentence after the relevant part. Nullahnung (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, Quinn had been harassed by internet trolls before this event. It seems like that, if he was writing the post with "entertainment value" in mind, he did expect, and possibly encouraged, the harassment that followed. Also who is he to say that "the scale is actually not that large"? Was he not checking 4chan the week that the post came out? There were threads every few minutes insulting her, posting her nude pictures, and even doxxes. No wonder they are banning mentions of it now, actions have consequences --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 07:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the entertainment value post from him? If he only had a certain tone in mind, what makes it different from a RWer adding snark to make an article more appealing to read? Nullahnung (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The "entertainment value" screenshot is legit. It's from the transcript of the Skype interview Joseph Bernstein of BuzzFeed conducted with Gjoni. Gjoni posted it on his Tumblr blog. -Shtrominer (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification: The screenshot seems to be taken from a condensed version of the Skype conversation that Gjoni sent Bernstein. The link above is the unedited version. The condensed version was apparently also published on Gjoni's blog, but I wasn't able to find it. Maybe he took it down? Anyway, the wording isn't exactly the same in the unedited transcript as it is in the screenshot of the edited transcript, but he does talk about how he deliberately chose to write the post with entertainment value in mind. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Intent primarily --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. Nullahnung (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any comparison to be made to the use of snark in RW articles. In the transcript, Gjoni described his initial account as "really really long" and "boring," and stated that feared no one would bother reading it once "Zoe waved it away as the ramblings of an ex to which no one should pay any mind." So he chose to "[make] it entertaining," then "marketed it to people who would be in the mood to be entertained by depressing things," hoping that it would "proliferate" if he "[got] a large enough audience to recommend it to people before Zoe could dismiss it."

Gjoni has claimed he published "The Zoe Post" to warn people about Quinn's behaviour. If this was the case, however, then why did he feel it necessary to consciously present his account in an "entertaining" fashion and then "market" it to a sympathetic audience? Sarcasm is a completely valid form of processing hurt, but earnest, heartfelt accounts/cautionary tales don't need to be "entertaining," and they certainly don't need to be "marketed."

The only way I can interpret this is as a calculated move to spill blood in the most shark-infested waters available. -Shtrominer (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Gjoni admitted he was active in the IRC channel in this post on Reddit. We know it's him because it's the same username as in this screenshot from "The Zoe Post." -Shtrominer (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, ok, it's probably him. Nullahnung (talk) 08:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Ethics™

I don't know that this would fit in the main article anywhere, but I thought it was funny. From the SPJ Code of Ethics: "Deny favored treatment to advertisers, donors or any other special interests, and resist internal and external pressure to influence coverage." GamerGate is literally a movement against ethical journalism, whether they realize it or not. 24.153.208.234 (talk) 04:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Added irony: The (non-gater) author of "To fair-minded proponents of GamerGate" says he was repeatedly pointed to that specific document by gaters as an example of what they want. Evidently reading comprehension is not particularly valued by gaters. Abed Nadir (talk) 08:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting info on some of the most prominent members of #Gamergate

Link They seem to have a long history of harassment and wacky beliefs.Typhoon (talk) 10:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This confirms many of my suspicions about the users behind the hashtag, their attempt to hide their efforts to bring down left-leaning websites as "criticism of ethics" only worked for so long. I have doubts that this tactic will ever be convincing again --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering if we should make a section listing the various figureheads and heroes of the movement (like the ones who keep getting photoshopped into the cover photos of dumb teenagers) along with a brief description explaining just the kind of person each of them is. Something like: Andrew "weev" Auernheimer: Archtroll, founder of LJ Drama, convicted felon, admitted white supremacist. Something like that. --Paul S (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

List of recent publications

It's going to be hard finding somewhere that isn't critical of GamerGate if this continues any longer, that boycott was a bad idea: [18] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

They're realizing just how thoroughly geek culture has turned its back on them and yet somehow think they can still blunt-force better PR. EVDebs (talk) 04:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This article is awful

It amazes me a community that prides itself on rationality can quite literally write propaganda.

That is all.^{— Unsigned, by: some BoN / talk / contribs}

That you don't like it means it's actually quite good. So thank you! Great compliment.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh look, another BoN crying about rationality. *DRINK* Typhoon (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Jesus christ what happened to this site, this circlejerking is worse than what happened to /r/atheism. Honestly people, you should know that making as many references as possible does not a good article make. Try to take some distance and read what you created here. It's of the level of CP's Conservative (hi ken!). Endless lines of opinion with as many faintly relevant references as possible cherry picked from tweets or blogs supporting your side. And your responses above this to BoN verifies it, you merely made this to create an attack piece, no rationalism required. --GTac (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what happens when you try to follow something that's a) current and b) divisive. It should be mothballed IMHO. Scream!! (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest the response should be to "this is propaganda". No reasoning or explanation, examples or possible new sources, just a flat out assertion that the article is somehow "awful"? The number of people who have responded should show that the community is willing to discuss this issue. We have had multiple debates about it on various parts of the website. Why can't these new users contribute in a meaningful way to them? No, instead, they just assert that they don't like the article and that's about it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

GTac, have you considered that these same claims come up constantly? That what you perceive as closemindedness is actually just fatigue?

And this looks nothing like a Ken article. The people that wrote this have a coherent timeline with lots of citations to back up claims. There are no spurious statistical claims or bizarre jokes. Just an exposé on Gamergate.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

DMCA takedown accusations?

I've seen accusations that Quinn made false DMCA claims to quash discussion. Is there any truth to this? 107.204.212.154 (talk) 19:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As I recall there were DMCA claims filed against a few videos, but no proof she was the one who actually made them. King Skeleton (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything, but with Youtube's currently broken system (and Google's unwillingness to fix or get rid of that damn system) it was just as likely that Quinn was filing those bullshit DMCA claims as it is that someone posing as Quinn was doing that to smear her. Nullahnung (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I'd have thought if it were true GG would be waving around screencaps of the DMCA notices, and I haven't seen one yet. King Skeleton (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have, but that doesn't convince me of anything, with Youtube's broken system. Nullahnung (talk) 22:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I would assume that any accusation from GG is lies and bullshit until firmly proven otherwise. Hence the intro note that even the plausible claims are actually lies and bullshit - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

More death threats

Seems another female critic of the whole saga has been forced to flee her home after receiving death and rape threats and having her address posted on Twitter. PsyGremlin^{Поговорите!} 21:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we already knew about Brianna Wu, that was a while back. King Skeleton (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Controversy v. harassment campaign, again

I know I'm probably annoying Weaseloid by complaining about this again, but Gamergate is a harassment campaign, and we need to say that at the start. The original goal of the movement was to destroy Zoe Quinn, and the only thing that changed was that they decided they could bring "moderates" into the movement who would condemn harassment and make them look better, while maintaining the harassment on the side. Hell, the goddamn Southern Poverty Law Center has mentioned GG in their "Hatewatch" blog, implying they're a hate campaign. This isn't a controversy, it's a hate movement.

Can we take a vote perhaps? Is Gamergate a "controversy", that is, an event; or is it a "movement", that is, a group of people who organized around said event? And to those who say "controversy", what the hell does Brianna Wu making fun of "gamergaters" and subsequently being driven from her home by death threats have to do with Zoe Quinn sleeping with Nathan Grayson? Abed Nadir (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's kind of a strange way to word it: GG isn't the name of a hate campaign, it's either the name of the whole thing (as with most "-gate" labeled things) or the name of a group which is conducting the campaign: it seems to alternate between the two, but the hastag seems to have been supposed to refer to the event originally. I think it would make sense to treat it like conspiracy / conspiracy theorist: GG is the event, "GG movement" is the group. Calling the actions of the group GG frankly makes no sense. King Skeleton (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet it is how the movement refers to itself: a supporter says "SJWs dropping like flies before the might of #GamerGate". If it's a controversy, he said "SJWs dropping like flies before the might of the Zoe Quinn controversy", which makes no sense to me. Abed Nadir (talk) 23:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It still wouldn't be correct to describe it as a campaign, though, any more than it would be correct to call the KKK a "racist campaign." But I'm fairly sure the name came out like this:

1. Zoe Quinn stuff is called gamergate after Watergate.

2. People into Zoe Quinn stuff gather around the hashtag #gamergate, at the time referring to the event.

3. Press coverage slowly transitions "gamergate hashtag" -> "#gamergate" -> "gamergate" -> "group called gamergate" due to 33% of journalists being incapable of understanding any device more complex than a pencil.

4. Group ends up listening to them and calling itself gamergate.

That's most likely how it went down. King Skeleton (talk) 23:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Since it started as a hashtag that people bumped onto the end of tweets rather than using in a sentence, it's pretty versatile what it refers to, but the "gate" bit suggests it was at least initially supposed to refer to alleged scandal rather than a bunch of people. The previous intro did a poor job of explaining this as well as what the movement purports to be. The rewrite still uses the phrase "harassment campaign" in the first sentence; I don't know what bothers you (Abed) about it so much. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence seems garbled to me, but basically the article needs a rewrite (and I'm sure I'll get to it before death) - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I agree that it originally referred to the scandal, but much of the activity that followed has only an indirect connection to the allegations about Quinn. What bothers me about it – and I should say that it doesn't bother me altogether that much, and if there's a consensus that I'm wrong here I'll shut up about it – is that since early-to-mid September or so, discussions concerning Gamergate elsewhere on the Internet have used the word to refer most often to the movement, and seldom to the Quinn non-scandal. The terminology just seems outdated to me. I would rewrite the opening paragraph like this:

“”"Gamergate" is an internet activism movement that emerged in August 2014 among video game consumers, ostensibly concerning ethics in gaming journalism but in reality functioning as a smokescreen for targeted harassment campaigns run by bitter misogynists, agitators and trolls. The term "Gamergate" originally referred to the alleged scandal or series of scandals which initiated the movement. The trigger was a prurient purported tell-all rant posted by the ex-boyfriend of indie game developer Zoe Quinn, who has consequently been driven from her home by death threats. The Gamergate debacle arose from a pre-existing climate of hostility toward women within large (or at least loud) sections of the video games community. Harassment directed at prominent women in the gaming community and video game critics, notably Anita Sarkeesian, has been an ongoing problem in the years leading up to Gamergate.

Text largely similar to Weaseloid's version, the main difference being that the article now states that Gamergate is a movement named after a scandal, not a scandal and associated movement. When 8channers joke that they're each "the leader of Gamergate", are they saying they're the leaders of a sex scandal? It doesn't make sense to me. Usage has changed. Abed Nadir (talk) 02:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Literally who"

Would it be worthwhile to mention the movements reduction of Anita, Zoe and Brianna to "LW 1", "LW 2" and "LW 3"? It's highly dehumanising, although it hopefully means that less of their bile appears in the google results for these individuals --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What did you expect, most of this kerfuffle has played itself out over Twitter, the most dehumanizing of communication platforms ever to become popular on the internet. 140 character limit does a lot to promote such behaviour. Nullahnung (talk) 14:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, it's quite extreme. Might warrant a mention in the article. Nullahnung (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Their "justification" for it is that the movement isn't supposed to be about them, but I constantly see posts about them in /gg/ and KotakuInAction, just with the "literary who" nickname attached. Here's some advice if any of you morons who may be reading this, if you don't want your movement to revolve around these figures, the best way to achieve this is to stop harassing them. Calling them "literally who" while you do it just makes your harassment more dehumanising --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

How much overlap is there between the people who don't want GG to be about those women and the people who keep harassing them? I feel like there is a need to differentiate between them, but it is difficult. Nullahnung (talk) 14:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit like neonazis who want to distance themselves from Hitler and racism. You glued yourself to a movement, whether willfully or through ignorance of its attributes, you're going to eat some serious problems of association. They almost never rebuke those they distance themselves from, but instead get huffy and resent the accusation. Ikanreed (talk) 15:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to tell because almost everybody is anonymous. The fact that this has its roots in the whole "Quinnspiracy" thing means that it will never not be about Zoe, not completely. It is one of the few things that is brought up as an example of "corruption" too, many are reluctant to leave her alone --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ikanreed I've recently come to think it seems similar to when people who around waving Confederate battle flags, saying they're really just worried about their heritage or states rights. To them I think that's nice, but those "yeaaah states rights" people shouldn't be so surprised that a lot of other people see it and are reminded of a group of people who fought to keep a social structure in place that held blacks as universally inferior to whites. GGers constantly affix "GamerGate" to everything they do, but expect everyone to ignore where the term actually comes from, barely a few weeks out. Shadow of Lords ^talk 20:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Creationists, ISIS, Neo-Nazis, Neo-Confederates. The analogies are getting very silly. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it as dehumanizing; the goal was just to say "we've moved on, we don't harass Zoe anymore, we don't even remember her." Which is obviously false, but it's what was meant. Abed Nadir (talk) 02:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Aaaand The Onion is now lampooning it

I've been trying to avoid getting too deep in the Gamergate mess, but I found that even The Onion (via ClickHole) is getting into it. I just found it too funny. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That article was a masterpiece. What made it perfect was how gaters reacted to it. They apparently recognized it as satire, but thought it was lampooning anti-GG. Sorta like those conservatives who thought Colbert was one of them. It's astonishing how these people think. Abed Nadir (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Good thing Gamergate isn't about harassment of women

'Cos if it was, they might branch out to nonsensical objections to Rebecca Watson doing something utterly unlinked to games - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Rebecca Watson is about the only "vlogger" I can stand. Things she actually did wrong, according to her critics: got creepily approached in an elevator, had a negative opinion about it. Ikanreed (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I hope that makes it into the article. Ethics in journalism my ass.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Vox Day signs on

And our Theodore Beale article is getting used as a popular way to explain who this chucklehead actually is. So y'all may want to polish that article too - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Felicia Day

Her too--"Shut up, Brx." 00:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Cause of the last wave?

It looks like the beginning of the last wave of page reversions roughly coincided with the posting of this charming image on KnowYourMeme. It's unclear if it's the reason for the wave, or both were prompted by another event.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. I think that the article at this point looks like another example of the quote on my user page, but I don't have the time to deal with it right now.--ZooGuard (talk) 15:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Some interesting comments from A Real Libertarian on there --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The article at present is very good on facts and referencing. The prose is mediocre at best (the Wikipedia effect), so at some stage the people who can write well need to take a hack at it. Then we can silver it - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Shtrominer keeps stripping the snark out of it for some reason, so a lot of the text (at least of the bits I wrote/edited) is a lot drier than it originally was. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Honestly though, RationalWiki was always a liberal bullshit machine."

"fucking leftists"

They aren't even trying to hide their political agenda anymore, are they? ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 21:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I grow tired of seeing these generalisations everywhere. What do you mean by "they"? The people who are "not trying to hide their political agenda" and the people who "have been trying to hide their political agenda" are part of the same group, so they must be the same people, or something, is what you are implying. Nullahnung (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I discussed above how I think this article ought to use snark sparingly in order to try to reduce vandalism and edit-warring. One of the main purposes of this article, I think, is to provide a cogent picture of what's actually happened, in the hope that people who've been tuning out the "controversy" start paying attention and people who've bought into GG's spin open their eyes. Snark is warranted when discussing this topic, of course, but if you're going to tell someone they're wrong, I don't think telling them they're an idiot while you're at it is conducive toward them wanting to hear you out. And, frankly, the ridiculousness of GG speaks for itself. I don't think laying the snark on thick is the best route to take here. I think a subtle approach is prefferable. -Shtrominer (talk) 08:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

+1 Nullahnung (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Why? People like Eron Gjoni, Adam Baldwin, Milo Yiannopoulos and Thunderf00t have acted like assholes; we shouldn't be afraid to say so or to be snarky about it. The article clearly isn't neutral on the subject so I see no reason for it to adopt an artificially neutral tone about people & their actions. Avoiding snark to reduce vandalism doesn't sound like a well thought out plan. This is already being hit by vandals, & unless we adopt a pro-Gamergate tone, that's likely to remain the case; whether it includes a few jokes & snarky comments is neither here nor there. Even if it did make a difference, since when do we let vandals dictate our article style? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Because with a divisive and current subject there is the potential to convince people who haven't dug themselves in by talking to them nicely. It does not help to call them useful idiots or other insults and generally adopt a snarky, abrasive tone if we want to make the world a better place. Nullahnung (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think stronger snark is probably best reserved for articles on prominent players in the Gamergate farce. (We need an article on Yiannopoulos, for instance). In that case, we'd be calling out individuals, but I think the aim of this article should be to document Gamergate and allow its odiousness to speak for itself. I don't think that "documenting Gamergate" means that we have to give equal time to GG's claims and treat them as if they're not specious — that's the balance fallacy at its finest — but at the same time I don't think adding more snark will improve this article. -Shtrominer (talk) 18:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible image for inclusion

How would everybody feel about inserting this image at the Intel section? It would be fitting per snark but I know it's controversial so I am asking for opinions, particularly as users have mentioned that they dislike humour in other sections of the article. Image is out of copyright and logo should be fair game in this context --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:02, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What are we even trying to do with this? Intel is a very big company with a probably competent PR firm, they will do what they think is best for their public image in any given situation. Yes, that makes them opportunists with no real moral stance, but that's capitalism for you. Nullahnung (talk) 13:06, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the point is that siding with a campaign like this isn't what was best for their public image. Isn't the point of these "friendly companies" that they at least pretend to be ethical? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawing an advertisement to avoid public criticism is not siding with anybody. Then they got more criticism for withdrawing the ad so they made an apology about it, which is also not the same as siding with anybody, merely a stating the obvious ("we are against hating women!"... duh). Nullahnung (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I might add that while I think boycotting an entire site over a single opinion piece that is rude to gaming enthusiasts is a bit of an overreaction (yes, it was condemning harassment of women as well, but it was also painting the core gaming audience with a rather broad and negative brush), ad revenue is a privilege on such sites and can be taken away at any time, should the site do something to offend customers. And I'm saying this as someone who is a big fan of Gamasutra and would never support such a boycott personally. Nullahnung (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair enough. I have to say, these people aren't necessarily Gamasutras audience. I am sure lots of people sending emails about these websites didn't read the websites before, judging by the way they talk about Kotaku and Polygon --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with their hate of Kotaku, but not for the reasons you think. As per Gawker protocol, 90% of it is clickbait content-free garbage. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Put de lime in de coconut, call me in de mornin'} 13:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, their standards aren't very high. I do think they fill a niche though and they have every right to circulate --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I still remember they jumped on the "Far Cry 4 is RACIST!!1!" bandwagon, which was stupid and pointless to anyone who actually knew anything about the game. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{These abilities - and the charts for them - could deep-throat a sperm whale.} 13:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just glad they haven't hit the Daily Dot yet, it's the only technology website that I read really. I know it isn't a gaming website, but neither is Cracked and I've seen them discussing taking that down --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Cracked... hm. On one hand, DDoSing sites is a terrible thing to do. On the other hand, Cracked has been on a nosedive since the start of this year, the head editor is a fuckassed shithead with a clear contempt for the site's audience (and calls himself a feminist despite holding many opinions that would make him a pariah in the feminist movement, such as slut-shaming), and it has played fast and loose with the research lately. So I'm gonna be honest: if they actually manage to take Cracked down, I'm not gonna feel terribly sorry. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Flipping out the buttered fuck crumpets} 15:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Well you're not meant to take Cracked too seriously, I liked one of their video series, not sure if they still do it. I suppose it's not really about you or me or any of them really. I just don't like the idea of various publications being censored. If they lose funds themselves then fair enough, but if they are still going then it means that they make enough money from advertisers to keep running --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This picture is silly. I don't think internet memes should be in mainspace. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I think it's rooted in black-and-white thinking rather than any sort of understanding of Intel's motivations. What? Intel withdrawed an advertisement from a site that agreed with me? The only explanation is that they are MRA GamerGaters! |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It's dangerous to go alone! Take this.} 16:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Snarky memeish images are OK sometimes, but I don't think this is justified. Criticise Intel for their cowardice & vacillation if you like, but there's simply no evidence that they're anti-woman. There are a few reasons why they might have seen pulling their adverts as a wise (albeit not very heroic) decision, but they're pragmatic not ideological reasons: wanting nothing to do with Gamergate (either side of it); not wanting to invest in adverts on a website at a time when a high proportion of site viewers are going to be trolls & troublemakers rather than likely customers, & when it could even be hit with DDOS attacks; and wanting to avoid the risk of those trolls & troublemakers also targeting Intel as a supporter of the website they're raging at. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I think memes in mainspace are a really bad idea - not because mine wouldn't be brilliant, but because shitty performance artists will then add terrible memes to too many articles. So please God no - David Gerard (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

There's already one in this article . . . Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Another source, relevant to the "ethics in journalism" crap

“Gaming journalism has reached a low point over the last five years,” YouTuber InternetAristocrat says in the video. “It started with pieces that had nothing to do with gaming or game reviews, nothing to do with software or hardware, nothing to do with events or expos. It started to travel off into the areas of social justice and feminism and opinion pieces and op-eds that had nothing to do with gaming.” Apparently, ethical gaming journalism means ignoring sexism, racism, and other bigotry.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:37, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Internet Aristocrat's video was at the start of the whole thing, his stance and that his channel is about "debunking Social Justice Warriors" are well known. There's nothing new in your source. Nullahnung (talk) 21:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there's anything new, but it does elucidate what is actually meant by journalistic ethics, and spells it out quite clearly.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It elucidates what InternetAristocrat and Co. meant by journalistic ethics. In how far this still goes for the clusterfuck that GG has become, who knows. Nullahnung (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Chucklehead was there when the Mighty No. 9 crap hit as well. --Paul S (talk) 07:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Dunno whether this picture is satire

http://i.imgur.com/uXrPKSe.png

Or Gamergaters are really priding themselves in having Vox Day, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Slade Villena as "diversity".--60.242.159.224 (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Poe's law. The picture smells of tokenism, not to mention the cherry-picking on the left side...--ZooGuard (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Starting on rewrite for clarity and sanity

The writing is terrible - convoluted sentence structure, excessive wordiness, false balance, multiple fragmented ideas per paragraph, etc. etc. I've just had a hack at the intro and will progress through the rest. The research is great, but seriously, this is approaching Wikipedia levels of unreadable convolution - David Gerard (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

What does "slightly feminist" mean? You're either expressing a feminist view point or you're not? Nullahnung (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

With even a whiff of feminism to it. I must ask: is English your first language? - David Gerard (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't, but English not being my first language would not to me be a valid excuse for misunderstanding things. I'd prefer if "whiff of feminism" was illustrated with an example, as it is vague wording that means nothing to your average article reader, but I will let this go if you do not wish to waste your time on my nitpick. Nullahnung (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

"a whiff of feminism" is good, and if you like it better than it may well be better - David Gerard (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The nature of wikis is that articles tend to be built in an almost geological process. When you've got multiple authors building independently off each others' work, the result can be a mish-mash of ideas and writing styles. I do agree that there are parts of this article which seem out of place. Such bits either don't belong in the article at all (because they've been shoehorned in for "balance" in order to appease GG), or they do belong in the article, but simply need to be integrated better into its flow. I think we run the risk of falling into the same trap that Wikipedia's article on this topic has if we don't stick to a cohesive plan/structure. -Shtrominer (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the structure is okay (though there's still more to tell), now it's time to apply some polish - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Took a stab at reworking part of the "Journalists and pundits weigh in" section. Don't have the ambition to tackle the final paragraph dealing with conspiracy theories. Do you think this should be moved to another section? I'm not sure it really aligns with the general thrust of the section, and it can't really be fit into the chronological narrative. -Shtrominer (talk) 00:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yonatan Zunger from Google

Yonatan was approached by gaters as well, and reacted much as we did. I like his three-layer structure - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Slut Shaming

This is slut-shaming:

"And I keep thinking back on this and I’m like “Five guys. Man. she cheated on me with five guys? Five guys.”

And now I can’t stop mentally referring to her as Burgers and Fries.

But it’s okay, I will likely get past it so long as I remember it was very very probably considerably more than five guys. Thank god for that.

I suggest we call it what it is. Hipocrite (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'd lean more towards irrelevant and meaningless. It's not slut shaming to be personally hurt by infidelity. It doesn't justify any sort of non-personal responsre. It doesn't mean anything to anyone not involved personally. It's just bog-standard infidelity. Ikanreed (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if he was mad he was cheated on. Why is he going to get past it based on how many dudes it was? Because women who sleep with lots of guys are... Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Not having read the original and just going off the block quote above, it might not be calling her a slut. Why is Gjoni getting over it based on how many dudes it was? Maybe because it becomes less personal in some way. There isn't a sense that it was specific people who had something that Gjoni lacked and that's less destructive to his self-esteem?

Maybe it was slut-shaming, in fact that seems very likely, but that is not immediately apparent just by reading that block quote you posted above. More context is required. Nullahnung (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, I get what you're trying to say, but people having their own standards for behavior in relationships is about the only way you can get them to work. I don't deny that slut-shaming is a problem, or that it's specifically a problem in gamergate, just that infidelity personally stings, and you can't expect people to be emotionally divorced from that in their private lives. This became a problem when some stupid immature people decided that it was any of their business for specious reasons. Ikanreed (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Eron Gjoni himself decided it was everyone's business. He was quite clear on this. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not slut shaming to call someone a slut to their face, that's just bad behavior. It's slut shaming when you tell the world they are a slut to get them to stop having sex in ways you don't want them to, which is pretty much what writting a 8k word screen about how big of a slut someone is and how they should only have had sex with you is. Hipocrite (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point here (or maybe that's me, I don't know). I think what 'Reed is trying to say is that, it's not slit shaming in the sense of "wow you had lots of sex that makes you a slutty lol"; this is more focused on the fact that, when it comes to infidelity, it's always going to hurt quite a bit. I think Reed is trying to say that Ejloin Jlbkoye (can't remember his name) is not necessarily saying "wow she has sex with people and that means she sucks", it's more of a "wow, she devalued the relationship or some shit, and that means she sucks". Whether that constitutes slut-shaming in and of itself is debatable, but that's just how I interpreted that. 101.169.85.54 (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

When you call someone a slut to get them to change their sexual behavior, regardless of how right or wrong their behavior might haven been, you are slut-shaming. The count of guys is irrelevant to the behavior, except for the "slutty" part. Hipocrite (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Damn it all, how else do I phrase this? If someone cheats on you in a relationship, it's not the having sex that's the problem, it's the violation of trust. There's a reasonable allowance for irrationality of how you address it. Because humans aren't machines. The personal affairs of these two people aren't my business. I don't care who she had sex with, how many, who, whatever. I'm just saying in a normal relationship not spread all over the internet by a bunch of misogynists, that's not slut shaming, that's feeling betrayed. Ikanreed (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That's true, but that isn't applicable here, primarily because this was spread across the internet by misogynists who repeatedly slut-shamed, her ex included --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, if he wrote an article about how she cheated on him and how that hurt, that would be one thing. However, he was very focused on the number of people she cheated with - it was, in fact, his main focus of the cheating - not that it happened, but because it was five entire people - forever unclean! Without the count of sexual partners, it might be just jilted ex. With the count, it's slut shaming. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The shaming part in this case is repeated infidelity, not merely the act of sex. There actually is something to shame her for in this case, and it has been mentioned several times, repeated betrayal. It is not clear cut slut shaming just because you can make the case by cherry picking parameters. Slut shaming is very easy to identify because it has very clear definitions, if you have doubts or if you're stretching/cherrypicking things you're most likely wrong. And to anyone saying that the infidelity is not something that mattered, just the number of times... If you have a partner, tell them to give me a call. 217.114.83.129 (talk) 11:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

He's talking about it because he's recounting the way it hurt him, and the fact that he mentions it actually hurt him less because it wasn't just "one" guy, wasn't a love thing; the fact that it was five guys means more to his experience, relates to the way she hurt him, and can't just be reduced to slut-shaming imo, it seems like a pretty normal thing to talk about because of the emotional impact it would have had. The slut shaming occured when that information was wielded as weapon later on. 46.193.129.176 (talk) 17:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I didn't realize that was the entire point of the article. I'll stop arguing about it. Ikanreed (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't help your stupid. All I did was point out that Gjoni was abused and had every right to speak out truthfully against his abuser. Part of your article smears him as a sexist hatemonger misogynist for this, and uses deceptive rhetoric, logical fallacies, and outright lies to achieve this. Your defense of smearing a survivor of domestic abuse as a horrible person was that they unintentionally and innocently caused, indirectly, unwarranted attacks on their abuser. Nice. --Hypatia (talk) 18:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll agree. I'm certainly no GG fan, but Gjoni was just calling her, basically, an awful human being, not because she had sex with several guys but because she had sex with several guys while they were supposed to be in a committed monogamous relationship. Plus the other things Hypatia mentioned above. Thanos6 (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that the focus was on several, on the "five guys burgers and fries" meme makes it slut shaming. Hipocrite (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Not really. Slut-shaming is trying to shame women for being sexually active, not for being prolific cheats. Your claim would only apply if she cheated on him once but with five guys at the same time. King Skeleton (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's for having sex with "FIVE GUYS." That's about promiscuity. Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you were accused of robbing five banks, would you assume I was trying to shame you for working hard? "How come you're focusing on the five banks?" Because it means you committed five crimes rather than one. King Skeleton (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you wrote a twenty page long screed about how I robbed three banks and withdrew legal deposits from two others then yes, I'd say "How come you're focusing on the five banks?" Hipocrite (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Um...Because you robbed five banks, you fucking moron. King Skeleton (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dipshit, I didn't rob five banks, I robbed three banks and withdrew my hard earned segregated legal cash from two others. Read the article. Hipocrite (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's so much better! You're a totally honest person being robber-shamed, clearly. King Skeleton (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you believe infidelity is as bad as armed robbery there's nothing I can do for you. Hipocrite (talk) 15:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't understand the concept of an analogy then likewise. I'm really not sure why you're so intent on including two claims that are extremely contentious, devalue slut-shaming by conflating it with infidelity and add nothing at all to the article. King Skeleton (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't understand that your analogy is flawed, then back atchya. I'm intent on appropriately characterizing a major public issue of the day. Why are you here? Hipocrite (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not appropriately characterising it, though, you're adding in a suggestion that criticising someone as a serial cheat amounts to slut-shaming, which is nonsense. And there's no need to make that claim because he made the rant to people he knew would attack her for it. There's no need to add in extremely subjective judgements on an action that was already objectively terrible for at least four separate reasons. King Skeleton (talk) 15:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Why "five guys" when she only cheated with three. Answer that, and I'll consider responding to anything you say. Hipocrite (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I would assume because she didn't tell him about the other two. Relationships are generally supposed to be pretexted on both partners being honest and open with one another, last I checked. King Skeleton (talk) 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Slut shaming, got it. Gotta know who else has put their penis in there. You can leave now. Hipocrite (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah right, so you believe a successful relationship is founded on concealing intimate information from your partner and being dishonest with them? King Skeleton (talk) 15:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh please, would you feel the same way if a man had slept with two women in the same circumstances? I doubt it --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I fucking would! Relationships are built around being honest and forthright with the person (or people) you love. You don't jump someone's bones on the rebound and then get back together and not say anything, because that just means your partner is going to feel like you were hiding it if they find out later. It's not an honest way to behave, and your partner would have every right to call you a shit if they found out about it from someone other than you. King Skeleton (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Forget that. It's not even that. It's that it's none of our business. It's a relationship that failed due infidelity, that happens. There is basically zero justifiable reasons why we should be concerned with it. It's gossip material, not anything for rational debate. And the fact that it keeps coming up is because of slut shaming. The best thing you can do to prove it's not, Sire Bones, is to just not talk about it. I know that seems so unfair, but us complete strangers talking about it as if it matters to us is the problem itself. Ikanreed (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue it's best to place focus on "he gave the information to 4chan" rather than arguing specifics of what counts as betraying someone's trust. That's why I removed the claims about slut-shaming, it's too subjective, too vague, and requires you go into very specific details about Quinn and Fuckface's relationship in order to support it that we shouldn't be focusing on. King Skeleton (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)–

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Hey, Gators. Do you really think you can beat me at edit warring? Hipocrite (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

On a tangent, I've heard that Quinn promoted infidelity as a form of rape by fraud, since you're sleeping with your SO under false pretenses (monogamy in this case would be the false pretense). Is it true she actually advocated that? Does anyone at all advocates that definition of rape? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It's dangerous to go alone! Take this.} 15:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh is that where the "she raped him" thing came from? Jesus Christ. Are they serious? To answer your question, the answer is yes to whether anyone advocates that, but only in the same same sense as whether anyone advocates that time is a cube. Ikanreed (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So, only a few nutters that are considered a disgrace to SJ actually advocate that. Got it. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Here we are now, entertain us} 15:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I find it really uncomfortable that somebody would compare infidelity to rape in such a way. Do we have any sources that she supports that view or is it something she said in a single instance? I mean it's one thing discussing that sort of thing, infidelity is complicated, but it's another thing entirely endorsing it seriously. I don't think it's right that people are using it as a gotcha thing against her either --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You know what else is really uncomfortable-making? This constant scrutiny of figures who are (involuntarily, it seems) in the public eye. Through this constant hair splitting over details that are frankly none of our business on this very talk page we are perpetuating the paying of attention to things that shouldn't be paid attention to. The only remotely related issue is "did she fuck for review scores or not?", on which the case appears to be closed that it is conjecture unworthy of anybody's time. Continuing to show interest in these people who likely just want to be left alone, spreading rumours about what views they allegedly have expressed, asking for sources to back these rumours up, this is all giving me a stalkerish vibe. Not blaming anyone here, just saying it makes me uncomfortable to see this. Nullahnung (talk) 15:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, it's really not that important. Going to strike through my comment --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So how about we remove the "slut-shaming" bits or honestly, just trim the section down entirely? By now this is basically just the spark that got the GG idiots going; we should concentrate on the way this relationship-drama got hijacked, not on whether Quinn and Gjoni are horrible people. Thanos6 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I hadn't thought too much about it but I'd rather I hadn't discussed this aspect of GamerGate at all now. The internet should not be a sort of vigilante trial for personal situations and it is the public statements and works of individuals that we should be discussing. That said, I imagine the point of some of the section is to prove that the claims concerning Quinn were verifiably false to somebody with no prior knowledge of the events. What do you think would be the right thing to do? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(EC) How about no. The spark that got the GG idiots going was a bout of good old fashioned slut-shaming & misogyny. That's characteristic of the movement, was there at its inception & isn't something to be whitewashed over. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe start with the most basic descriptions of who Quinn and Gjoni are; say they broke up and Gjoni publicly accused Quinn of infidelity; say one of the people he claimed she slept with was Grayson; mention how the crazies took that and ran with it to start GG; and wrap it up with Gjoni's statement about how he's not saying she slept with Grayson for a review. Put the facts and chronology out there without taking sides or splitting hairs over what, exactly, constitutes infidelity, slut-shaming, or "taking a break" like a bad network drama. Thanos6 (talk) 22:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty much what the article does except that it's not neutral (& nor should it be) on the issue of publicly shaming women for their sex lives. There's no reason not to condemn this kind of asshole behaviour. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

But he's not. He's shaming her for what he perceives as her breaches of his trust, which are not limited to infidelity (e.g. other lies mentioned in his article). Thanos6 (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Adulteress-shaming isn't so very different from slut-shaming; it's pretty much a variation. Besides which, any public shaming of a (former) partner or friend over personal affairs that really aren't in the public interest is pretty despicable. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Infidelity-shaming is very different. It's not "this person had sex, they are unclean"; it's "this person broke their word and is untrustworthy." I am immensely sex-positive and support polyamory, but if you agree to be monogamous you should not break that agreement in secret. And if you think he shouldn't be airing their dirty laundry in public, then change the article to reflect that instead of calling slut-shaming where it doesn't exist. Thanos6 (talk) 22:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, no - David Gerard (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, well, how can I argue with such a well-thought out and expressed opinion as that? Thanos6 (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Evolution of GamerGate

It may have started out as solely being about attacking feminists and women in the games industry, but I can see signs of change, if not already then on the horizon.

Many who have started to constitute GG are exemplified by this person:

"I came into it without even reading Eron Gjoni’s Zoe post, and I have to admit something here: I have no desire to ever know what was contained in that post. I came into GamerGate because of Leigh Alexander’s piece on “Gamers are over”; Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian are not even in the periphery of my focus when it comes to GamerGate. All of that takes away from why I’m in GamerGate: it’s not relevant to what I'm doing. I myself have tried to get Zoe Quinn's “dox” removed from a website (unsuccessfully), and I’ve been reporting death and rape threats to Anita Sarkeesian, so consider where I’m coming from."

Which I took from this interview: http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/gamergate-hate-affects-both-sides-so-how-about-we-end-it

I think we ought to take into account that none of this issue is really static. If enough people believe a movement to be about ethics in journalism, through the magic of not-being-a-monolithic-movement it will suddenly actually really be about ethics in journalism.

Now, I am a bit skeptical about this still, as I still to a degree believe that it would be more productive to jump ship to #gameethics than continue on with a hashtag that's been associated for so long with so many negative things, but I am now wary of generalising all GG people as anti-feminists. Nullahnung (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It's far too late to save the name. As long as the anons on 8chan continue to plot their campaigns to hurt anyone on their shitlist, as long as people speaking out get harassed on Twitter, as long as doxings continue, as long as cretins like Vox Day and Paul Elam continue to offer their input, as long as the death threats continue, as long as Zoe Quinn gets called at 4:00 AM by angry teenagers, as long as lists of "SJW journalists to avoid" are still circulated, as long as people pose as minorities to accuse their critics of bigotry... the very name of #GamerGate is soiled and anyone who willingly associates themselves with it will be greeted with skepticism and suspicion at best. Anyone with genuine concerns about ethics and who wishes to both act civilly and be treated civilly must distance themselves from #GamerGate. Because as long as they chose to march under that banner, they will be judged by the actions of those they have chosen to march alongside with.

In other words, anyone who's still with #GamerGate that isn't a shitheel and has genuine concerns is either a dupe or is willfully ignorant. Either abandon ship or drown. --Paul S (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You continue to treat it as a monolithic movement when it is in fact a clusterfuck. I think black-and-white attitude towards it is somewhat unwarranted, or just not an attitude to take in general. That said, I do agree with you that anyone who isn't an asshole or an anti-feminist conspiracist should jump ship to a different name. Nullahnung (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's be honest here: you don't become a Neo-Nazi just because you like the bald head look. Gamergate began about harassing women, and is best known for harassing women. People that are part of the movement either support that premise or are embarrassingly ignorant.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank god our article doesn't contain any of these badly thought-out ISIS/neo-nazi/etc. analogies yet... also, I should remind you it is possible to be aware of the movement's origins while simultaneously deciding that's not something you support and trying to make the movement about something else. Nullahnung (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand the ethics argument. These people are really angry and I just don't see how the things on all their timelines can constitute "corruption". It continues to come back to the "SJW" thing and you see people warning about "what happened in comics or atheism plus" continuously yet I'm still meant to believe it's entirely about unethical conduct? How stupid do they think people are? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It took me a while to figure it out, but apparently, unethical journalism means complaining about sexism in video games. See above, in the Another source section--"Shut up, Brx." 15:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That source focuses on an old (by current issue standards) InternetAristocrat's video, who is a feminist-basher much like Thunderf00t, it doesn't prove anything to me.

@Drowninginlimbo: You make a good point that there seems to be undue focus on the SJW thing. Some concerns that have been posted under GG, like the Plaid Social issue and the Gerstmann Gate/DoritoGate/Aliens:CM-gate/etc. from the past are truly issues that show the gaming industry and media to be problematic, though. Nullahnung (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, a lot of this stuff about a secret Illuminati mailing list (GameJournoPros) of journalist that's being put forward by GG sounds like tinfoil hattery regarding a perfectly normal (if somewhat cliquish) thing to me. Nullahnung (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we'd all like it if the movement did have genuine interest in improving the industry or if they focused more on things like the purchase of scores by big corporations but the focus is more than undue on the "SJW" thing. It seems to constitute the majority of the "corruption". How GamerGate sees itself and what it is doing are two entirely separate things. I've seen it written that it is an attempt to "remove ideologies from gaming, with these ideologies represented by pro-feminist articles on Kotaku and Polygon or in Anitas videos. The problem is that these cranks define the fact that these websites write on topics such as feminism as "corruption", as if there were a cabal of feminists brainwashing these journalists from their underground lair. It's not "corruption", these websites are just trying to talk about social issues, yet the GamerGate supporters seem to see it as such, hence the repeated "listen and believe" meme --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair point, there's a fair amount of tinfoil hattery around and it would be useful if people could keep sane and calm on these issues. I don't, however, think that the majority of the corruption charges seem to be about feminism, but we obviously have different diets which comments by which people we have been reading. Nullahnung (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I might add that I am currently doubting myself and maybe Drowninginlimbo is mostly correct about the "majority of corruption charges" thing and I'm mostly wrong, because Drowninginlimbo has probably been following this a lot more closely than me. Nullahnung (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point we could exchange sources? I've primarily been reading 8chan's /gg/, reddit's r/kotakuinaction and following the hashtag --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Can't stand to look at 8chan or Reddit. Mostly been reading Twitter or Youtube or articles I've linked above. Nullahnung (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a morbid interest in those kinds of communities, repulsive as I find them. It's largely where they are organised anyway. Twitter is just people yelling at each other and most Youtube videos or articles are the opinion of the writer only. It's on 8chan and reddit where they have dialogues (and no doubt IRC channels too) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I archived the hashtag as it is today so I can explore the top fifteen posts on there in numbered order.

1: Meme claiming that press is "attacking nerds", 2: Criticism of GamerGate, 3: Assertion that GamerGate is about"integrity vs corruption", not "left vs right" 4: Link by conservative Hoff Sommers to an article claiming that GamerGate is "egalitarian" and "against radical feminism", 5: Claim that "anti-GamerGate" want "immunity from criticism", 6: Post ridiculing Sarkeesian and Wu, 7: Announcement of stream by 8chan, 8: Post bragging that supporting GamerGate has helped his Kickstarter campaign, 9: TotalBiscuit claiming that Dreamfall shouldn't be criticised for being "ableist", 10: Claim that people are sending "threats to themselves", 11: Criticism of GamerGate, 12: Assertion that non-gaming website Gawker is in violation of advertising laws, 13: Anti-feminist tweet by Cathy Young, 14: Criticism of GamerGate, 15: Suggestion that GamerGate supports a charity to "prove" that it is charitable

None of these seem to be about "ethics" at all, apart from possibly the stream and the Gawker discussion? There are plenty of criticisms of feminism though (and presumably one about those who support disability rights from the ableist reference?) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm loathe to paint them in any way, but you may be right with your assessment. As for the ableism thing, you mean this, right?: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/nh1nej

I happen to think it is a reasonable viewpoint written with the necessary consideration and nuance given to such a complex topic that could not be conveyed via Twitter, hence Twitlonger. Nullahnung (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I was summarising the post quite briefly, looking through it, you may be somewhat right with that, but there is also a lot of work to be done in supporting disabled people, and many people aren't really interested in improving the representation of the disabled in media or in changing stereotypes compared to other identity groups. Then again I do see TBs argument too. Either way, this is not really about "corruption" or, in many ways, even "ethics", at least not in the sense of corporations having influence over media. I'd much prefer a progressive media that sometimes pushes things too far than one that parrots what opinions or scores sponsors ask them to. Why do debates like this have to be attached to massive campaigns that also aim to remove the financial backing of the opposition? It's dishonest and cowardly --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there's not a whole lot in that Twitter popularity thing you posted that is about corruption or ethics, but then again... it's Twitter and I tend to write it off as a medium that amplifies only the most unproductive noise over any signal that might have been had. But I do see your point that there is very little drive by GG against the biggest problems currently existing in games media. Nullahnung (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

There is little drive because that isn't primarily it's goal. They are attempting to close down "SJW" websites under the guise of them being unethical, hence all the lists of "SJW" journalists. These kinds of witch hunts are not a good thing for journalism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Completely right, they're not (about the witch hunts). The "SJW" is a destructive strawman and I will not take anyone seriously who centers his/her concerns on such a simplified world view of the rather complex issue of social justice. Nullahnung (talk) 12:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

One thing we can all agree on

is that whatever's ruining gaming is doing a piss poor job at it because games have been quite good recently. How anticlimactic. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm sorry, dear. I'm reading Pokemon horror stories for the internet.} 03:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It was me. I ruined gaming. I don't apologize. Ikanreed (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You suck at your job, since Middle-Earth and Alien: Isolation turned out to be excellent, Advance Warfare looks like it will be the first good CoD since Black Ops II and Far Cry 4 will be released at all. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{EVERY SINGLE MISSILE HIT THE TARGET!!! AAAAAAAAAGHH!!!!!} 15:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Biased?

This seems to be a very biased and provocative article. Fox News is about as biased as this. It fails to take into account a number of things and also completely ignores some very legitimate demands from the gaming community.^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

This movement doesn't speak for the gaming community as a whole --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read RW:NPOV. We aren't biased, we're right. Hipocrite (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also - what "very legitimate demands, exactly?" Hipocrite (talk) 15:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's how it works. If there's an issue and we see that one side not only welcomes but celebrates the contributions of MRAs, racists, conspiracy theorists, Breitbart shills and angry teenagers that blank out wiki pages, you can be goddamn sure we're going to suspect them to be full of bullshit. --Paul S (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So disregard anyone with an opposing view? That is the opposite of rationality and the opposite of liberalism. That is what a 15th Century Bishop would say. You end up creating an echo chamber. It is clear that you do not want free speech for all but speech for people that agree with you. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

"I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" --Soviet Hologram God (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Generalisation is a nice concept isn't it. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

So are rebuttals. You should try writing one. --Soviet Hologram God (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as you have relied on generalisations from the first point - assuming everyone involved are right-wing, shills (ironic) and MRAs - I frankly don't see why I should. If you will generalise then I'd like to remind you about the not-so great aspects of anti-gamergaters. For example someone was fired, others doxed and peoples' opinions censored. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

I'm not sure who exactly you think I am here. The full extent of my contributions to this talk page or its related article have been taking a few cheap shots at you (a bit childish, admittedly), deleting a stray apostrophe, and this very edit. --Soviet Hologram God (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not referring to you exactly but these are things that have happened to pro-gamergaters. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Remind me who exactly was generalizing, then? I kind of lost track. --Soviet Hologram God (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well you started by generalising so I decided to. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

...you said that you were "not referring to [me] exactly" when I asked what generalizations you were accusing me of making. If you think you are referring to me exactly now, please do me a favor and quote exactly what generalizations you are accusing me of making. --Soviet Hologram God (talk) 04:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You generalised all people supportive of gamergate as "MRAs, racists, conspiracy theorists, Breitbart shills and angry teenagers that blank out wiki pages" Sanelib (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds about right. Well-summarised. Arguably we could list neoreactionaries as a separate item, despite the considerable overlap - David Gerard (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not a neo-reactionary. Sanelib (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

1. notallmisogynists! Dude, if you lie down with violent misogynists, you're gonna get up with fleas - David Gerard (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, part of the reason I like this wiki so much is that it's very very anti balance fallacy, which is a lever a lot of our "targets" use to foist themselves into public conversation. I think everyone knows that calling things you don't like "bullshit", ignoring contrary evidence, and banning dissenters is exactly what makes things like conservapedia fail, but that doesn't mean every accusation of bias is one you want to operate on. Ikanreed (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does it fail to take into account? The most common demands I've seen is that games should be seen as a form of art, while at the same time, they should be exempt from criticism (because apparently censorship is awesome). ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 21:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't the flow of money between industry and journalists bother you? Potential for conflict of interest? Proven collusion between journalists and the industry? --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Yes, it bothers people and these are legitimate concerns. But Gamergate is not the correct movement to address these concerns. Here's one of the references we have in our article: https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13fftyjopfahdvz504cdldh0zr1j52o12w Nullahnung (talk) 22:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

But no-one was addressing the issue. Also no-one has really been talking about Anita much except for a few radicals and Rationalwiki. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Which issue and who wasn't addressing it who should have been? Nullahnung (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue of corruption. It shouldn't be a problem or at least a very minor problem and the when consumers try to act against it they are labelled misogynists, generalised and looked down upon. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Have you read the bottom section of our article? Have you read google plus post I linked to just now? Corruption is a real issue, but Gamergate is not acting against it in the correct way. Nullahnung (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So what is the correct way? Wait for some saviour from above to rescue us? Wait for the industry to slowly, possibly never, reform itself? --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

I am not an industry genius, but I'd guess that the correct way is to educate people on the intricacies of the industry and how consumer behaviour drives it and as individuals to support honest practice. We need more things like this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzUIIkP5RMA Nullahnung (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

...Which is what consumers are doing. Also TB is pro-gamergate. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Some consumers are doing that, not Gamergate. There are a lot of people in the gaming community and games industry people who are working towards more honest practice, but not Gamergate. Also, I assure you TB is far from pro-gamergate, as he has indicated for example in this blog post: http://blueplz.blogspot.de/2014/08/this-game-supports-more-than-two-players.html. Nullahnung (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

He changed his opinion: https://twitter.com/Totalbiscuit/status/519177354753880065 he was also on this Erik Kain stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmosgPNXmNc --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Well, if more people like that would come to define Gamergate through their activities, then it could actually turn into something good. Currently that hashtag is just associated with too many toxic things. Nullahnung (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There isn't much toxic things but any toxic things are focused on and used to generalise. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Journalists were noticing these problems twenty years ago, btw. King Skeleton (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice 404 error. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Link's working fine here, don't know what your problem is. (Besides the obvious.) --Soviet Hologram God (talk) 23:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Saying 404. I am a britbong though so could just be that. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Teal deer version, then: it's a December 1994 open letter by Stuart Campbell (who used to write for Amiga Power) pointing out the fact that Rise of the Robots (a mediocre-at-best fighting game with an astonishingly buggy AI) had a reviewer who defended his high rating by saying "Arms were twisted... let's leave it at that". --Soviet Hologram God (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Those are not actually demands that anybody seems to be making. "Demands from the gaming community" likely refers to some kind of vague "stop corruption", which doesn't mean anything until formulated more clearly by an actually coherent, organized and structured group, which "the gaming community" is not. Nullahnung (talk) 22:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"which doesn't mean anything until formulated more clearly by an actually coherent, organized and structured group" As Orwell wrote: "

If there is hope [wrote Winston] it lies in the proles.". Attempts at such committees always fail and are prone to corruption or becoming the very thing they are meant to protect against. For example, the Soviet Union. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Yes, there may yet be a movement in the future that will do the right things to root out corruption in the games industry, but not Gamergate. Nullahnung (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So when? 2015? 2025? Never? --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Depends on how long it takes before people stop seeing "there are serious problems with ethics in game journalism" and going "Gamergate :rolleyes:" before sending the complaint to the proverbial circular file. Unfortunately, the movement has pretty heavily tainted any actual attempts at reform. At this point you may as well have Holly Palance fashion a noose from copies of Game Informer and scream "Look at me, Gamergate! It's all for you!" --Soviet Hologram God (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The non-existent reforms that would surely magically appear. --^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

If you are focusing on the corruption within the industry then where do "SJWs" come into all of this? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

They seem to be strongly linked with the corruption. ^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Maybe you should be more specific. What is this corruption which Gamergate is opposed to? Give an example. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

For example there was evidence of chat logs between journalists to put forward articles/advance an agenda and also people writing articles about people they are financially supporting which has a large potential for conflict of interest. Sanelib (talk) 00:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not an example; just more vague intimations about unspecified "people". You're not very good at this being more specific thing, are you? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You originally wrote "Doesn't the flow of money between industry and journalists bother you?" It does. Let's talk quantity of harm. The game you are obliquely referring to, it's free, right? Hipocrite (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that he is obliquely referring to any of the more personal stuff, like Depression Quest, I think he's referring to major publishers in the games industry co-opting the games media as an advertising arm. Nullahnung (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought I have no idea what Sanelib is referring to, a source should be provided. Nullahnung (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/01/how-to-attack-a-woman-who-works-in-video-games - Originally a notice about financial relations was not attached. While the message is generally correct - that is not to dox people etc. - Journalists shouldn't really have financial ties to people they are writing about. Again - it is not so much the message but the monetary support. You can see Frank's name on: http://www.patreon.com/zoe?u=45536&ty=p Sanelib (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not helping the generalizing that you are doing with the label of "SJW" (which Drowninginlimbo may have coaxed you into, to be fair). I suggest you read this quite outside perspective by Erik Kain: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ which goes into reasons why labels such as "SJW" are less than helpful. Nullahnung (talk) 01:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have otherwise used "SJW". ^{— Unsigned, by: Sanelib / talk / contribs}

Cool. Nullahnung (talk) 01:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Show me a link to these chat logs, I want to know that this isn't made up. Also please tell me who exactly was being financially supported by who --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't find the source at the moment but it was a journalist from the Guardian who wrote an article on some developer they supported via Patron. Sanelib (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please find the source if you are going to use it as an example. Was this the blog section or main news? If that is the case why isn't this directed at the Guardian? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Can I just say that a journalist paying a developer is really not much of a proof of corruption? Now if money flowed from the developer to the journalist, then you'd have a better argument. TiaC (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

More importantly, what the fuck does any of that have to do with Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian? Like Drowninginlimbo said, why not bring these accusations up against the Guardian? If you chuckleheads in Gamergate aren't raving misogynists, then let's see you apply your energy towards something productive, and come forth with something coherent.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't get your problem. Sanelib is obviously not interested in discussing Quinn or Sarkeesian. And isn't that good? The only way we'll move on to any productive discussion of games media is when the discussion is not about Quinn or Sarkeesian anymore. Nullahnung (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that Anita and Quinn are not really mentioned much on /gg/ or others aside from talking about the causes. Sanelib (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

While you are here, do you have links to back up any of your earlier claims? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Article was by Jenn Frank - Article itself had a good message but Jenn Frank did have financial ties (name is on: http://www.patreon.com/zoe?u=45536&ty=p) which is worrying as she is a high profile journalist. It is the principle of doing so that bothers me and many others. Sanelib (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting, thank you, I think you are correct that a quick disclaimer should have been included with this sort of thing. Still, I would be more far concerned if this was the other way around and don't really see this as evidence that it is systematic --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I can see a *slight* conflict of interest in a journalist paying a developer and then reporting on them. There's an opening for a bit of cognitive dissonance where you might say, "I wouldn't put money towards somebody who makes something bad, therefore they must make good things." However, I don't see this as a reason to prevent journalists giving developers money, just another thing that should be disclosed. I mean, here are two situations, which one is worse: a journalist pays money for a game and then reviews it, or a journalist is given a copy free to review?

Gamergate continues to be focused on the little guys with this. A couple journalists don't exist in a bubble and become friends with the people they enjoy the work of? A journalist sleeps with somebody they mention once in passing in an article? Somebody finally starts actually treating gaming like real art, giving it the critical examination every other field gets? CRUSADE! INQUISITION! WITCHES! Guy gets fired for giving a game a negative review after pressure from publishers? Advertiser only offers early reviews for people who give positive coverage? Publishers regularly offer lavish trips and gifts to reviewers? "Yeah, that's bad too I guess." Shadow of Lords ^talk 18:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Most supporters of #Gamergate are opposed to that also. Now, with the Quinn incident - I assume you are referring to that: "A journalist sleeps with :somebody they mention once in passing in an article?" That could very well have been the cause but not what it currently is. Causes can start of inoble :but can become noble causes. Sanelib (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Yeah, that's bad too I guess." Actually, that's where the majority of distrust comes from in the first place, even before this whole kerfuffle and still persisting to get people to jump on the "corruption" bandwagon to this day (which I am also on that bandwagon, not using that as a negative word).

But I do think you make a good point that there is entirely too much discussion of people who don't even matter, like the indie devs. Nullahnung (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's probably a good start point for this. However, it's very much a case of the straw that broke the camel's back. I think anybody involved with the scene can remember a kerfuffle or two, but when much bigger things than this happened previously (think Jeff Gerstmann being fired for a bad review), it didn't bloom like this. So, it's hard not to try and look for what about Zoe's situation was different enough to cause it to really explode. Combined with the ongoing attacks on Anita Sarkeesian and the not-so-small emphasis of Gamergaters on the evils of the "SJWs", there's a really convincing case to be made about some misogyny playing a role. The river of being pissed off at corruption appears to have joined with the stream of bitterness towards women.

It's especially ironic because lots of gamers have complained for a long time that gaming doesn't get treated like an art, but when it finally happens they fight back, because they didn't want it to actually be criticized as art; they just wanted the lip service. Shadow of Lords ^talk 19:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Zoe's situation" doesn't have anything to do with corruption. It was just some malicious gossip about who's shagging who. What "made it explode" was the willingness of a bunch of 4chan creeps to stone the adulteress, make sexist assumptions & accusations, and look for a big conspiracy where there was none. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There are clearly some very exploitative practices within the games industry, not only in how favourable reviews are secured, but in how games are marketed & sold to consumers, such as the rise in online games requiring an ongoing subscription rather than a one-off purchase, and games (many of them targeted at children) that encourage you to buy plenty of game gold/money/extras. These are things that the big games companies are most guilty of, but aren't things that #Gamergate seems much concerned about. In fact the impression given by most Gamergate activity is that it's overwhelming a movement in favour of the industry status quo, exalting the big established games companies & their mainstream releases, rejecting any criticism of these companies' values, and eschewing alternative gaming such as indie games, open source games & anything (as with Depression Quest) that deviates from some arbitrary definition of what a "game" is. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know to what degree that is still the case. As the variety of people and topics behind the hashtag has evolved a bit certainly big games companies have been getting some (sometimes well-deserved) flak too. Nullahnung (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There's still the issue that it conflates multiple different things as "relating to ethics" then focuses most of its resources on attacking people of a specific political ideology. The political bias within the movement is evident. They can't spend twenty posts criticising feminism and one post criticising IGN and convince me that it is not primarily an antifeminist movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's put this another way.

Why do you need a hashtag to ask questions? Is having a brand name and a flag really that important? And should we be really be using the talk page as a discussion platform? --Paul S (talk) 06:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I firmly believe we are right on this one, but it's only fair to have the page open to discussion --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 06:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As Totalbiscuit said, the major tool of consumers is their numbers. The easiest way to show that is via things like hashtags and emails. Sanelib (talk) 14:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

But why #Gamergate? There is apparently much more constructive discussion about actual games media ethics etc. going on at #gameethics. Why not abandon ship from #Gamergate which right-wing political undercurrents have now moved in to politicise gamers and in which there is way too much focus on people who don't even matter, like Quinn/Sarkeesian. Nullahnung (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Because that would lead to a divided movement and I couldn't care if it was left or right wing. Both sides are capable of right and wrong and if the ::::right rails against corruption then that is a good thing. Sanelib (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying "right-wing political undercurrents" (whatever that is) could not cross to another hashtag? Or that that hashtag wouldn't be labelled as misogynistic hate movement as well? #GamerGate was in fact not the first hashtag to cover these events. Armchairexpert (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart, Milo, etc.? No, it doesn't look like you could get them to cross to another hastag on their own. They might follow you to a new hashtag, of course, but as long as the tag stays about journalistic ethics issues and doesn't mire itself in political bullshit, that should be of little concern. As long as the new hastag doesn't concern itself with the whole "huge SJW cabal ruining our games/games media!" tinfoil hattery and focuses on civil, issue-based discussion of journalistic ethics, then accusations of misogynistic hate movement would hold no water. Nullahnung (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The emails to advertisers are my biggest problem with this. You don't represent the gaming community or even a particularly large percentage of it. You are a very small group within the gaming community who dislike websites which have a specific political spin. At least, that is the impression I have got from the numerous articles and forum discussions I have read on the subject. Who are you to dictate what gaming websites can or can't write on? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

From what I've read there are some people who sought to boycott Gamasutra because they found the "Gamers are over" article to be overly rude (which I think is a bit of an excessive reason, but whatever), where boycotting by influencing sponsors would be the most effective way to express your discontent as a consumer. I don't know how representative that is of the average boycotter, though. Nullahnung (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Death Threats and the Police

So, one thing on my mind was the dismissive attitude some had towards the reactions of those who received threats. For instance, those who think that leaving their homes was overacting and of course the internet tough guys with their "come and get me!" bravado. That made me wonder if there was a procedure that the police would recommend to victims of their threats. So, I called my local police's public relations department. While was most of what the officer on the other end told me was opinion (for instance, the officer felt that even responding to threats beyond making police reports was simply empowering the abuser), it was made clear that recommendations to the victims would very from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. And this doesn't even cover what the FBI would recommend. I have work to do, but if anyone else wants to investigate further, please do so. My time and resources are limited at the moment. --Paul S (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure what you're asking us to investigate or why. I don't think this article should contain advice for people who receive death threats if that's what you're suggesting. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. I wrote all that in a rush, and it's my fault for being unclear. My point was that after seeing so many smartasses mock victims for leaving their homes after receiving death threats, I started to wonder if it was the authorities that recommended the recipients of the anonymously made threats to temporary relocate. In other words, was it was the police and/or FBI that urged the victims to spend the night elsewhere, which would show that those who trivialized the reactions were acting not only out of contempt for the victims, but also ignorance of police procedure. And what I manged to learn from my city's own police department is that this could very from city to city, at least that's what the officer I spoke to told me. --Paul S (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt the authorities would recommend something like that as a matter of policy since it would be highly dependant on whether the person in question had the resources to do it, and in some cases might endanger them more (say, if the person anonymously threatening them turned out to be the person they decided to go stay with). They probably just advise people who don't feel safe to take whatever steps they personally can to put themselves in a safer place, and to keep records of all threats so the police can evaluate them. From what I can tell, actual law enforcement response is based primarily on the credibility of the threat, and so would very much be based on the specific circumstances of the case.

So I doubt anyone told them to move house, they probably just agreed they should if they didn't feel safe. King Skeleton (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

"Cultural Marxism"

Seeing as they throw around the term so much, I decided it would be interesting to see which subreddits post about "Cultural Marxism" the most. The results were pretty interesting. Not counting r/POLITIC which reposts content from other subreddits, they were the following: r/WhiteRights, r/New_Right, r/MensRights, and.... r/KotakuInAction --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Adobe

Are not pleased at being coopted. "We reject all forms of bullying, including the harassment of women by individuals associated with Gamergate." - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

It's likely that the mass template sent to them concerning Gawker didn't mention GamerGate at all and largely focused on the bullying tweet, so this could have been a mistake on their part. On the plus side I'm glad they weren't afraid to speak out against the movement --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Very careful and ambiguous wording there. "Individuals associated with Gamergate". Still afraid to paint the movement as a whole, since they are only sure of individuals existing with questionable behaviour. It's smart PR. Nullahnung (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think "afraid" has much to do with it. Why should a company that makes desktop publishing & design software be expected to take sides in a "gaming community" issue, beyond condemning harassment as they have done? Adobe are distancing themselves from it because it was never anything to do with them in the first place; they were only implicated at all because of someone else's error. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, every major corporation's stand on GG is along the lines of "Nope", because y'know, if they piss off either side it means less customers. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Some men just want to watch RW burn} 13:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice thumbnail. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You got me. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Get the paddles, he's having a cancer!} 14:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Slate article on ending gamergate

Analysis and strategy on how to cut Gamergate down to an increasingly rancid, but smaller and more manageable size: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/10/how_to_end_gamergate_a_divide_and_conquer_plan.html

Interesting article. I think it has some insights, though I am not quite sure of some things here (for example, if Drowninginlimbo is correct with the assessment that more people in the movement are concerned with so-called SJWs than actual journalistic ethics, then this article is wrong about the proportions of the "useful idiots" compared to the extremists). Some things mentioned in the article that would be worth investigating, for our article, even, is the bit about moot later unbanning Gamergate discussion on 4chan, which would be shocking to me if it be true. Nullahnung (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's one of the worst articles I've ever read on Slate. I guess elementary fact checking isn't part of journalistic ethics at Slate. My favorite part is about how it paints NeoGAF as a paedophile haven that banned discussing GamerGate. This was already widely ridiculed on NeoGAF's GamerGate thread. And no, 4chan didn't unban GamerGate threads, nor is the site allowing doxxing to "flow freely". It almost seems like he collected all of these accusations and smears from angry Gamergaters on Twitter. It's also hilarious how it's basically trying to say that the way to stop Gamergate, is to promote Gamergate. Oh, and "Talk to Gamergate". To who exactly? That is the whole problem with this leaderless "movement". There is no one to sit down with. You should also know that David Auerbach, who wrote this embarrassing article, is Slate's version of Milo, as he has a clear affinity for GamerGate. Typhoon (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Found it, http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=918685&page=40 Nullahnung (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, it's good to hear that NeoGAF has not allowed paedophilic discussion and that moot didn't unban GG discussion (outside /b/) and that 4chan is not allowing doxing to flow freely. Nullahnung (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Moot banned Gamergate under 4chan's doxing policy when it was a thing specifically about Quinn, Grayson, et al, not as a community 'movement' as it has subsequently become. It seems to have been fairly successfully booted off /v/ (although they did collaborate in creating Vivian James) and taken up home in /pol/, the board so odious most of the rest of 4chan hates it. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

We should probably change the bit in the RW Slogan template that ties this to /v/, then. Nullahnung (talk) 08:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears to be you who tied it to /v/. I don't see why it should be in any of our slogans at all. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It was me. I've changed it now. I also disagree with it being in any of our slogans at all, but I can see how some people would like it, since it is a current issue. Nullahnung (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

It will be so relevant in a few months. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Some men just want to watch RW burn} 13:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Colbert just interviewed Sarkeesian

And all is right with the world. 76.4.254.80 (talk) 10:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The comments are, as ever, the same old same old. There's even an "It's all about ethics in journalism" written with apparent sincerity. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

During the Colbert Report I heard at some points she tried to say some things like ethics in journalism being a distraction technique, but he kept yelling in her face, but I suppose that's because the CR show is more about comedy than when Colbert does things late night. Nullahnung (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

BBC interview with Quinn

Has anybody watched this? [19] It is harrowing. I have a huge amount of respect for her putting up with the abuse caused by this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Rumours of other people supporting #Gamergate

I hear about Julian Assange and Stormfront. Nullahnung (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Assange made a few comments about the Reddit admins deleting GamerGate related comments during a Reddit question-and-answer session. It doesn't seem that he cares much about video games, but I suppose it's possible that he would support the antifeminism of it due to his legal situation in Sweden. Then again, that's a debate for another venue. It's true about Stormfront - that is to say, that some Stormfront posters do, but that's to be expected due to the movements reactionary politics --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I heard Kim Jong-un supports Gamergate. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Shit, apparently Joseph Goebbels does too [20] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

"We're getting harassed too!"

I've been thinking that perhaps we should address claims by 'gaters of harassment occurring to them that they bring up every chance they get. So I took a look at what's being called anti-GG harassment at [21]. And most of it is kinda weak, mostly insults that really shouldn't be used in the first place. Some is the work of obvious trolls, judging by the twitter handles. There's a few bits of genuine bullshit that shouldn't of happened. But one thing that stood out was the highlighting of negative comments against genuinely horrible people. For instance this claim of victimhood from Camerlady, a notoriously vile twitter troll who claims to be a disabled lesbian (and will remind you any chance she gets) who is known to sexually harass women who speak out against GG and then claim it was only flirting. In light of that, claims of victimhood on the 'gater's side start to fall flat.

Anyway, the point is that bad things have been said against 'gaters, but to think that it's on the same level as what the original targets have gone through is seriously disingenuous. I think that this would be a good thing cover in the article. --Paul S (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

You might have a point that this would be worth including in the article, in the way that you described it, linking to our article on false equivalence, preferrably. Nullahnung (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Vivian James

could do with a mention. Particularly if we can find a smoking gun that their colour scheme for her really is a reference to Piccolo Dick - David Gerard (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The irony of "supporting real women" and "Vivian is not your shield" is also worth noting. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt a fictional character only tangentially related to this whole ordeal would be a terribly productive contribution to this article. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Fuck you! And your eyebrows!} 03:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a fictional character spawned directly by Gamergate and a typical example of Gamergate duplicity. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It was spawned by GG, sure, but she ain't that notable and so far the existence of Vivian has not hurt anyone, unlike the rest of GameGate. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'm a survivor, keep on survivin'} 21:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Apart from her exemplary value for GG's attitude, there's been multiple press articles about her and not about their other memes (though the hooknosed Sarkeesian cartoon is generating stupendous WTFs) - David Gerard (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I will, however, admit I like Vivian James. Mostly because she reminds me a whole lot of a certain character I really like. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{RationalWiki, did you kill Rita?} 22:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Added some information on Vivian James to the existing "Zoe Quinn and The Fine Young Capitalists" section. This character is worth covering, I think, because the main reason that Gamergate gave its support to TFYC (and subsequently created Vivian James) was to thumb its collective nose at Zoe Quinn by siding with her rivals. And, of course, Vivian James was deliberately engineered to deflect attention from Gamergate's real attitude toward women in gaming, similar to "#NotYourShield." -Shtrominer (talk) 08:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The role of /pol/ trolls in hyping FYC & creating Vivian James is important to note. I'm at work now so can't pull it out, but if you check the KnowYourMeme page for Vivan James there's a screencap of a bunch of /pol/ & /v/ discussions covering the development. It pretty much started on /pol/ with ideas about doing something superficially pro-S (while still anti-Quinn) to mask their real intentions & activities. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have the screenshot ... somewhere ... of a /gg/ poster noticing VJ was the "Daily Dose" colours - David Gerard (talk) 16:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody know who drew the first sketch of her? Was it an anonymous 4chan poster or the Fine Young Capitalists themselves? If it is the former then this is possible --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC) What would be more revealing would be users suggesting or deciding on those colours, but I guess this may well have been agreed in offline channels. Anyhoo, here's the KYM collage of /pol/ & /v/ threads I mentioned above, confirming the explicitly machiavellian motivations for the FYC funding drive on 4chan that led to the creation Vivian James. Unfortunately some of the annotations in the image compilation are as distasteful as comments in the threads themselves, but there may be clean copies around, copies of the original threads in chan archives, or they can probably be shopped out easily enough.

@Drowninginlimbo: Vivian was designed by channers on /v/. The screenshot compilation above shows an initial pencil sketch and (2½ hours later) the final official design. Not sure how much discussion there was between those points or how many people were involved in the artwork. Might be something to look for in chan archives. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well the problem there is that anyone can be a channer on /v/. It's possible that the person who resketched her with colour was trying to troll the 4channers were pushing her in the first place by adding those colours. It's impossible to really tell their motives without knowing who drew her in the first place. It would be interesting to read the thread either way --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I doubt it. What comments have been captured provide a pretty strong indication of the motives involved. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:13, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

The Fine Young Capitalists, on the other hand...

Should we take a closer look at them or not? From what I've read, it's not as much of a charity or feminist origination as some think. However, is this even relevant at this point? --Paul S (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't complain about anyone who wants to do research about anything, but it's also pretty clear that any involvement they had with zoe quinn was essentially fictionalized(at this point it's more like mythologized). Ikanreed (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

(EC)Do you have any links that you think should be taken a look at? Post them here. All I've heard is that some people are upset that TFYC is only letting women come up with ideas that they then let someone else develop into a game (their apparent reasoning being "We want to show that women can come up with good games in general, including ones that do not possess the programming skillset", which seems plausible), instead of letting women come up with ideas and then support them to develop the games on their own with their own skillset.

Another thing I've heard is that they are (at least self-proclaimed) radical feminists, and that is obviously upsetting to people who support feminism, but not radical feminism. Nullahnung (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I've also seen some accusations of transphobia, but they posted their policy on trans people to refute said accusations.

You could criticize them for accepting /v/'s money, or exploiting /v/'s hatred of Quinn to get them to donate said money, but it's just a pragmatical strategy they did out of desperation (they were close to not succeeding) rather than misogyny or support for GG. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{It's like human misery in video game form} 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a start http://socialjusticeviv.tumblr.com/post/98412304682/the-fine-young-capitalists-arent-actually-helping and https://storify.com/Firebomb173/vivian-james-and-arthur-chu-on-tfyc . I wouldn't use these as citations, but if anyone wants to look deeper it's a good place to begin. --Paul S (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

None of the two links you cited provide anything that makes them worthy of inclusion in the article. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{My wishes over their airspace} 17:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Read Paul S's post again. The two links provided weren't meant for inclusion in the article, merely as starting points for more research. Nullahnung (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, your instincts as to what's inclusion-worthy are proving less than fabulous so far - David Gerard (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I side with the FYC. Well, kinda. I didn't like how they rallied with /v/ to squeeze their money, but it was a brilliantly amoral strategy and I'd do the same if I also struggled to stay afloat. Plus, we got Vivian James during the whole ordeal, so there's that (even if you guys don't seem to like her very existence). |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'll take you right into the Danger Zone} 01:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The gist of the Quinn v FYC feud is already covered in the article. I don't think we need add much more to that, or it will become all about whether the FYC policy on trans developers was right and/or whether Zoe Quinn's response was right, which isn't going to be a productive direction for the article. What is worth noting is how FYC became a cause célèbre to 4channers (after all this came to their attention in the wake of Gamergate), who cynically adopted FYC (along with Vivian James, a character created for a FYC collaboration) as a tool to prove how totally not sexist they are. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The criticism of TFYC that I've read is that it is a cynical for-profit venture masquerading as an earnest campaign to get women involved in game development. It was created by a man (not that men can't be feminists, of course). He's solicited free game ideas from women, but intends to farm out development to some company. So the woman behind the winning idea won't be involved in the development of the game based on her idea, and she'll only receive 8% or so of the profits. Thus, the project isn't actually helping any women enter into game development, despite this being its stated intent. Is this worthy of coverage? Maybe. It might help put the dispute between Quinn and TFYC into perspective, and also serve to highlight how some male gamers/developers apparently feign concern for women gamers/developers only when it suits their interests. -Shtrominer (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

An important thing to note would be whether or not what TFYC is really doing is fully disclosed at the start when a woman thinks about entering into said competition. If it is, then you get what you signed up for, if it isn't then that's dishonest. Nullahnung (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

But this isn't really an article about the Fine Young Capitalists. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of the word "misogynist" in articles relating to feminism.

I've noticed that a great number of articles regarding feminism have been using the word misogynist to refer to anyone critical of certain claims. If this goes on, we could end up with another case of Goodwin's law on our hands. I also feel this violates our standards on bias in articles. Greatnecro (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, misogyny is arguably one of the primary reasons why people form reactionary antifeminist groups, just like racism is one of the reasons why individuals form reactionary ethno-nationalist groups, so that could be why the term crops up a lot --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful if you could give specific examples of where you think the word 'misogynist' is being used inaccurately. Also, what standards on bias are you talking about? This isn't a NPOV site. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:15, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It also only comes up five times in article space, all of which seem appropriate --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think if you were complaining of the word "misogyny" being overused, the talk page of this article would be a terrible place to start. There is no way in which Gamergate is not all about the misogyny - David Gerard (talk) 18:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually... Hipocrite (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate vs. Eliza

Gamergaters are apparently such indefatigable crusaders that they'll regurgigate talking points to a 50-year-old chatbot designed to mimic interest in whatever you type. -Shtrominer (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Just think how long you could have strung them along if the bot just contradicted what they said instead of agreeing or asking for more. Ikanreed (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

They brought Felicia Day into this mess too

She made well reasoned post about how the threat of doxxing random women was bad, and how she was scared that voicing that opinion might get her doxxed. And how letting that kind of threat control her was bad. And that the acceptability of it to "gamers" damaged the empathic connection she felt with people who shared her hobby. Then she got doxxed for her troubles. It's like they can't help themselves in actively attacking non-obedient women. Ikanreed (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Another source

Gawker is really milking these guys. Here's a look at some of the celebrities behind the movement, particularly one unhinged lunatic who challenged the author to a boxing match--"Shut up, Brx." 22:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Celebrity gossip and Twitter being a gigantic waste of time. Nullahnung (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that to be the case here. These are individuals that are held up as luminaries of the movement, exposing them as misogynist trolls simply demonstrates that the accusations against Gamergate are true.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur. It's literally the usual suspects. edit: The Slymepit have shown up too - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I kind of figured they were there already, so it doesn't surprise me at all. Same mentality, same rhetoric. EVDebs (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

More of the familiar names popping up: [22] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Further attempts to censor Gawker [23] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Even though the post in question was downvoted and called questionable and shady [24] Armchairexpert (talk) 22:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Decent article on ethics in journalism and GamerGate [25] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Makes unfortunate assumptions, like Shadow of Mordor not being covered in GamerGate [26] Armchairexpert (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Apart from unfortunate assumptions like the above, the analysis is in fact insightful and very valuable and worth sharing to anyone concerned with the hashtag. Glenn also says something worth considering in the comments:

"The trouble is that GamerGate isn't an identity, like a religion or national origin. It's a tag that was started by people intending to cause harm, and we've seen leaders arise that use the tag like the flag of a political party to cause more harm. Anyone gathering under the specific flag and trying to reclaim it have a task that's impossible.

I see determined efforts by people who want to have a civil discussion about whether games sites are engaged in behavior to mislead them say, "We banned that person from GamerGate" or "we police our own and that person isn't welcome." But they can't. It's a tag, not a group.

Starting a group with membership that was actually controlled and having their own ethics and code of conduct and using that as a way to build a coalition for change and honesty? That would work. Rallying behind a tag that's terribly corrupted cannot." Nullahnung (talk) 07:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem I've found is that when you bring this up, they admit that there is horrible corruption where people have taken the name and done evil under it. Abandoning ship and making a new name is all fine and good, but what happens when more assholes and amoral pricks co-opt that name? DO you rinse and repeat until there's so many variations that nobody knows whats up anymore and it's even more chaotic? When it gets to that point, you really can't do shit.

Also, this article really is terribly biased. This isn't about keeping feminism out of games, or trying to eliminate them. That's just a nice little pre-packaged excuse that Sarkeesian was able to come up with to latch on to this and make it a new target. There is plenty of evidence to back up the DECENT people (I won't say real, because thats an NTS) of Gamergate. The real issue started with Quinn, and additionally several gaming "journalism" sites that all spammed an article called "Gamers are dead" with a single unified source which smells a little suspicious.

To return to the issue of the assholes who harass and send death threats, most of those capable of doing proper searching and tracking in the Gamergate community have caught the fuckers (pardon my french) responsible.

^{— Unsigned, by: 142.162.108.42 / talk 01:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)}

If it's not about feminism then why has every GamerGate forum that I have read dedicated copious amounts of time to complaining about feminism --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 02:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia

The Wikipedia article is probably worth a mention here, if anyone thinks they can write it up. They tried doxxing the editors in question, the gators have taken it to the arbcom again, there exist multiple 8chan/KIA threads to harass editors (including one editor who is blatantly copying 8chan attacks to his page to use in the request). Wikipedia observers are getting a beer - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It has been interesting and emphasises how focused this campaign is on representation and propaganda. Even from the start "controlling" the Wikipedia entry, changing foreign language entries when they could not influence non-GamerGate supporters on the English talk page, and doxxing and harassing editors who had contrary opinions to them. The idea is, if they can control how a neutral voice like Wikipedia represents them, then it will distract from their attempts at ideology control and maybe convince the uninformed to support them. Even when GamerGate was focused explicitly on harassing Quinn, it was Wikipedia that the users went to in order to spread the false information. This usage of Wikipedia as propaganda against media/academic consensus is not new. Anti-feminists have been doing this for a year or two with similar intensity (and thankfully similar success) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Reason magazine

Cathy Young of Reason magazine is another semi-prominent libertarian type who's come out in support of Gamergate. Does this warrant coverage in the article? -Shtrominer (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Under the right-wing opportunists who hate SJWs, presumably - David Gerard (talk) 20:51, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Non-profit feminist group with staff of two set up website to help with harassment reporting on twitter

Link here [27]. Naturally GamerGate supporters discuss ways to dismantle it [28] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Link to tool

Here it is: [29]. Look pretty good, should we link it in the article so it is easy to find via google? We could have a banner at the top saying "If you have been harassed or threatened by an individual because of GamerGate you can use this tool to report it". Just a thought. Either way it's good to see --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Also worth a look: [30] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think putting calls to action in our articles is a good idea. The tool can be cited at a relevant point in the text; if the reader wants to make use of it, that's up to them. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a better idea, I typed something up just now, turns out its the most recent event so far. Hopefully good will come from this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

#OpSKYNET

They're using #OpSKYNET to get more followers on Twitter. Methinks they are getting very desperate. ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 23:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What does that mean in plain English? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

They're tweeting under the hashtag #OpSKYNET to find each other's Twitter accounts and follow each other so that rumors can spread better. Apparently, this is will destroy humanity SJWs. ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 01:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, that guy is still in the movement? Nullahnung (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

KingofPol on leaving GamerGate

Interesting read: [31] [32]

"With that said I will address this now, I normally would never say it but it needs to be said now. I have recieved a HUGE AMOUNT of harassment from both sides but the most harassment Inhave recieved comes from #GamerGate itself, not really anti-GG surprisingly...

Emails from GamerGate side and acouple anti GG as well about how I need to kill myself so other streamers or whoever can have my viewers or how I need to stop talking anymore and how much of shit I am to be here, The best email I got was from someone who has around 10k follpwers on twitter who many of you know as a big #GamerGate person. They sent me death threats to phone calls, tried to trick me to drive to them for a "chat" even went so far as to claim I was a rapist and child molestor. Tgese thing happened mainly from #GamerGate but sadly, I said "Nah, fuck it Itll stop my actions will justicty my means always!"...

well 3 months in and its only gotten worse, cherrypicking anything I do while others get a free pass because they are "Based" while im the faggot who needs to die. I will state that I also gained great friends out of this and I am glad for the moments shared but after all this, I am leaving #GamerGate

My opinion this far is this, emails worked keep it up if you care about it but remember that no one is your friend here unless you actually hang with them and more. Majority of #GamerGate are very nasty people but do have their minds in the right place, but does not justify the means of which to handle things."

I guess it is quite similar on the inside to how it looks on the outside --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wasn't that the one who started spouting Holocaust denial talking points during a video chat?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah I heard about that, he also did regular GamerGate streams that individuals like TotalBiscuit appeared on --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It was only a matter of time before Gamergate began cannibalizing its own. It's almost a given with any paranoid witch hunt. Once they've grown tired of hunting whatever sort of "witches" they've set out to destroy (in this case, feminists and "SJWs"), they turn to purging their own ranks of anyone who displays a whiff of ideological impurity. -Shtrominer (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What is their "ideology"?

I know the SJWs/feminists they're opposing to are ideologues and there's tons of correspondingly inclined bias in the media - not familiar enough with GG in terms of how rational their specific accusations are, but I couldn't detect any "ideology" so far. 93.223.57.189 (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

It's honestly been bizarre watching this unfold. I have no idea where they find the energy from or how there are so many of them. I just hope those targeted aren't too affected --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There's more of them than there are of us, really, even accounting for the misleading effect of their swarming. They just don't have the intellectual wherewithal or credibility to deliver effective arguments. It's a long road still to go. Ikanreed (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming by "us" you mean people wanting the hate on so-called "SJW"s to end, and by "them" you mean GGers who are mainly concerned with "the fight against SJWs", then I still don't know how you figured who was outnumbering who. If we just take gamers as a nebulously defined demographic, I've seen examples on every part of the scale (most falling into the "I can't be arsed to care or take #Gamergate seriously"), though the loud people tend to also be the most polarised... and this whole publicisation is highly polarising. Nullahnung (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Weev also publicly stated that he doesn't support GamerGate anymore. Looks like the PR wing is starting to realize that hanging out with people who hold actual Nazi sentiments is not helping them. --Paul S (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

This is "Hitler did nothing wrong" Weev, right? "Went to jail for doxxing millions", Weev? Why the fuck would he care about neonazis? Or is he the Nazi that's being distanced from? Ikanreed (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I read it as him being the white race supremacist that's being distanced from. Of course that doesn't mean anything to me until this "SJWs are the enemy" rhetoric is also distanced from. Nullahnung (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the "SJW are the enemy" part?

Also, didn't quite get it from his post, did people get mad at him because of his "red pilling" or were there other reasons? That podcast was a treat lmao. 93.223.57.189 (talk) 03:07, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Milo and Internet Aristocrat seem to have turned against GamerGate as well. ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 20:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

"Our coalition of assholes is crumbling from within, who could of foreseen this?" --Paul S (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The cracks are showing. Question now is will they get fixed, or just get bigger? --Paul S (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Came here to note that article. Holy crap, anyone think they can summarise it in a paragraph? - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

So, Jimmy Wales challenged the GG crowd to write an article on Gamergate

So far it's a hilarious mess. Typhoon (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a link that's not shortened through t.co to the actual article site? t.co counts is blocked for me. Ikanreed (talk) 21:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

So after spending months claiming that GamerGate was about more than just harassing Zoe Quinn, an article on the subject written entirely by GamerGate supporters is... focused heavily on Zoe Quinn --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything's blocked. EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING Ikanreed (talk) 21:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The proverbial elephant in the room

We've added the Nazi propaganda-inspired caricature of Anita Sarkeesian to the article. Should we also touch upon the disturbing number of neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers who support GG? -Shtrominer (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Many people (including me) have no idea about how disturbing that number really is (but still having heard of a few examples, such as Stormfront or KingofPol or Weev), so please do. Nullahnung (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There has been an ongoing thread about it on /pol/ for a few days. It is currently at thread number #108 [33] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you whoeveritwas's sock? This is starting to remind me of that one MacGyver episode (S5E9). --Someon (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. The right-wing opportunists section could be broken down more clearly - David Gerard (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hold on, this is utterly insane. What the hell are people doing saying "We need to show their links with neo-nazis and holocaust deniers"? These are predominantly nerds complaining about games. Associating them to basically an authoritarian regime that committed genocide smacks of ludicrousness. I've read the article and the talk page and this is all in exceptionally poor taste. Even the article on Adolf Hitler here has less vitriol. The part about "right wing opportunists" is embarrassing at best, consisting of a long rant that pulls together literally everything bad that could be tangentially related. What does crank magnetism, ebola, and infowars have to do with all of this besides convince the reader that everybody who supports GG is the diametrical opposite of rational thought? I know that this place isn't intended to be nonpartial like Wikipedia, but the fact is that as a source of information it does an exceptionally poor job and will be a source of embarrassment in the future. 02:15, 15 November 2014‎ ^{— Unsigned, by: Sobotnik / talk / contribs}

Oh look, another butthurt Gamergater showing up with the same talking points that they keep repeating on Wikipedia. "Stop talking about all the cretins who agree with us! It makes us look bad!" --Ymir (talk) 11:36, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"We just wanted to complain about feminism and cultural Marxism! We didn't think that would attract actual reactionaries and fascists to our movement! How does the world work again?" --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know what a "Gamergater" is and I find this "us and them" thing here doesn't contribute well to discussion. The fact that fascists or reactionaries exist doesn't diminish the fact that a lot of this article is badly written. A bunch of nerds who are awkward around women and complain about games has nothing to do with conspiracy theorists talking about ebola. Compare the language of this page to the one on Metapedia or Stormfront here. This page is a joke. Half of it is composed of tweets, and a great deal of "evidence" largely comes from people who on both sides, appear to treat screencaps of forum posts or bigfoot pictures as constituting evidence that women control the gaming industry or that nazis run gamergate. It 23:48, 15 November 2014‎ Sobotnik / talk

I couldn't agree more. I have zero love for GamerGate, but this article is anything but rational. You'd have to visit "White Power" forums to find such level of hate, "us vs. them" and dehumanization of others. To those who have poured all that hate into the article: 99% of what "they" say about "you" is not true, and 99% of what "you" say about "them" is not true (and that's just proving a point, it's not a quantification). There are no winners here, just irrational hate on both sides. I dislike GamerGate for exactly the same reason I'm starting to dislike its opponents. For fucks sake.. We're all human. If your argument is "But GamerGate supporters really ARE sub-human!", well .. then I truly feel sorry for you. We're all a little misguided in some way or another -- doesn't mean our entire character should be defined by it. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.235.139.127 / talk / contribs}

People like to harp on things said in haste on Twitter (because limit doesn't allow nuance). People sometimes forget that behind the dehumanizing medium of the internet there is a complex person that they might have been able to be friends with and talk things out in reasonable discussion if they had met in real life. You say something stupid somewhere on the internet, some asshole is guaranteed to screencap it and hold it against you for all eternity, posting it everywhere with little context provided (doesn't matter if you retract the statement later, they are only interested in screencapping the negative things so they have something to hate on). This goes for all sides. Nullahnung (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture

Well, Adult Swim. - David Gerard (talk) 10:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The facts... but also the mindset!

I'm way out of my depth on this in terms of the facts, who did what at what point, what happened and how much to whom, how many people of that type and how many people of this type are on this or that side of the conflict, or which prominent personality shared which problematic opinion that I ended up missing.

However, what I do know regarding point 3, is that anti-GG is partially comprised of normal people who're against threats and harassment and partially of dogmatic gender ideologues (SJWs), and pro-GG is partially made of normal people who're against harassment and slander and against gender ideologues, and partially of... opposite gender ideologues, and certain types of political ideologues as well. Seen examples of all of those, didn't count' em, don't know any statistics, that's for the other threads to figure out.

This one is to point out all the ways in which this RW page displays a "SJW" mindset, the ideological bias that is part of the anti-GG side, in its most obvious forms - maybe isolating the problem could make it more obvious and subsequently easier to spot in areas where it's harder to make out, such as when there's a lot of factual data to pick from and interpret. And as long as those ideas persist, this page will be inherently unreliable (though technically not incapable of collecting the facts as they are... technically). Also, if issues regarding general notions and value judgements are brought up in a separate place, that might keep the other talk sections cleaner from arguments and more focused on the facts... but who knows.

So yea, anyone who finds stuff like that or wants to discuss it, can post it here - I probably won't be doing much of that myself, for named reasons, but I thought it might be productive. And if you think I'm a pretentious wide-eyed knob for doing this, then you can post it elsewhere or not at all, that's all fine too :)

Anyway, found this gem:

"Of course, per Rule 34, immediately after creating an imaginary teenage girl to agree with them that they aren't misogynistic ... they started making porn of her"

0) I've seen many dubious ideas expresed on RW that were unmistakably sincere - however, this one might just pass for exaggerated snark. I wouldn't bet my horse on that, though.

1) Porn has nothing to do with misogyny, unless misogyny is expressed in said porn. Falls in line with a typical feminist notion according to which sexual female characters somehow carry statements regarding real people.

2) Not vouching for specific 4channers or anything, but if "they" is also supposed to refer to pro-GG more generally, then the implication that an "imaginary" woman was required is absurd - there are plenty of real ones. This one falls in line with some anti-GGers making dismissive comments about NotYourShield as being the equivalent of "token friends" or socks outright, even though actual people from those demographics have voiced their agreement with it.

In that last one, I may have been guilty of committing an "SJW mistake" and read a generalized narrative into a specific statement/implication - however, not entirely unjustified I think :)

In conclusion: if reading of sexual imagery as "examples of the problem" stops as a practice, and the idea that "pro GG-ers are men who're against x" stops being pushed artificially, this wouldn't hurt the general accuracy of things. 84.187.119.64 (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, "dogmatic gender ideologies". It would be hilarious to hear you explain what you imagine that to be.

"SJW" is a ridiculous boogeyman that doesn't exist outside of some obscure places on Tumblr. This term has been stretched and abused for years now and at this point is used to silence any and all criticism of sexism and racism.

There is no such thing as "anti-GG". There are GamerGators, and everyone else. Disagreeing with GamerGators doesn't make one against reforms in video game journalism, or a "SJW" and it definitely doesn't make one part of an evil cabal of people that get their marching orders from Anita herself.

Even the TFYC mentioned Vivian porn as "offensive".

There's plenty of proof that #NotYourShield was started by channers and that they used many twitter sockpuppets for it. Ironically the entire point of #NotYourShield was to use these pretend women and minorities as a shield against anyone who points out the neo-reactionary and far-right views of many prominent GamerGators. Typhoon (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"a ridiculous boogeyman that doesn't exist outside of some obscure places on Tumblr. This term has been stretched and abused for years now and at this point is used to silence any and all criticism of sexism and racism."

It exists right here! I've just provided an example.

"SJW" is the equivalent of "fundie" - just because some people call you one if you're against outlawing religion doesn't mean it's mainly used to silence any religious arguments.

A lot of the "sexism and racism" that is being "criticized", is actually imagined - and when it is, SJWs are rarely far away.

"Disagreeing with GamerGators doesn't make one against reforms in video game journalism"

Lol what is this shite nonsense? People who are neutral aren't anti-GG, while this page, for instance, is. And being anti-GG doesn't mean being against reforms - GG is one particular "movement", not anything anyone says about any type of reform in game journalism.

"or a "SJW""

I said a PORTION of anti-GGers are SJWs, so no, being the latter doesn't make you the former.

"Even the TFYC mentioned Vivian porn as "offensive"."

Offensive is a subjective term, and I don't know what else they said. They're not an authority anyway, and the quoted sentence actually went on to imply it's "misogynistic", which ain't subjective anymore.

"There's plenty of proof that #NotYourShield was started by channers" There's also plenty that it contains a lot of real ones.

"Ironically the entire point" Again, interesting of you to claim it's the "entire point", when it's at best "part of the point" given how many of those supporting the tag actually belong to those demographics. I said stop pushing that "NYSh is all sockpoppets and GGers are all men" artificially, which you've just done.

Number of GGers that aren't bigots or exclusionary + some anti-GGers claiming they all are or dismissing them specifically = using demographics as a shield against critics and opposition. Pretending that this isn't at all the case and it's all just good, pious anti-racists vs. evil rightists, is part of the SJW narrative; if this page clings to it, it won't be valid. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly is a "SJW mindset?" --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Basically any irrational version of the "liberal/leftist anti-bigot" - often a crazy one. Being against racism (towards non-whites), or misogyny / gender roles (not the same thing... SJWs may disagree), or anti-semitism or Islamophobia or homophobia etc. doesn't make one a SJW - however, being irrational about those issues, as in seeing any of those things where they aren't there (or exaggerating existing ones for that matter), or irrationally demanding those outside of those demographics to act in certain ways, or bending these things as far as displaying bigotry towards groups, makes one a SJW. Often, a somewhat... unconstructive way of dealing with dissenters accompanies such views.

I haven't seen the term applied to the left's views on economy or the state, so I think it's just what I described. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Who gets to dictate when these aren't issues? How can a person be an "SJW" if it is only based on specific circumstances that are irrational? When it is a man calling a woman an "SJW" because she is rallying against something that she perceives as sexism - why should I assume that the man knows better? It seems to be used as an insult quite liberally --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here - who gets to dictate, wut? No one dictates anything - such issues can be determined in reasonable discourse, that is of course unless either party makes such a discourse impossible.

But yea, I dunno, how does RationalWiki determine who's the kook and who's reasonable? Who's got the proper facts, and who makes them up, or who argues logically and who commits fallacy holocaust? Apparently it thinks it can, or otherwise it wouldn't exist would it.

How can one be an SJW if it's only based on... huh? How can you be an anti-vaxxer if it's only based on specific vaccines?

You shouldn't assume anything - if you assume the woman is right, you're treading SJW territory, and if you assume the man is right, there are plenty of other irrational stances / ideologies you can choose from! Just look at which of them makes sense, and if one of them does and the other doesn't, then that's the conclusion and the world is in its proper balance once more. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I don't always assume things, I meant more in terms of things like sexual harassment or sexual assault. I didn't believe rape was as wide spread as it was reported as being until I started meeting more and more women who had been sexually assaulted as I got older. It's important to at least take into account other peoples stories and not ridicule them. I suppose "SJW" is pretty much only useful as an insult. It seems to not really mean much else and depending on the person using the insult any left-minded person could be one. I honestly find it to be ridiculous --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You're kinda ignoring most of my arguments, don't you? I never said anything about not taking into account people's claims about sex assault - in court, it's the presumption of innocence, with friends you should probably believe them and support them (as a general guideline, not barking out orders here), and if it's a story that you're evaluating from outside, you probably should try to determine which scenario is more probable.

Being a SJW, in your scenario (the 3rd variant, and in extreme cases also the 1st), would be to assume the woman is right as a matter of principle, shame and attack anyone who dares to doubt or disagree, or doing anything that approaches that general territory. You think it's "just an insult" to call someone out on such irrational behavior?

SJW = fanatic. Plenty of people in the anti-SJW camp, having after all evolved from the same hairy ancestor as their sworn enemies, start pointing fingers as soon as anyone says anything "suspicious", and more shady personalities/ideologues certainly may use it to dismiss/insult the reasonable moderates. It's always like this - everyone's always trying hijack this, or ends up misusing that. I dunno, welcome to humanity I guess? 93.223.1.35 (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay got it, well in that case I don't think this website is "SJW". I honestly think that what some people class as "irrational" is pretty skewed too. Painting your opponent as "irrational" is just a lazy way of winning an argument --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki is strongly SJW as far as Anitagate and Elevatorgate go, as well as some other general articles on feminism I've seen. Gamergate I don't know enough about to judge, however I've seen some... problematic... thoughts on here, which doesn't *increase* the chances of it being accurate on this - which is why I've made this topic.

An example was given right there in my OP. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"SJW" is basically the same as saying "I disagree with you, therefore you must be irrational, therefore have this insult thrown at you". Nullahnung (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's used by an idiot, sure. I, however, am very smart ;) 93.223.1.35 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't, you said earlier that an SJW is "any irrational version of the "liberal/leftist" - often a crazy one", but these topics are largely explored, debated and then covered in a relatively conventional manner. You are just insulting the project for having some articles that do not fit your specific views. What the hell is Anitagate anyway? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming Anitagate means the time when Anita dared to do a Kickstarter on her video series and got a bunch of harassment as a result, which then ironically resulted in her Kickstarter being way more successful than it would have been otherwise. Nullahnung (talk) 01:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? What a scandal! --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"but these topics are largely explored, debated and then covered" As I said, this GG article may very well be accurate - I've just made this extra topic to isolate the general "irrational/crazy" notions that can still found here. I've also made it clear that the premise behind that wasn't to be nitpicking or "insult the project" - please read the OP again. At worst you could accuse me of concern trolling, but I can assure you I am NOT evil!

"Seriously? What a scandal!"

"Gate" nowadays just means drama, not necessarily "a scandal". There's usually some kind of real or purported scandal in there, but the term usually refers to all the heated huff and puff around it. In this case, the "scandal" would be from YOUR point of view, the shock at how many misogynists there were in gaming culture for reacting this way - but really, I was just looking for a quick and easy word to name the whole thing, and differentiate it from GG which is a partially separate and much broader drama. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

93.223.1.35 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

SJW's are the STRAW FEMINISTS IN THE CLOSET - [34]. Hipocrite (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

HISSSSSSSS~ Typhoon (talk) 21:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If that's all you got, then thanks for lending credence to my point! 93.223.1.35 (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)