Talk:Gamergate/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 27 December 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>

, (new)(back)

If you needed any more proof

That the movement was nothing more than an anti-feminist circlejerk, check these out: [1] [2] --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's nothing, Jack fucking Thompson is now a GamerGate ally. Gamergate and Jack Thompson, a match made in heaven Typhoon (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It'll be interesting to see who'll welcome him, who'll merely tolerate him as an ally, and who'll distance themselves from him completely. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The anti-feminist side of GG is well-known and openly admitted - I don't see why it's in dispute in the first place. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 21:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Because, get this, a lot of people deny how it's all about shitting on women, and admitting deep ties to anti-feminist douchebags don't help their arguments. Ikanreed (talk) 21:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

1)A lot of people deny that it's political, claiming it's just about ethics in journalism.

2)A lot of people claim it's about resisting the feminist ideologues in said journalism as well as its periphery.

3)Some people claim it's about keeping women out of male spaces, saying that the ones in 2) should get a grip and realize the women are the problem, not the feminists.

You're conflating 2) and 3) here, which is indicative of the SJW nonsense on this page as well as in the press - hereby justifying 2).

Anyway, while I'm no sure about 3) (outside of the unreliable troll attacks that is), the 2)ers are well-known and high-profile, and shouldn't be in dispute. The people in 1) dispute it sometimes, though I've mainly seen them acknowledge its existence and complain about it.

A good direction for this site to take would be to move away from merely tackling 1), and towards discussing 2) and separating it from 3). 93.223.1.35 (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You still keep using "SJW" as if it was a real thing. "SJW nonsense on this page as well as in the press", lolwut? This is some hilarious stuff you're spewing here. Typhoon (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I? You're acting as if you had made anything approaching a case that it wasn't :)

Pretty hilarious of you to deny the existence of something that actually is present on the very page you're denying it on. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So you are saying that it is definitely about not wanting their to be video game publications that sometimes write articles from a feminist perspective? That's effectively what 2) means right? That's certainly what I think it is, at least in the more organised forums. On Twitter it is definitely still 3) as well as 2). Either way I see this as an extreme kind of censorship and think these publications should not have to risk going bankrupt because people with an opposing ideology do not support them. This is very worrying territory if so because naturally Conservatives have all of the money --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Well there are obviously gradations within 2) - however, most of what I've seen of it isn't against anything that wears a "feminist" label, just against the lies, smearing and ideological hogwash along the lines of Sarkeesian's videos. There's definitely been some lies and smearing, however, to the extent that 2) should be downplaying or denying 3), a portion of what they refer to as lies and smearing ought to be neither.

Also I've never seen anything about "sometimes", more about it being everywhere and ubiquitous - which, well, it kinda is.

You bring up censorship - I haven't seen them advocating for government censorship, however, convincing sponsors to withdraw is approved of and general sentiments about wanting to see the castle crumble are definitely rampant. I've seen disagreements about whether the end goal should be to get them all fired, or just removing the corruption and making the journalists accountable for what they write (Jon Snow vs. Jeor Fookin Mormont, in a nutshell).

Their rationale is that those people can't be reasoned with, and therefore should be prevented from spreading lies or at least lose credibility. I personally agree with the former as far as corruption and slander are involved, and with the latter as far as it's just them sharing their kook opinions. The best may be to "establish a new network" instead, mirroring their view on what Sarkeesian and like-minded people should do instead of demanding change - however, I don't think I've seen any discuss something like that.

I've no clue who's got the cash, however, they're saying it's the liberals which is how they got into all these mainstream publications in the first place. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I've no clue who or what you people are talking about any more. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure most of these publications don't make that much money. Journalists make next to nothing - often literally nothing - for their writing. It isn't exactly an industry which is full of money in the first place. When it is online it is usually entirely advertisement funded --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine - it's a peripheral point anyway, any not one I've got any clue about. However, those people "have tha power", as in significant sway and influence, so that's still worrying. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are greatly inflating the amount of power that these outlets have in your head. At best these reviews and news articles are opinion pieces --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I know as much as that the only news / gaming sites I've seen writing anything other than "GG is all about misogyny (and God help those few poor deluded do-gooders)" have been either non-mainstream, or somehow right-leaning, and some of those on the other side have engaged in outright lies and ideological horseshit. I also know that a significant portion of the population is liberal / pro-feminist and tends to believe these kinds of things, though the almost exclusively dissenting comments under many of those articles seem to tell a different story.

At any rate, if exaggerating this ideological omnipresence / their power to get people fired etc. / the influence of those media over the general or subcultural population is one of the faults of the 2) camp, then that's how it is - I don't know enough about that. I'm just saying that their stance is different from 3), and different from "no feminist should write anything about a game, evah, except on their little femturf somewhere". 93.223.1.35 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that the journalists from most of these news outlets came to the conclusions that they did themselves. It's weird to hear you say that because the popular media here in the United Kingdom is mostly right-wing and people generally vote right-wing here too. Maybe you should just stop reading the left-leaning outlets if they annoy you so much? It's not like I just open can a newspaper and read media that fits my political views, there aren't exactly scores of socialist newspapers. You just get over it and support the media that you do like --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To the extent that they all print basically the same nonsense, come to the same wrong conclusions and spout the same irrational leftist/feminist opinions, I don't see the point in saying they arrived at their position independently - their views obviously stem from the general political outlook that exists in society, as well as from groupthink to the extent that they know each other. I don't know enough about that "behind the scenes hangout" they're supposed to have had (though I've seen some screens).

Also, as far as I know, it's the American media that are the focus - can't remember reading any Bridish ones on this topic, so maybe. As I said, I entirely concede that GG's claims may be exaggerated, or that they take it more seriously than they should - and if they're correct, approaches such as "informing" "the population" about "not reading" them or just starting their own instead (which, I repeat, I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM DISCUSS) may very well be valid.

However, discussing about what route 2)s should take in case their views on the press are correct, or if maybe they should just "get along" and "not read" stuff, is kinda something this page is miles away from, so my points still stand :) 93.223.1.35 (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You think that all of them "spout the same irrational leftist/feminist opinions"? Most of the publications that wrote on GamerGate are fairly unradical, apart from the articles by Jacobin I suppose. I think to some simply writing on social issues at all is seen as leftist. It's not surprising that the American media is the focus if this is a campaign of American gamers. American culture is so steeped in anti-Communist rhetoric that any suggestion that things improve for those less fortunate or privileged in society becomes this whole us/them thing. Maybe you are right, maybe the American media is not right-wing enough for its audience. If that is the case then I am still clueless what it is in video games that attract so many right-wing people. It's not like these feminist outlets are claiming that men should receive lower wages than women or something insane like that, in the case of these gaming websites most just want alternatives aimed at women gamers. It must get boring playing the same sort of games over and over again --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so we've read different articles then - I've already conceded from the start that my impressions don't necessarily represent the proportions of reality.

"that any suggestion that things improve for those less fortunate or privileged" That's not the kind of thing that gets those sites labeled as leftist propaganda by those people I was talking about. As far as what you're saying is true, those completely innocent articles that just want to improve things are being scoffed at by the 3)s and their bedfellows - a part of the equation I never denied.

"most just want alternatives aimed at women gamers." Fine, if that's the articles you've read. The ones I'm talking about aren't doing that, they're pushing this narrative that the things the way they're now are "sexist", and "should be changed", and the gamers that disagree are "basically dead" or are bigots or regressive or whatever.

Incidentally, the 2)s I've seen actually hold that same view - that people should just add more alternatives, rather than attacking the things that are already there. They claim that this is what TYFC were doing, and then Quinn or whoever doxxed them. I dunno anything about that, just explaining to you that you're kinda talking at cross purposes a bit here. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You have it all wrong

This is about corruption in journalism and favoritism in the video game industry before it is an issue of social justice. I would've thought that RationalWiki would be pro-Gamergate but unfortunately not. 24.110.21.67 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I assure you that we have done our research, you are welcome to post links here though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure you have, an article biased in favor of the SJW side of the issue going so far as to call it "conspiracy theory" and "folklore" is totally in the right. Just because an issue doesn't subscribe to your specific views doesn't mean jack. Video games are not made to specifically cater to you, they are made for entertainment and the enjoyment of those who play them. We need not create an issue where there is not one.24.110.21.248 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So no links? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't need links to use common sense. :^) 24.110.21.248 (talk) 03:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Common sense is nothing more than a deposit of prejudices laid down by the mind before you reach eighteen." Fitting. Typhoon (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, narratives that are circulated in human communities are things that lie at the heart of folklore. - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 17:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Two things

Firstly, this article is good. I dare say silver-level good. Secondly, is this shit still going? I haven't heard much about it for a while now. DØØM MĖSSIÅH ^{Suffer! Bastard!} 08:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still going on this talk page unfortunately. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's still bringing the LOLs. Could do with a bit more polishing (some of the explanations verge on the incomprehensible) - David Gerard (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So, these gamer gate chaps...

They're basically right, aren't they. It's taken me a long time to get around to saying it, because it seems like it's pretty much heresy, and I really don't like a lot of the people involved (Breitbart, Vox Day? Eugh.) But there's a serious issue here that they're right to address. The cliquishness in gaming journalism and indie game awards is off the fucking charts. Case in point today the incident where Mattie Brice decided to go on a trolling session using the IGF's name. The IGF did the right thing and censured her in the mildest possible terms for using their organisation for her personal trolling and as far as I can tell asked her to resign her position as a first round judge. Of course all her indie hipster friends who of course are all also IGF judges were up in arms and now the IGF has been forced to issue a grovelling apology. An apology to a troll who brought their organisation in to disrepute. It beggars belief.

To put this in to context, Mattie Brice's sole contribution to game development is to write Hello World in RPG Maker and somehow lever her connections to have that exhibited as an Indiecade selection. This somehow qualifies her as a judge in perpetuity in the Indiecade's sister awards ceremony. In the meantime, I watch astonishingly talented people languish in obscurity over at TIGsource and other game development venues because apparently they don't know the right people. Seriously, some of the artwork I see blows my mind. I wish I had even a fraction of their skills.

This whole "it's all about harassment" meme is as far as I can tell an excuse for journalists not having to talk about the elephant in the room. Hell, as far as I can tell Gamergate would never even have become any sort of organised movement if it weren't for gaming websites en masse deciding that people simply weren't allowed to discuss the issue. I think we do The Escapist a vast disservice in this article for being the only news site brave enough to do actual journalism on the subject rather than endless op-eds about how awful gamers are. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Mattie Brice fucked up. That's a given. Does she deserve to be brought back? That I can't answer. And for your third paragraph, I'm going to have to say no. It's always been about silencing sites and writers who they've deemed as part of the "SJW agenda." They admit it themselves. --Paul S (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The unfortunate reality about the legitimate concerns for the games industry is that they've been alongside an unwarranted and misogynistically fabricated focus on Zoe Quinn from the start of this whole thing, which is where feminists jumped in to defend, which is where the whole "anti-SJW" sentiment of the movement rapidly developed itself. And unfortunately those with legitimate concerns haven't been able to shake the "anti-SJW" and nasty harassment parts ever since, which of course would go on to overshadow the rest due to its toxic nature. That is the problem. If anyone were to still want to talk about those legitimate concerns, they'd have to deal with all this other baggage as well. That is why I suggested at least an attempt to jump ship to #gameethics in the talk page archives, since it is actually a hashtag started purely out of concern to discuss about ethics in the games industry and not one that was coined by Adam Baldwin for Adam Baldwin reasons. Nullahnung (talk) 08:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Or, you know, we could actually talk about the issues without regard to people who are engaging in harassment. How does just shutting down discussion and shouting "misogyny" at everyone involved help matters? I don't see how it's helpful to tell people to go away and change their name, then maybe considering talking to them. The only message anyone is going to get from that is that you simply don't want to talk about it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The consensus among people here who have bothered to read gathering places of the movement (such as Reddit's KotakuInAction and 8chan) is that the major discussion topics seen within the movement are the kind of unhelpful "anti-SJW" threads and unproductive noise, not especially what one would like to see when focusing down on issues of ethics within gaming, maybe a move to a hashtag that already exists (that I've mentioned above) and actually completely focuses on the issues at hand would be more productive. Disregarding harassment is also not something that can simply be done, especially with regards to the people being harassed. Aside from all that, I'd certainly love to see discussion of the issues (which there have been before this whole kerfuffle and will continue to be long after GG has died down, but regardless, any actual discussion of ethics in the gaming industry that happens amidst the current events is nonetheless appreciated). Nullahnung (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't even that "anti-SJW" stuff worth discussing? To take an example, the recent "controversy" stirred up around Assassin's Creed: Unity. What we have here is a classic example of a marketing department interference, what has happened is that the marketing droids have looked at Steam Charts and come to the conclusion that that Left 4 Dead thing, that's popular that is and demanded that 4 player co-op be shoe-horned in to a traditionally single player, narrative focused game. This is a problem since it means that the narrative now has to adapt to the number of people playing the game. The way they chose to solve the problem is by making the everyone who is playing appear to be the hero from their own perspective, while any other players are just tagging along. A simple, cost effective solution to a marketing created problem. Seems fine, right?

Except apparently this is apparently controversial in the way none of the previous Assassin's Creed games have not been because apparently it's terrible that the protagonist can't be a woman now. This is a controversy completely manufactured by games journalists who should know better, for the sake of scoring internet points. Worse, it's a horrible surface level analysis that ignores actual problems with games. Take the previous Assassin's Creed game, Black Flag. I think that was possibly the most racist game I've ever played. It featured a character, the only black character, Adewale, whose sole role was to be the player character's black friend, as In "I'm not racist, I have black friends." Literally, that's pretty much a conversation that lead character has in the game. After that, the character fades in to the background and has no more role to play in the game until the very end where he somehow transforms in to the magical negro trope to give sage advice to the player about the harmony he discovered in his soul about 5 seconds ago. It's revolting. But we didn't hear a peep about this from any of the usual suspects, because it actually involves looking at the game and paying attention to the content of the characters. It's not the kind of finger arithmetic that would interest the slacktivist types.

This stuff stinks of Kony 2012, click like to save the world. It's ignoring interesting discussions we could be having about games to concentrate on rabble rousing around non-issues. People have a right to be pissed off about the way games journalism is going, because this kind of thing is happening all too often. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ironically, your analysis smacks of SJW nonsense itself - they're the only type of people who'll look at some game using some stereotypes and declare it bigoted and "revolting". SJWs aren't slacktivists (some are, while others do stuff and have power - like Anita Sarkeesian), they're *ideologues* - it's not their laziness that defines them, it's their dogmatic irrationality. 93.223.57.189 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

"Ignoring interesting discussions we could be having about games to concentrate on rabble rousing around non-issues" sounds like most of what I've seen of #Gamergate itself. If the issues you mention are what the Gamergate crowd is actually concerned about, they have a strange way of showing it. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC)The mere phrase of "SJW" is a dehumanizing label ignoring any genuine concerns people might be having over gender equality issues. It gets used way too often, and not just to mean "slacktivist who doesn't do enough research into a more complex situation to level appropriately formulated criticism", it often just means "feminist out to change the world and sanitize our games" or even worse. If people want to be taken seriously, they need to concentrate on issue-based discussion, discussing on a case-by-case basis, not dehumanize people with valid concerns, lumping them together with lazy opportunists under one label of "SJW".

On the issue of racism you mentioned, if you perceive a lack of discussion, that only tells us that not enough is being done to examine such issues within the gaming media. Harping on the "usual suspects" as opportunist pricks that haven't cared about any of the Social Justice issues until they became hot is a distraction from the real work to be done.

Aside from all that I do of course acknowledge that standards in gaming journalism haven't been up to par with what could be expected, but that is, frankly, to be expected due to its origins as nothing more than enthusiast press made by amateurs, but yes there are improvements to be made. Let's actually talk about issues and improvements to be made then, instead of harping on about so-called "SJWs". Nullahnung (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty rich, since the whole of gamergate is a reaction to a clique of games journalists doing exactly that, dehumanising people with valid concerns. When you see yourself described as a "mysogynerd" or a "wailing hyper-consumer", to quote the delightful Leigh Alexander, it's hard to get upset about those people's claims that they're being dehumanised. This is a piece of one-downmanship they can't win, because they started it. Employing the vocabulary of the playground bully against people who have likely been bullied during their lives is not a good way to get your point across. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I see and concede that the whole bunch of "gamers are dead" op-eds were ill-considered pieces written in an inflammatory (not to mention dehumanizing) manner which didn't help. However, I will have to disagree that the whole of gamergate is a reaction to those articles. The movement picked up initially due to a bunch of fabricated rumours surrounding a slut-shaming post to attack Zoe Quinn. The other part of it, which were valid concerns about a dev sleeping for review scores which is where the ethics concerns started off, was based entirely on said fabricated nonsense and thus hasn't been able to shake that unsavoury aspect of it ever since. A lot of the prominent personalities which helped the movement grow (Adam Baldwin, Internet Aristocrat) are and were more concerned with that angle of it than video games. As Stephen Totilo has said, in a way, those with valid concerns about games journalism were, in a way, stuck from the very beginning with the misogyny element. Nullahnung (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, calling what Eron Gjoni did "slut shaming" is ridiculous. That's not what slut shaming is. Slut shaming is shaming a woman for wanting and enjoying sex. It is not shaming a woman for cheating, lying and in general being a sociopath. People should be ashamed of that. Calling it "fabricated" is also ridiculous, I don't believe anyone has ever denied it is true, not even Zoe herself. Secondly, since gamergate didn't exist back when that was happening, so I can't see the relevance. Gamergate became a thing after a bunch of journalists from different, supposedly independent publications decided to break rule zero of journalism and created news rather than reporting on it. At best you can say that this is laziness, reporting on op-eds published elsewhere as hard news. At worst, there was collusion behind the scenes to set the news agenda. Either way, not exactly games journalism's finest hour. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 14:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you can contest the whatever details behind whether it was slut-shaming or not, but the bit about fabricated claims you misunderstood me. The claims that were fabricated were that she slept for review scores. THAT is not even mentioned in Eron Gjoni's Zoepost. It was simply a malicious rumour fabricated and repeated so many times until people started believing it. It was nonsense.

Gamergate as a hashtag came into being after the animosity between the op-ed pieces and gamers fed the ranks, and various rumours about corruption or somesuch started flying around, along with plenty of spats about the whole Quinnspiracy thing creating a divide between "SJWs and misogynerds" (I do not condone these labels). The hashtag even at its outset hasn't been able to shake the "anti-SJW" element.

Gamergate was coined when a bunch of right-wingers took notice of the "gaming being beset by SJWs" nonsense (Breitbart, Adam Baldwin specifically being the one who coined it). I find it hard to believe that it came into being merely because of those op-eds. Nullahnung (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, you can believe whatever you like. The facts of the matter are that the founding complaints of gamergate were those editorials and more specifically the censorship surrounding discussion of them. I'm not in the least interested in discussing what you think the motivations were behind what was actually said. As far as I'm concerned, that's just more of the same narrative that's its all about misogyny even when what's actually said isn't. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we at least found some common ground about the real issues that matter before we descended into the inevitable hair-splitting of what caused what within GG. I will happily agree to disagree and also concede that it is entirely possible that I'm wrong and you're right. Looking at the present situation of GG, though, (the actual gathering places of the movement and the types of discussions that happen on them, as laid out by Drowninginlimbo further below) you have to admit that there could be considerably less "anti-SJW" and considerably more "issues in the gaming industry". Nullahnung (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, how about we agree on this, then. If there is discussion to be had, why don't we change the article here to reflect that? Certainly, lets start by removing things which are demonstrably wrong like the "slut shaming" stuff. Attacking Eron in the article is entirely wrongheaded, he was only peripherally involved in Gamergate in the for a good while, and as far as I can tell has only been lumped in the gamergate camp as a enemy-of-my-enemy type deal. Certainly I think he sympathies might lie far more with the other side if he weren't personally involved and having to deal with trumped up lawsuits from his crazy ex. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC)Thanks, but I've done quite enough hair-splitting about details of "what really happened" today. It looks like the only things I'll immediately be agreeing with you on are likely to be general principles of how to be nice to each other and specific issues within the gaming industry unrelated to Zoe Quinn, which let's face it, those are the topics that actually matter in the grand scheme of things. Nullahnung (talk) 15:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. If they aren't important, they why have an entire article about it? Presumably if you don't think it's important, then we can expunge the entire section? No? Say what you mean, you aren't interested in discussing it at all. You've got your narrative set in your mind, and nothing will make you waver from it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I could probably say the same thing about you. You've got your own narrative and nothing will make you waver from it. Just because these details do not interest me, specifically, doesn't mean they should be expunged. I am not RationalWiki. Nullahnung (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite how you'd come to that conclusion I'm not sure. I come here expressing a nuanced position agreeing with people who, in general, I despise because in this one instance I believe they might have a point. Do you really think that's a position I haven't thought long and hard about? Do you really think I don't want to find a way, any way, to distance myself from arseholes like Vox Day? I'm hardly agreeing with these people because it's my natural groundstate opinion. I wonder if you can say the same. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:23, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have in fact participated or lurked in a few gaming communities who lean pro-GG, and as a result I respect nuance of opinion and not to lump people into boxes with ridiculous labels. I have in fact tried to find and respect those nuances not only surrounding Gamergate, but also in the things you've said in this thread that I could see as reasonable, as a result I've said several times things along the lines of "I concede this or that" so you've got to give me at least some credit there. My own position has nuance also and I've been thinking about it even before this whole thing got mentioned on RationalWiki. Nullahnung (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Are we really going to have this debate concerning Quinn again. I don't know about Eron being involved as a "enemy-of-my-enemy type deal", I've posted a link to his reddit account before. He is still posting in GamerGate threads --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Look at it from his point of view. He goes through hell having to deal with a crazy partner, and vents about it on the internet and suddenly he's public enemy number one because he dared speak out about his crazy and abusive ex. I've been accused of victim blaming, apparently by association on this thread. But that's classic victim blaming right there in this article. What exactly is he supposed to have done wrong? You can hardly blaming to want to associate with people who are actually nice to him, since he's pretty much persona non grata with his old friends now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"He vents about it on the internet and suddenly he's public enemy number one." Well, no. He didn't just vent, he named & shamed her repeatedly on public forums, stating that he was "warning" other people about her for their own protection. And suddenly she's public enemy number one because of this. This isn't a healthy or reasonable way to deal with a failed relationship. It was nobody else's business. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but the post itself was intended to make an impact, possibly even to ruin her career [3] [4]. The 4chan posts that followed, with the doxxes and hateful messages posted alongside nude pictures, really soured the whole thing for me. The threads themselves were utterly repulsive, some of the worst abuse I have seen online. Is that your primary issue with the article? The representation of Eron? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The Eron thing is a good representation in micro of what's wrong with the article. Just because people at 4chan took that information and ran with it, what exactly has that got to do with Eron? He simply told the truth. Why should he be attacked for that? That's basically the whole article in a nutshell. Anyone who says anything even vaguely related to gamergate is attacked because 4chan. It would be a good start to fix the Eron issue before anything else, because that ought to be something we can easily agree on. This ridiculous "slut shaming" thing, nobody has even tried defending that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC)I submit it to you that there is a whole section about whether or not we can call it slut shaming that has taken place on this very talk page that you might not have followed when it happened. Nullahnung (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Everything about Gjoni currently featured in the article is sourced. We do call out "The Zoe Post" as slut-shaming, but unlike Wikipedia, our policies do not stipulate that we remain neutral and refrain from including commentary/criticism in articles. The important thing is that a conscious effort has been made to avoid including any speculation or unfounded accusations in the article. I find it astounding that anyone could characterize Quinn as a "crazy and abusive ex" when it was Gjoni who aired their dirty laundry knowing full well that Quinn had already received death threats and rape threats simply for releasing Depression Quest. Gjoni admitted he deliberately tried to make the post "entertaining" in the hope of getting a bigger audience. He admitted that he participated in the IRC channel where Gamergaters co-ordinated their vicious war of harassment against Quinn. He's continued to engage Gamergaters on Twitter despite now being subject to a restraining order forbidding him from contacting or discussing Quinn online. It's hard to view Gjoni sympathetically in light of these actions. -Shtrominer (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Where are the forums where people are having serious debates about GamerGate because I'd genuinely be fascinated to read them? Those individuals on 4chan are GamerGate, why don't you understand that? I didn't write that part of the article, I'm fairly sure these are two or three debates about it in the archives --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Really? Because I thought #gamergate was gamergate. I just went there and I saw mostly tweets about censorship, and a significant number of people sick of being painted as misogynists because of the actions of a tiny minority. You can't just redefine gamergate as you please. If you're going to refer to it as an organised movement at all, you have to accept that this the hashtag is what people mean when they talk about gamergate. You can't simply redefine it to mean 4channers when it suits your purpose. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I read the hashtag too, I went through and deconstucted the most popular posts from one of the days somewhere in the archives. That isn't where the movement is organised though, that largely happens on Reddit/8chan/the Escapist. That's where the discussion happens and opinions are shared. So you read the hashtag often? What do you mean I can't redefine GamerGate as I please, are you saying I can't form a critical opinion based on what I have read on the subject because somebody tells me it's about something entirely different? You should maybe follow up some of the links spread about here before setting your opinion in stone. It's about lots of things, I'm not saying it's a completely unified movement. I am primarily concerned with the people using the hashtag to try and remove advertising for left-leaning news outlets. I don't particularly care about video game reviews, it's journalism and these attacks by the right-wing establishment that I am worried about. There has been a huge rise in anti-feminist and misogynist activity on the internet and GamerGate is supported by many of the figures involved in this. I'm not going to take this lightly. Before you go on, I want to reiterate that I have been actively following this, I'm not just skimming posts for things that reinforce my opinions. I post varying links here regularly and do follow the hashtag and forums decidated to GamerGate --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It's so utterly bizarre watching you sit here and say you aren't actually interested in games, but you follow this thing because in your own mind you've created a scenario where this is "left" vs "right". Who are the right leaning gaming news outlets in your scenario, exactly? I do care about video games, and I care about software development, and from where I sit I see a whole lot of incredibly talented people ignored by the press because there's a club and they aren't in it. I can't fathom why you're constantly ignoring what people are saying in favour of the scenario you've formed inside your head. People are saying they're contacting the advertisers of Gamasutra because they decided to publish articles that demeaned gamers, but you keep telling me that's rubbish but in fact it's a right wing conspiracy to take down a left wing media outlet? Who am I going to believe. People say they're contacting the advertisers at Gawker because one of their journalists decided it fine and dandy to call for "nerd" gamers to be bullied. But that's just the right wing fooling me I suppose. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well for one thing, Gawker aren't a front for Kotaku as they attempt to take over the video game industry, they are a media empire and GamerGate has been targeting Gawker for a few weeks. Not Kotaku, Gawker. What's next, GamerGate attempts to remove funding for Salon? What am I meant to think, when there are individuals constantly complaining about "SJWs" and "cultural Marxism", when it is almost exclusively directly aimed at feminist figures like Anita and Zoe, when the only figures that I know who support it are right-wing or libertarian like Sommers, Milo, Elam, like /pol/ and Stormfront. Why are these people so inherent in taking down these websites? Who exactly are they to control who does and doesn't write on a topic? Why can't they just close the tab and move on? Why does this thing attract a buzz of harassment and creepy online stalkers and doxxers? For the record, I'm not saying there is nobody involved with GamerGate that does have a point, I'm saying that there is a substantial part of the movement that is absolutely toxic and very concerned with attacking "SJW" outlets, I've seen individuals claim it regularly --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't actually recommend going after removing funding from Kotaku, as they have since stated that they take concerns and demands seriously and are trying to improve on things. Give 'em a chance. I think the animosity towards gawker comes primarily from things published under gawker.com, not from Kotaku. (not that I recommend going after removing funding from any website, I find it really off to cut funding for the whole of Gamasutra just for one op-ed by one writer, but that's my personal opinion) Nullahnung (talk) 18:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if you even read the stuff you're linking to. At a rough estimate it seems like about 80-90% of the "cultural marxism" stuff on kotaku in action is people expressing variants on the opinion "STFU about cultural marxism already, nobody cares." Even the stuff that mentions it unironically, the comments are usually disagreeing, typical sample top comment: "I understand you may have an interest in a larger culture war, you certainly have that right; but, as much as they ridicule it - #GamerGate really is about ethics in journalism. I honestly have no interest in waging war against "SJWs" or feminists or Marxists or whatever the hell else you're after." I don't disagree that there have been right wing elements attempting to piggyback on the hashtag, but when that's the consensus I find it impossible to believe that they've co-opted it, and they certainly didn't found it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop being so patronising, of course I have read them, I wouldn't have linked it in the first place if I didn't keep seeing the term come up reading the threads. Do you think I just search "cultural Marxism" in random forums? Some people support this, some don't. Maybe the right-wingers did co-opt it, who knows, most individuals are anonymous. I'm sort of tired of this, you haven't really provided any sources that support your argument. Just say "it's actually about this" over and over again --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Why do I need to link you to anything? The links you provided yourself are full of people saying "look mate, I'm not interested in your culture war crap, this is what gamegate is about..." I'm telling you, the hashtag is telling you, kotaku in action is telling you. The only thing you're telling me is that they're all lying and actually it's secretly about evil right wing goons/mysogynists/4channers in disguise. Tell me, exactly how many people do I have to link to saying things about censorship and ethics in journalism before you'll believe that's what it's about? There's no amount, is there, You'll just accuse me of cherrypicking. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well an entirely different article isn't just going to appear out of thin air --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, so why don't we back up several steps. How about we discuss Eron Gjoni without you dragging a bunch of utterly irrelevant people in to it, and telling me he's a bad guy because of what some completely unrelated people on 4chan did. Here we have a fundamentally decent guy who lost one of life's lotteries by picking a crazy partner. That happens sometimes. He's done absolutely nothing to warrant the attacks on him in this article, and nothing about his behaviour can be reasonably described as slut shaming. Can we agree on that? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's a droolingly ridiculous claim to expect anyone to accept. Read the fucking references, the texts, and his own words about his aims. You have said an amazing number of stupid things on this page, and you should feel stupid for it. This article is peppered with little blue numbers, go away and read every fucking one of them. We have. You're at the stage now of posting random bullshit and defiance of reality, and it's not groupthink to respond "cool story, bro". Go away and feel bad about subtracting from the sum of human intellectual capacity - David Gerard (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, great. Maybe I am an imbecile incapable of grasping the truth. I'm not sure how I'll ever know when the explanations I've gotten so far have been "er, not my department...", "I don't have justify that..." and "erm, but 4chan!" I have in fact read all the references in the Eron section, and I can see nothing to justify this "slut shaming" business. It's an unnecessary personal attack on a person barely involved, and one we ought to be ashamed of. I doubt we'd even try to justify that sort of attack against anyone else speaking out against an abusive partner. So, how about you explain it to me why this "slut shaming" business is true. In small words so an imbecile like me can understand. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gjoni didn't simply write "I had a bad break up with Zoe Quinn. She cheated on me. Watch out, she has issues." He wrote an 8000 word tirade with the intent to embarrass her. When early versions of his work were deleted from neutral sites for being offensive, he shopped the story around eventually making it more entertaining and posting it himself. When he saw that Quinn was starting get harrassed and even threatened and that his work was being used as a justification (the Quinnspiracy) he did nothing to put a stop to it. He aired their dirty laundry in a public and lurid way with the intent of making her notorious. Stile4aly (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

No, even the bits that could be true are bad, and when there's blatant corruption in gaming journalism that people have been yelling about for years they observably ignore it - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate would be right if they actually gave a hoot about corruption in gaming journalism or did anything to combat it. They don't. Instead they're waging a misogynistic hate campaign. Take your victim-blaming pro-GG nonsense back to Reddit or 8chan. -Shtrominer (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

This, unfortunately, is what RW calls a "long-term regular" - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's not name-call each other here. There is always room for convincing people they are wrong without unnecessary antagonism. Nullahnung (talk) 11:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Welp, it's nice to know that even on Rationalwiki the default is just to scream misogyny at the heretics until they go away. Duly noted. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You base that on exactly what? The two responses directly above, a few hours after you started the thread? You favour concentrating your attention on that instead of folks who are ready to discuss the evidence like Drowninginlimbo further above. Concentrating on unproductive noise like that and choosing to perpetuate that like you just did with this response is part of the problem. Nullahnung (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not concentrating on it, merely noting it. I expressed a differing opinion and got told to "go back to 8chan", as if I had ever so much as visited the site even once. That's a problem that needs to be acknowledged. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

(Disregarding that I've acknowledged it above) Who exactly do you expect to acknowledge it? The person who told you to go back to 8chan? This place may not be as frivolous as Twitter, but people on RW are still prone to utilize snark when responding to people, which inherently goes with implications that lump people into inaccurate boxes. You can acknowledge it like I have above and note what you don't like about it, sure, but subsequently turning around and putting RW (which contains all kinds of different people) into this box inaccurately labeled "screaming misogyny instead of reasoning by default" is perpetuating much the same kind of unproductive noise. Nullahnung (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Someone new to RW who came to this page and voiced concerns about the "bias" of the article would warrant a different response. There would be a genuine opportunity for constructive dialogue in such a case. We could discuss the evidence presented in the article, and hopefully sway the GGer's opinion in the process. And, of course, there's the Golden Rule of wikis: don't bite the newbies. But Jeeves has been here since at least 2009, going by his user talk page. In his initial post on this page, he declared the well-documented, widespread harassment covered in this article to be a "meme" and an "excuse for journalists not having to talk about the elephant in the room." Jeeves has already made up his mind. This discussion isn't going to generate light -- only heat. It's going to divert focus away from constructive discussions on ways to improve the article. Moreover, as an established user, Jeeves ought to know better than to come to an article talk page strictly to stir the pot. Given this, I think, the use of snark isn't out of line. There's a forum for off-topic discussion and debate. -Shtrominer (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully disagreeing is "stirring the pot." Classic groupthink. What you did wasn't snark, it was dismissal. You didn't know who I was, and you didn't care. Don't even begin to pretend otherwise. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

If I checked your user talk page and contribution history to see how long you've been on RW, I've evidently got some idea of who you are. Word of advice: don't accuse people with whom you disagree of "groupthink." It's usually a giveaway that one is dealing with a contrarian who revels in holding "controversial" viewpoints. It's the ultimate exercise in futility trying to debate someone who is less concerned with the substance of their views than with how nonconformist and cool espousing said views makes them. -Shtrominer (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's also be clear that calling Gamergate what it is — a misogynistic hate campaign — isn't "name-calling." It's calling out actions and opinions, which ought to be fair game. "Neckbeard" is an insult. Obviously, it's shaming people based on physical appearance, and it makes unfair assumptions about people based on personal grooming. -Shtrominer (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

When I said "name-calling" I did not mean "misogynistic hate campaign" or "neckbeard" (though neckbeard probably is). I meant "go back to 8chan" and ""long-term regular"". Nullahnung (talk) 23:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"It's okay to generalise when I am doing it" --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You aren't going to win this debate just by inferring that it is about this or about that. This article didn't write itself, the individuals here know what GamerGate is. Unless you are able to change the content on /gg/, the Escapist thread and /r/KotakuinAction to something other than an attempt to remove feminist (or sorry, SJW) voices from the video game media then that isn't going to be a convincing argument. If you can find a forum that I haven't encountered that focuses on ethical journalism in an entirely different manner then you may be able to win me and others over, I've been open minded the whole time and my views on the subject are constantly reaffirmed with every "cultural Marxism" or "literally who". It will really take a lot of content in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise though. By the way, it's funny that you mention the Esapist, because Jim Sterling has been a target of GamerGate. I've seen him insulted more than a few times and read harassing messages directed at his Twitter account. He has made several videos on the subject. You should look them up, they are pretty funny --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is sad, because Jim Sterling is a shining example of the type of person who would support a movement to expose unethical behaviour within the games industry, because he has contributed much to exposing such behaviour himself. Harassing him for being a so-called "SJW" really shows what the priorities of some of the people within GG are. Nullahnung (talk) 14:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you are right, I discovered his videos while I was looking into GamerGate and it is probably the only good thing to have came out of this whole ideal for me. I think he understands the industry pretty well and even during this whole ordeal he has covered the topic of corruption in the video game media in reference to the whole Shadow of Mordor thing. Yet he refuses to attack individuals because of their beliefs and wants better representation of women in the media so he is an SJW and should be harassed several times a day. It's so shallow minded --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The funny thing about Sterling is that several years ago he would of been on the 'gater's side, since he used to be a real jackass before reexamining himself. Part of me is always amused when I see him listed on a "SJW journalist" shitlist. --Paul S (talk) 15:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

So uhh, long time lurker here, making a bad decision to create an account just for this article. Part of this article bothers me, and while it's been beaten like a dead horse I feel I need to ask my questions: if a victim of physical abuse wrote an 8000 word expose of that abuse, included some unsavory details not directly related to the abuse, and posted it online in a way to make sure people read it... Which of those things makes that victim a criminal? Even if the post was misguided, masturbatory, lead to a harassment campaign against the abuser, which of these things make the victim a bad person for, in their victimized state, doing something that may be cathartic or freeing? Further up in this talk page I saw someone call Eron abusive for outing his abuser, which is insane! This article is far more generous, saying it wasn't even misguided, and bringing up the danger of labelling the abused as the abuser. Now, I skimmed Eron's post because it was long and he is obsessed with the word ostracized, but I could see it was mostly focused on the lying, manipulation and emotional abuse, with the specific acts of cheating mentioned only as what was being lied about, repeatedly. Is there some source I've missed that discounts the abusiveness in this relationship or indicates he was actually just trying to let everyone know she's a slut rather than trying (perhaps in the wrong fashion) to spread his story of abuse far and wide? The negative effects of the post cannot be disputed, but conflating its purpose (detailing an abusive relationship and not slut-shaming) with some of its contents (details of 5 affairs that set off some nasty harassment) is a disservice to the victim. NoderayeKibertatian (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

His explicit purpose was to "warn" the world about her & his implicit purpose was to ruin her life/career. Any notion that he didn't expect his post to have consequences for her is extremely naive, & basically contradicts the whole 'warning' thing. & No, he didn't mention cheating "only as what was being lied about"; he catalogued it in some detail, made a big deal about how many people she had sex with & gave her a childish dehumanising nickname based on that. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Because we could look at your strained hypothetical, or we could look at what actually happened in this case - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Eron Gjoni is only going through hell because he decided he wanted vengeance against his ex and successfully stirred up 4Chan and Reddit to be his personal army. He has even - drunkenly - admitted that it's only about vengeance and that it wasn't about ethics at all. And we only have HIS word that Zoe is "crazy"; other actual game developers - like those at the recent SIEGE conference say that Gjoni is full of shit. So I don't know why we should accept Eron Gjoni as being the Absolute Arbiter of Truth in regards to Ms. Quinn.

You say "Just because people at 4chan took that information and ran with it, what exactly has that got to do with Eron?" It has a lot to do with it. 4chan didn't just "take that information"; they were goaded by Gjoni to harrass and dox and threaten her. And this is no lie; there are chat logs to that effect, sourced in this very article. So just from the start, you're not checking the actual information and just going off your opinion. I don't find it convincing. ^{— Unsigned, by: Castaigne / talk / contribs} 21:56, 12 November 2014‎

Another thing that I find worrying is the huge support that this has had on men's rights forums. They are utterly obsessed with the notion of false rape accusations, to the degree that they seem to see every claim of sexual assault to be suspect, even when most statistics suggest that false claims are very rare. I wonder why they haven't applied this extreme degree of skepticism to Eron's claims? --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Who knows, but perhaps you can help me? Reposted from above in the hope of an answer (and after some piss-ant tried to delete this): Gjoni is a whiny, obsessive dick, for sure, but it's customary to have some (initial) sympathy for the bitter ex in these cases. Jesus, the "hell-hath-no-fury..." trope is pretty much a central plank of tabloid journalism. That doesn't make publicly outing a cheating ex big or clever, but it's generally regarded as one of the risks you run if you fuck around behind someone's back. How, then, does Gjoni's behaviour suddenly become "slut-shaming", rather than your bog-standard bitter-ex-goes-apeshit? Robledo (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the "five guys burgers and fries" thing that is slut-shaming, not complaining about the cheating itself. At least, I believe that's what is being implied --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't be serious. That's it? Robledo (talk) 00:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Slut shaming is the act of criticising a woman for her real or presumed sexual activity, or for behaving in ways that someone thinks are associated with her real or presumed sexual activity. I would say that Gjoni's original (and subsequent) posts and chats do just that, don't they? Or do you find the definition to be insufficient? --Castaigne (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Of course I find it insufficient, and so should you, because it would preclude any legitimate criticism of someone's sexual behaviour. A much better definition would go something like: Slut shaming is the act of criticising a woman for real or presumed sexual behaviours that cause no harm or distress to herself or others. Robledo (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, so if she harmed others or herself, it's fine her to call her a slut or a whore? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

<-------------No. I don't see any value in calling anyone a slut or a whore for any reason. I do, however, flatly reject the idea that someone's sexual behaviour should be beyond reproach simply because they're female, which would be the practical upshot of Castaigne's definition. It's OK to criticise infidelity, just as it's OK to criticise lying and the breaking of promises in general. Being angry with someone for cheating on you is not the same thing as calling them a slut.

The phenomenon of slut shaming is both real and common. Women are held to an unfair double standard where they are vilified for harmless sexual behaviours and attitudes that attract no such opprobrium in a man. Highlighting this hypocrisy is important, but reflexively labelling Gjoni's vengeful rant as slut shaming doesn't help the cause one bit. Robledo (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

So, what should be the universal standard for determining that someone's sexual behavior is beyond the pale? Keep in mind that I'll be applying it to everyone, male and female, and I will expect everyone else to adhere to this. After all, universal standards are, well, universal.

So no, I don't criticize infidelity. I may personally not like it, but that's between me and my spouse, and nobody else's business. Likewise lying and breaking of promises. That's between you, me, and the wall.

What I'm taking from this - and correct me if I'm wrong - is that it was totes OK and legit for Gjoni to publish his personal issue with Zoe and goad 4Chan and others into whaling on her. Reason: She cheated on him and therefore became Fair Game. That more or less what you're saying, in a blunt fashion. --Castaigne (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Why this is / isn't slut shaming

Have at it. My thoughts are above. Robledo (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Arguably it was slut-shaming, since he decided to take it to the public in a big way and emphasise the fact that it was "five guys burgers and fries"/a large number of guys she slept with, it was to be expected that the public would react to that by calling her a slut for it, and arguably he planned for this public slut shaming to happen.

On the flipside, if you just look at the text itself it could have possibly been "oh, she cheated on me not only once, but so many times, and each time my sense of self-worth decreased", so that the large number is not notable in general, but merely in the context of their relationship. But as I said, that only has merit if you look at the text itself. Nullahnung (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Setting up an implication then letting the listener fill in the gaps is something of a classic manipulative arsehole manoeuvre. It gives the perpetrator wriggle room to try to claim good faith, because they didn't actually join the dots themselves. Given the rest of his screed and his behaviour since, I can't see Eron as anything else. So yeah, seems to me that your first option is on the money. 129.67.44.232 (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Eh. I'm pretty down on the stupid nonsense that started this, but most assholes find a way to talk themselves into a position where there's no ambiguity left to what their motivations were. If there's really room for benefit of the doubt, I'd tend towards granting it. Ikanreed (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that the section in question currently operates on a definition of the term that could quite easily see Your Cheatin' Heart denounced as a slut shaming tirade, I suggest some of our more zealous editors consider dialling it back a bit.

I get that you don't like Gjoni. I get that you hold him responsible for instigating the vicious shitstorm of abuse and harassment that Quinn has had to endure. And whilst I'm happy to see Gjoni castigated for being the whiny, vengeful, obsessive dick he undoubtedly is, I refuse to accept people playing fast and loose with the definition of a concept that has genuine fucking value in highlighting the unequal treatment of women.

As I said above, the phenomenon of slut shaming is both real and common. Women are held to an unfair double standard where they are vilified for harmless sexual behaviours and attitudes that attract no such opprobrium in a man. Wilfully fucking around behind someone's back, however, is behaviour that is widely condemned in both sexes. Hell, it's instant grounds for divorce in most Western jurisdictions.

I'll concede there's a debate to be had about the extent to which infidelity is sometimes tolerated as a male trait, but has anyone seriously got the brass neck to try and tell me that, were the genders in the Zoe Post reversed, the cheating male wouldn't receive outright condemnation from all but the most unreconstructed of minds? I posit that none of you are that fucking blind, and that therefore the required double standard - which goes to the very fucking heart of what slut shaming is - disappears in a puff of "Oh, yeah..." Robledo (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a lot more tolerance towards male infidelity than towards female infidelity. While famous men can continue being popular after openly cheating on their wives (just think of Bill Clinton), some people still act like murdering your wife if you catch her in bed with someone else is "understandable". I'd say there very much exists a double standard in this regard. If you'd left out the "what if the genders were reversed" part I would've found your argument a lot more compelling. "Slut shaming is a valuable concept for highlighting the unequal treatment of women and this instance is technically distinct from it"? Fair enough. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

To say there is "such a double standard", is like saying "there are many social conservatives in this country" - the latter ignores that there are also countless liberals in the country tremendously shaping public opinions, and the former ignores that there are other people that hold the reverse version of that double standard.

Women are attacked for harmless sexual behavior while the men are left alone / lauded for same behavior? By some people. Others are all too ready to support a woman in all the harmless sexual activities such as gazing or hit-ons (omg our culture punishes women for being sexually assertive / initiating things! right?) while being much more critical of males doing the same - unless all the "appropriate rules" are considered, and he doesn't look to the point of "objectifying" her, it's not really alright.

The former can be found within certain parts of social conservatism, or various male subcultures that are chauvinstic/whatever. The latter is perpetuated by many feminists as well as "chivalrists", and from what I've seen is the view most generally accepted in modern society - I've certainly seen it happen much more often than its counterpart, however even if I'm wrong on that, to deny that it'S a widespread social meme is to live on another planet.

A lot more tolerance towards male infidelity? Well I'm not so sure about that - I haven't counted, but there are certainly a lot of people that are ready to jump on a cheating man calling him a pig who hurt her love and emotions, while being more more accepting of women doing the same. Some find that "hot", others automatically start wondering what he did wrong, and yet others need to be reminded that "women cheat a lot, too". A lot of the times, people assume one of those in order to distance themselves from the other one.

Normal to wanna "murder" a cheating wife? Hmm - I also heard that "aggressive males" like that, who "become violent" our of "jealousy", are often harshly condemned. RW acknowledges the court bias against male offenders, and may also acknowledge that society in general cares much less about vindictive girlfriends attacking/mutilating their partners than the other way around. Acknowledging that both of those "poles" exist, is a requirement for any efforts to count them against each other.

Slut shaming is slut shaming, and is wrong no matter how widespread it is - calling things that aren't slut shaming slut shaming, may trivialize a very widespread problem, or trivialize a more provincial problem, but what it does first and foremost is push a gender ideology and spread falsehood and bias where they don't belong. 84.187.119.64 (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's also unlikely that people would have presumed a man would have slept with said women to further his career just because they work in the same industry. Your social circle will usually include people with similar interests and I imagine it would be taken as that. Then again Gjoni had no idea that gaming fans would draw these weird conclusions (although arguably that was part of the whole "warn people in the industry" or "I just want to ruin her career I don't care how" thing) --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@BoN: You appear to be testing my brass neck hypothesis. Do you really believe that the hypothetical Gjoni would be widely congratulated for his excellent game? Or would that be very much a minority opinion made up almost entirely of complete fucking dickheads?

@Drowninginlimbo: What exactly are you saying? Robledo (talk) 00:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I don't buy that Gjoni had no idea what he was doing. These were comments he'd posted two or three times on forums, despite them being deleted, then set up a blog to host because he felt that it was "too important" that the world know the terrible truth about Zoe Quinn. & Five guys (burger & fries). Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

He knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted vengeance. That doesn't make it slut shaming, though. Robledo (talk) 00:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Purposely getting people to call her a slut is not slut shaming, because it's infidelity shaming and if it's one it can't be the other? Excuse me if I'm missing something you said above, it's getting late... Nullahnung (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC, @Robledo) Then read the Zoe Post; there's a bunch of stuff that does. "The cum collage may not be entirely accurate. . . . Was she just being skeezy so nonchalantly that she'll just forget a few people here and there? . . . And now I can't stop mentally referring to her as Burgers and Fries. . . . So yes, obviously that means she should cheat on me with three guys for that month, and then continue adding guys to the roster every month thereafter. . . . . Sleep with a bunch of people while we were broken up . . . well, that's unfortunate for me, but the important thing was that I not be around to make things awkward between her and the flavor of the week." Does none of this sound like slut-shaming to you? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to ignore the context in which it was written just because you don't like the guy, or because you disapprove of the consequences of his actions. Seriously, reverse the fucking genders and I defy you not to feel some sympathy with the anger that comes across in the language. And, if you can feel that sympathy, no matter how much you disapprove of the whole thing in general, you don't get to call it slut shaming because the double standard has vanished. Robledo (talk) 01:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The double standard hasn't vanished anywhere - if you "reverse the genders" while keeping all other factors equivalent, then whatever double standard Gjoni had, now Gjona has as well. The flavors can differ, the most stereotypical being "oh that dirty pig, cheated on me and now keeps doing it to other women because he's an animal following his penis everywhere" - it doesn't matter. Does he disapprove of her sleeping around while "broken up"? Can't tell from that sentence; if he does, is it just personal offense, some general prudish/monogamous attitude, or a double standard? If double standard = slut shaming, and no gender reversal games are gonna change that. 84.187.119.64 (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll charitably assume you're trying to advance an argument here, but I'm fucked if I can parse it. Actual slut shaming talk doesn't work if you reverse the genders. It just sounds ridiculous, because no-one would seriously talk about a man's sexual behaviour in that way:

"That Tom's such a dirty cunt. I'll bet he's fucked half the girls in here. Look at him talking to her over there. Hell, he'd probably eat her pussy for a bag of chips and the bus fare home. Fucking slut..."

The fact that this sounds horribly normal if you substitute an Emma or a Sarah for Tom (and sort out the pronouns and genitals...) is cast iron fucking proof of the existence and significance of the double standard in question.

Contrast this with Gjoni's screed. It doesn't sound ridiculous in a female voice, and therefore, whatever else is going on in there, it can't be invoking the double standard that is essential to the power and meaning of the concept of slut shaming. Robledo (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"That Tom's such a dirty cunt."

That's because the male version has a somewhat different flavor - "slut" and "cunt" aren't used, though "manwhore" sometimes is. Essentially, it's the contempt for "horndogs", "players" and "douchebags" that "only follow their wang", "exploit women" or "objectify them". Never heard feminists complain about those horrible sexist playas? On the feminist side of the spectrum, the "exploitation of women" is the focus, while on the other, it's mostly things like the man being unable to control his urges, hitting on every girl he sees etc.

If it's in the context of emotionally hurting an ex-gf or something - you bet there's gonna be some "horndog shaming" there! As I said: "oh that dirty pig, cheated on me and now keeps doing it to other women because he's an animal following his penis everywhere". So yea, the reverse version does exist, and aside from equal opportunity puritans, it's mostly not the same people that do the slut shaming.

"The fact that this sounds horribly normal" Well, I'll play your game - apply the above to Emma or Sarah, and see how far you'll get. The versions are different, however what they have in common is that harmless sexual behavior provokes contempt and/ot shaming.

"It doesn't sound ridiculous in a female voice" Strip away the specifics and mannerisms, and focus on my argument - has he specifically condemned her for simply promiscuity? If yes, it's slut shaming (which doesn't prevent you from arguing it's "understandable" given the context), if not, it isn't. Gender reversals are irrelevant, because Gjona would also have the option of either condemning his promiscuity in addition to the infidelity, or stick to the infidelity only, and that would have to be determined on its own merits as well. 93.223.1.35 (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Fuck off, son. I'd be stunned if you've ever got your cock wet, and I'm damned if you're going to derail this discussion. Men do not experience slut shaming in any meaningful sense, and I've no intention of debating an idiot who thinks otherwise. Leave quietly. Robledo (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Real classy there, with the argumentum ad virginity. Also, technically he wasn't saying that men experience slut shaming, but that they have something different that is supposedly comparable (which, then that is the point where you should be disagreeing on, the comparability). Nullahnung (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I was kinda amused by you perpetuating the feminist narrative that "only women are judged for appropriate sexual behavior, never men" on the one hand, and using it to maybe excuse Gjoni's slut-shaming on the other - which is probably why you were "fucked if you could parse it", since I was opposing you on BOTH counts.

Anyway, didn't have any reason to apply labels to you prior to this, but now you've just gone to Warp 10 and lept straight into SJW lunacy - that's how you people always act, isn't it, throwing stupid insults (I bet you would), whining about "derailments", and displaying utter offense and idignation at someone disagreeing with your claims. Not an iota of respect for you there - especially given how, by your ilk's standards (and mine as well, hilariously), you've kinda flirted with "slut shaming apologia" a bit there, so you can't even claim THAT kind of authority here. I'll let your own kind devour you for this - they may not be reading this, and some of them may opt to ignore this BUT YOUR LUCK RUNS OUTTAAH! 93.223.1.35 (talk) 01:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Protip: Fucking off - you're doing it wrong. Robledo (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Cute - still acting as if you had that type of authority even though you're basically dinner. Much less decisive this time around, though, I've noticed... :o 93.223.1.35 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"SJW lunacy", "how you people always act", "not an iota of respect for you there", "your ilk's standards", "your own kind devour you" - see othering --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Why, I do consider plonkers like him to be an outgroup - would be troubling if I didn't! 93.223.1.35 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You're digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole, BoN. Typhoon (talk) 07:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

What's BoN? 84.187.126.229 (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Bunch of Numbers: an editor who edits from an IP address rather than a registered account. TiaC (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah - thought it was like a Dong BoN lol 84.187.126.229 (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Consensus

Since it's a shite idea to take silence as agreement, who do I still have left to convince that Gjoni's dickery doesn't class as slut shaming? Serious attempts to convince me otherwise would be best focused on the issue of the required double standard outlined in various ways above. Robledo (talk) 01:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you've picked this particular battle or why you see yourself as the ultimate arbiter on the subject, but trying to make out Quinnspiracy had nothing to do with slut-shaming is kindof like insisting there's nothing racist about birtherism. But by all means keep playing these semantic games. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 04:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And I'm not sure why you feel dogmatic insistence is a valid strategy here. Its current use in the article does considerable violence to my understanding of the term, and I'm loathe to see it relegated to mere snarl words for behaviour you (and others) personally disapprove of. Do you believe that slut shaming is predicated on an unfair double standard, or not? Robledo (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong - they'd best be focused on whether he condemned/criticized her for her sextivities outside of their relationship (and that didn't involve cheating on someone else); and if he did - whether HE expressed a double standard. You were making some murky point to the effect that even if yes on both counts, if you reversed the genders and that somehow ended up sounding funny then it still wouldn't count... except it obviously would.

"Sleep with a bunch of people while we were broken up . . . well, that's unfortunate for me, but the important thing was that I not be around to make things awkward between her and the flavor of the week." Does that qualify, or does it not? If you think it doesn't, keep digging further... or don't! 93.223.43.185 (talk) 07:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If you read it properly, his specific complaint is not that she slept with others whilst they were "on a break", but that she made every effort to discourage him from doing the same. He's accusing her of being controlling and manipulative, not of being a slut. Robledo (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

So what does the word "skeezy" mean? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Jesus. Sleazy and distasteful, which pretty accurately sums up repeated infidelity, don't you think? Robledo (talk) 14:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well in context maybe - as far as this quote goes, he says something about not witnessing their debauchery like sombrero-JD. I'm not here to discuss the reality of the situation, merely to explain how to evaluate certain kinds of information - since you seemed kinda confused about that a few lines above.

"but that she made every effort to discourage him from doing the same." So basically employing that same double standard you said only works in one direction? :p 84.187.103.186 (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Notable GG activity today...

Gamergate has done a great job w/r/t transphobia today, in honor of Transgender Day of Remembrance. It might be notable enough for the article.

Some examples:

• These screenshots of tweets/8chan posts from today
• This screenshot of a video
• This thread, as highlighted in this tweet
• Attempts to out someone as trans

Not 100% sure it needs to be added to article, but these links might be enough to get a paragraph started or something. PurpleBones (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Ubisoft

I did a reading of some of this article, and I wonder if there is room for Ubisoft and its review embargo of Assassin's Creed Unity causing many publications to ask questions. Thoughts? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 11:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this article needs to look into questionable practices in the gaming industry (these kinds of things have been pointed out in the past and are going to continue to be pointed out in the future), seeing how the main focus seems to be on the toxic elements using the Gamergate hashtag. Nullahnung (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate hates games?

There really should be a section here on how GamerGate supporters hate video games. They are actively and objectively harming the game development community and the game industry in a way that hasn't been seen since the days of Jack Thompson.

GamerGate's targets consist almost entirely of organizations and publications that are invaluable tools for aspiring video game developers and those seeking to network within the industry (GamerGate mostly consisting of individuals with no business sense and who would never develop games for a living (if they even had the interest in doing so), though, it's understandable why they seem to believe that networking is the same thing as "collusion"), such as Gamasutra, the IGDA, and organizations that stand for ethics in video games.

GamerGate's allies consist of opportunistic right-wingers who either hate (Milo Yiannopolous) or don't care about (Christina Sommers) video games, reactionary, braincell killing-ly anti-intellectual Youtube pundits (TheInternetAristocrat, Thunderf00t), small-name, big ego bigots (Justine Tunney), and large quantities of forum trolls (8chan, KotakuInAction). Maybe a few fringe developers support GamerGate, but the overwhelming majority of professionals (a.k.a. people who know what the fuck they're talking about) view the movement as the vile, anti-intellectual pile of shit that it is.

GamerGaters really do hate video games; they've never cared about the art, only the identity, and they're so caught up in defending their right to identify themselves based on what they consume that they're blind to the fact that they haven't done much to identify themselves based on what they've produced. Who the fuck would craft their identity around what they consume/take away from society rather than what they contribute to society? An extremely boring person, that's who. Eventually, GamerGate is going to end up blacklisting the entire industry, and when they do and give up on video games, they will be left to the people who actually enjoy them.^{— Unsigned, by: Game Developer / talk / contribs} 00:59, 2 December 2014‎

I want to say the article says that, but maybe not as bluntly. Though, I totally get where you're coming from. Perhaps some more comments about how this has caused more damage to the industry than it has helped it, including some articles saying the effect, would be helpful. *Opens the floor* Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 04:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You're like one of those people who say stuff like "you supported/campaigned against this war, therefore you hate America". Just because your actions are completely misguided and counterproductive to your espoused cause doesn't mean you hate it. Also, I used to self-identify as a gamer until people like you started slandering it with "extremely boring person", now I don't know if I should go through the trouble. It really shouldn't be a big deal to identify as a gamer, I mean why the hell not, it's harmless, unfortunately the pro-Gamergaters and the anti-Gamergaters have made it a big deal, somehow. Leave me and my identity alone, thankyouverymuch. Nullahnung (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, but apart from what I said I disagree with in my above comment, you of course make a point. If you are concerned with the state of video games and are not stupid, I'd expect you not to boycott a site like Gamasutra and to denounce the opportunists who only care about politicizing gamers. So I give you credit for saying that. Nullahnung (talk) 10:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

I feel as though the debatable and controversial nature of GamerGaate has absolutely no place on this wiki. Until the movement is over and we can analyze it objectively, I simply feel like such an article is going to hold too much bias toward either side and would be against the wikis core ideas Rationaldude45 (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Lol there's only bias on one side - eliminate that and things are pretty much fine. 93.223.43.185 (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the world isn't that black and white. Every argument, no matter how sinister the opposition may seem, does indeed have two sides to it, and until we are able to analyze both sides of the argument objectively, I don't think it has any place on this website Rationaldude45 (talk) 07:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

“does indeed have two sides to it,” This wiki page is only biased towards one side – at least I haven’t seen any towards the/any other.

”and until we are able to analyze both sides of the argument objectively,”

Objectivity is lack of bias, not waiting for current news to become history. I don’t see your point. 84.187.103.186 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

My point is that it seems as though it is not possible to properly discuss current-even topics such as this that hold such controversy, lest people on one side of the argument or the other be slandered, this discussion thread only provides evidence behind my reasoning that this page should simply be deleted, there are many places to discuss GamerGate "Rational" Wiki, I feel is simply NOT one of those places, not until objective criticism and support of it can be had Rationaldude45 (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

“it is not possible to properly discuss current-even topics such as this that hold such controversy, lest people on one side of the argument or the other be slandered”

Um, if you research honestly you can make some mistakes but it won’t be “slander”. The same logic could be applied to news reports – why not just wait until the dust settles, since it’s all slander at this point? Silly.

“this discussion thread only provides evidence behind my reasoning that this page should simply be deleted”

The only thing this Talk page shows is that there is a heavy bias towards ONE side of the conflict. As I said, get rid of that and things are gonna be pretty much fine.

“not until objective criticism and support of it can be had”

It can already be had – there are lots of facts, and you can draw valid conclusions from them. It won’t be had, however, until the bias disappears which ain’t gonna happen. 84.187.127.232 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

We should in the very least then knock this page back down to "copper" or "vanilla" status from Bronze so others can edit it, this page violates too many "rules" to have even been able to earn bronze, the articles opening is loaded and lacks citations, being one example. Rationaldude45 (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's literally all the "rules" about references/citations. Citations exist as a way of supporting points, not as an absolute requirement a la wikipedia. That's not to say we don't value quality citations, just that you're a new user trying to pretend there's a super-legalistic approach to articles here. From what I've seen, that's not a cudgel that works here. Ikanreed (talk) 15:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

"We" - David Gerard (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

It is over. Anita won. Now it's the dribbling arse of obsessive lunatics. That's why hardly anything after that's been added - David Gerard (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

”Now it's the dribbling arse of obsessive lunatics.” One example out of many for the bias on this page. The truth is: SHE is a dribbling lunatic; a portion of her opponents is reasonable. 84.187.103.186 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There are many people, who would care to disagree, and discrediting them as "lunatics" as you say is fallacious, as well as claiming Anita "won". Rationaldude45 (talk) 08:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly censorship and denialism are the path to the truth. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 08:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

you can pick almost any objectively true statement and "many people would care to disagree" 46.5.226.139 (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

If the movement is "dead" and if it truly is exclusively in support of authoritarian ideology such as censorship, and it is plagued with "denialism" towards the movements "death" then these cases must then be asserted in the article with proper sources and evidence Rationaldude45 (talk) 08:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Pro Starcraft player tweets that he'll rape his female opponent. Yeah, gamers really hold the moral ground on this sort of thing. PsyGremlin^Tala! 09:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

”Yeah, gamers really hold the moral ground on this sort of thing.”

Don’t see how that was a reply to anything here. At any rate, it’s hard to judge someone’s intent based on a couple of tweets (especially when all the apologetic ones shown were from after it became a thing), but it appears to have been merely a joke / trash talk, hence nothing to do with morality.

This is illustrating yet another form of bias in this community: ANY such remark is automatically taken at face value. Which means, when presenting evidence of “misogyny in gaming”, they’re very likely to come up with a couple of pages of remarks like this – not realizing that it’s nowhere as compelling as they think. 84.187.103.186 (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC)I'm sorry, what? "Trash-talk", while to an extent healthy for any sports including e-sports also has boundaries you should not overstep. Using a phrase such as "I'm gonna rape" when referring to a real woman definitely oversteps that boundary. It is at best so unprofessional and tasteless as to be grounds for disqualification (which he was), and at worst shows a worrying lack of concern for a horrid reality that women face which should not be joked about lightly. Nullahnung (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

What? It has everything to do with morality. As another example, dropping a racial slur and then apologizing for it is still offensive, whether or not it was meant as trash talk. Yes, "rape" has come to be a synonym for being horribly beaten in gaming lingo, but that in and of itself perfectly exemplifies the broader problem here. - Grant (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"also has boundaries you should not overstep." Within those groups, it doesn't have any boundaries other than the ones agreed on by the group; when using them outside of your group, this can easily lead to "subculture shock", resulting in someone being offended, feeling uncomfortable or even intimidated. However, that's pretty much my point - if you've got someone carelessly exhibiting their subculture antics among people who're on a different wavelength, you absolutely can criticize them for that; however, only for that, and nothing else.

Each problem requires its specific solution: you can't tell a rapey dudebro misogynist to be sensitive around people from other subcultures, and calling some mindless trash talker a misogynist or problematic or tasteless is likely to just get them pissed off at the "sensitive PC police" and inflame them even further... though it'll work on some, of which this particular guy seems to be an example.

Also, while some people have an aversion or concern about this type of behavior all on their own, it doesn't help if all they keep hearing is that gaming culture is full of dangerous misogynists who'll attack any woman and mean it - they'll just see something like that and interpret it as an example of that festering evil. If they were aware that this is just how a lot of gamers talk among themselves and some of them keep babbling long after they've left their club, such adverse reactions would be significantly reduced.

"It is at best so unprofessional and tasteless as to be grounds for disqualification" That's for the organizers to decide, and I'm not condemning their decision. However, aside from "tastelessness", it may as well have been motivated by things like diplomacy or keeping the peace... or the idea that it's necessarily evil misogyny. Doesn't matter, it's still their call.

"for a horrid reality that women face which should not be joked about lightly." They likely come from an environment where the women (a minority but still very present) are as relaxed about this stuff as they themselves. I've observed that whenever you leave the "feminist zone" (or approach its peripheries), around folks at school/uni or on various podcasts, the women there suddenly stop being dead-serious about this stuff and are often even the ones laughing the loudest. Apparently they perceive jokes and talk for what it is, and even when they're not into it, they just act like anyone else who doesn't like something and don't consider it an issue. They don't like people treating them "with extra sensitivity" because they find it condescending and lame.

You're talking about a "reality they face" - well, is trash talking with your friends (or some gamers in your guild) not a part of that reality? If they have an S&M fetish and rather think of that than real dangers when they hear careless jokes like this, is that not also a huge part of said reality? You're one of the most reasonable people "on the other side" I've seen here, but here you are, approaching the issue with all the differentiation and nuance of a sledgehammer. No, what you said is just one side of the truth, and until it starts being treated as such, nothing sensible is going to arise.

"As another example, dropping a racial slur and then apologizing for it is still offensive, whether or not it was meant as trash talk."

It's only offensive when someone takes it at face value or possibly at face value (with justification, that is) and... finds it offensive. After it turns out that it wasn't meant seriously, however, the game changes, and the only people that keep treating it like an absolute at that point are ideologues like yourself.

"but that in and of itself perfectly exemplifies the broader problem here." Um no, it absolutely doesn't - that'd be your literalist ideology speaking, I'm afraid.

Unless someone has actual troubling views about real violence, even as much as to imply that there's some kind of "problem" with their colorful language would be the height of absurdity. The same thing that applies to colorful language, also applies to fictional tropes which is pretty much the reason why the entire premise behind Anita Sarkeesian's work (as well as her conservative/rightist counterparts... funny how much the two resemble each other, eh?) is utter horse. 84.187.115.53 (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I could say the same thing about you, approaching things with the nuance and differentiation of a sledgehammer when you're calling Anita's work "utter horse". But please let's not make this thread even more confusing, discussion about Anita's work maybe should go on the talk page of her article, let's focus on the event that happened on Twitter.

If the guy was speaking within a certain group where "I rape you" is perfectly acceptable trash talk from the perspective of those involved, then fine, but this situation is quite different. He can't just publicly blurt out something like this, there are boundaries which you should not overstep and public issues that you need to respect (like the topic of rape), with the disqualification he got what was coming to him.

"I've observed that whenever you leave the "feminist zone"" This is just your personal anecdotal experience. Maybe you can consider that different people have different experiences with that sort of stuff and sometimes it gets dead serious, and sometimes you need to respect that, like when you're making comments publicly. Nullahnung (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(Response to BoN) The idea that trash talk is only offensive in a particular context if the people you're talking to find it offensive is somewhat valid. Certainly I wouldn't presume to dictate what someone says to their friends in jest or in trash talk. However, Twitter is a public forum, and there are things that are absolutely not appropriate to say or do in public. This is not something new, and the advent of the Internet has not changed that.

I also believe you missed my point regarding the underlying problem here. That rape is used as trash talk is indeed a huge problem, and it's a similar problem that some individuals use racial slurs in a similar manner. "Hey man, it's just trash talk" is absolutely not an excuse for not possessing appropriate social awareness. - Grant (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

“sledgehammer when you're calling Anita's work "utter horse"”

Having nuance =/= being a dogmatic centrist. Her work IS utter horse, so I’m calling it like it is – if you want nuance, I did say “the premise behind”: the general thesis is silly, but some of the individual points she makes here and there aren’t necessarily that bad if looked at from a certain angle. Plus: that wasn’t the main topic and I just touched on it peripherally: “In most informal speech it's quite common to omit qualifiers largely seen as unnecessary” ;)

„But please let's not make this thread even more confusing“ Yea, t’was but a quick comparison.

“there are boundaries which you should not overstep and public issues” You’re not saying anything I haven’t covered already – long story short, yes, he can be absolutely criticized for his lack of “code-switching”. But only for that, and nothing else (unless it IS something else, a possibility I’ve also conceded right at the start).

“and sometimes you need to respect that,”

It’s more about being used to a certain social environment where it’s like A and no care is required, and then entering one where it’s like B or maybe both A and B and care *is* required.

As I said, it’s what I observed, consistently – and anecdotal blur is still better than ignoring it outright :)

“and there are things that are absolutely not appropriate to say or do in public.“

That doesn’t change the fact that when someone does cross that line, it’s still just a failure to adapt to a new / broader culture and nothing more sinister than that.

Also, why not burn the candle at both ends? The public is already being fed one-sided propaganda about “rampant neckbeard misogyny” – should they start reading more of the truth, they, the public, won’t find these things anywhere as shocking anymore and it’ll become “less inappropriate”. I’ve already made that point though…

„That rape is used as trash talk is indeed a huge problem, and it's a similar problem that some individuals use racial slurs in a similar manner.“

NO, THAT’S YOUR IDEOLOGY. I’ve already said that, I didn't miss anything, but if you’d rather be a broken record instead then hey, fine. 84.187.127.232 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC) "Dogmatic centrist" is what the narrow-minded call the people who try to empathise and explore different perspectives. Maybe you should consider that even if nobody gets offended by this sort of trash talk in the right environment, it might still end up leaking out to places where it might offend people or, and I know you're going to be dismissive of this, but maybe you could open your mind to the possibility, perpetuating harmful attitudes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture Nullahnung (talk) 15:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What you're describing by having the public read "more of the truth" such that it will become less appropriate is called desensitization, and it's absolutely not a good thing. I also think you're wrong, and that the general public would in fact be horrified by what they saw. The group of "hardcore" gamers who think this kind of language is appropriate are a minority, and very likely always will be.

Sure it's my ideology, and it happens to be shared by the majority of society. You're choosing to take a tack that wilfully offending people in horrible ways is fine, but that ideology is crap. Let me illustrate by Godwinning the conversation here. Would you make comments about the Holocaust while trash talking? I'm asking because I want to know where you draw the line. What is and isn't appropriate for trash talk in your mind? - Grant (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It is extremely bad discussion practice to open up additional controversial topics when it could be avoided. It encourages the use of analogy (which 90% of the time has a detrimental effect on the discussion due to debate instantly ensuing about the appropriateness of the analogy or descending into semantics or something silly like that) and risks becoming a red herring in and of itself. This is why you don't Godwin.

In fact, I'm going to recommend the BoN to ignore GrantC's question. Nullahnung (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I feel like at this point we need to acknowledge the fact that Kas, the pro-gamer in question, apologized, and apparently the apology was accepted by the woman in question. He also doesn't seem like such a bad guy otherwise. Who knows, maybe he learned his lesson and we should stop being disgusted at him. Nullahnung (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a point in this analogy that actually means something here. If there's a line to be drawn in what is and isn't appropriate for trash talk, the question is: where is it and why is it there? You're welcome to make whatever recommendations you like, but as for this being "bad discussion practice," I believe this discussion went down the drain a long time ago. When one decides that respecting others is an "ideology," it's hard to make anything come of that.

My problem here isn't with Kas either. My problem is that "rape" is considered an appropriate term for use in general gaming lingo. The actions of one individual may have sparked this conversation, but the broader point still stands. This is the crux of my Godwin: why would it be acceptable to trash talk using rape, but not using other horrible and atrocious things? - Grant (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually disagree that any speech can be acceptable in the right environment. Racist hate speech might be acceptable on Stormfront, but it never appropriate. Also, one of the biggest criticisms of the gaming community is that it is not welcoming to women. The fact that some women have become desensitized to it doesn't stop it from being a hostile environment to women. I think that this is a point raised by the "Gamers are Dead" articles. There are a large number of gamers who would prefer that this sort of talk was not used and will object when it's used. Gaming cultural norms are drifting and what is acceptable is changing.--TiaC (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

True. That said, I think most people will say certain things to friends that they wouldn't say elsewhere. I also don't believe things like hate speech are appropriate for that either, but if someone wishes to make jokes of that kind in private with their friends, I obviously wouldn't even hear it to be able to complain about it in the first place. - Grant (talk) 19:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC)At this point we've got to differentiate between what we mean by environments. I do agree with you that in a broader environment such as gaming communities it is not good to use whatever hate speech you can come up with in terms of trash talk, as it contributes to hostility towards the affected groups. However, in friend circles one could argue that you can throw whatever verbal abuse you want privately to friends, it's none of the greater public's business, as long as they don't get offended.

Here, again, though, one could argue that this normalizes certain topics and affects attitudes which might leak out into the public. Nullahnung (talk) 19:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry what? Are you implying that "yeah, gamers really are like that" because of one tweet from a pro-gamer? What is with this putting gamers in a box so you can label it nonsense? They are as diverse as movie-goers and you know a statement like "movie-goers have/don't have the moral high ground" is ridiculous. Not every gamer thinks the same about GG either. Think. Nullahnung (talk) 09:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I love the irony of a knee-jerk reaction ending with the word "Think." Clearly we need a #NoAllGamers tag. PsyGremlin^Tala! 12:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You mean #NotAllGamers. That is a valid complaint, that some people deflect criticism of any and all issues within gaming communities just because not all gamers perpetuate those issues, but those issues are still there as evidenced by countless experiences. However, that is not what I am doing. I am merely complaining about your shallow statement, seemingly taking one example of a pro-gamer within the Starcraft scene saying something incredibly tasteless and thinking it says something about gamers in general. Maybe if you added a sentence, saying "this is just one example, but this type of behaviour is common among gamers, showing that there is a lack of sensitivity about the treatment of women", then you are actually making a point. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that this is actually what you meant to say.

This isn't Twitter, we don't have a character limit. You can say things properly here. Nullahnung (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume Psygremlin was referring specifically to the gamers perpetuating GG. In most informal speech it's quite common to omit qualifiers largely seen as unnecessary, and in this case the discussion as a whole fairly clearly puts his statement into context.

While I'm here, I may as well add my two cents. While there may be those within the GG movement who are truly working to end corruption and yada-yada, the movement – or at least its public face – has been co-opted by much nastier individuals. Perhaps those interested in real issues should distance themselves from the movement and find a new banner to rally behind. - Grant (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, ok, I may have overreacted to Psygremlin's comment. Nullahnung (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As the article documents, it's the other way around - it was started by the malicious and co-opted some people who thought it was about ethics in journalism - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough. I'm not entirely familiar with the "movement" or its history. In that case, I'll amend my statement to say instead that the people co-opted in should probably have done a bit more research on the folks with whom they were choosing to associate. - Grant (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Greetings, fellow rationals! I am rationaldude45, we should rational this article to more rational pro-GG rationality. It's the rational choice. Also fuck those slut whore bitches." THEY WILL NEVER DETECT ME - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Twitter

“Starting today we're rolling out an improved way to flag abusive Tweets. See how it works.”

One has to wonder if it's just a coincidence that they chose to use a picture of an alligator as an example of how to use the new flagging system. ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 19:44, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have yet to meet anyone who thought that was a coincidence. Pretty much everyone I follow on Twitter thought it was hilarious. Abed Nadir (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent Guardian article

Zoe Quinn interview and a really good summary of Gamergate. We should basically crib large chunks from this and make our own article more readable (it's still well-cited-but-terrible-prose) - David Gerard (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

What kind of improvements does this article need? Does the coherency need improvement? Is the writing vague, all over the place? The Guardian is good, although what makes its presentation better than this one? LEFTYGREENMARIO 23:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It needs to be updated to December (what with the Intel reinstating ads and the autoblocker and them blaming Target withdrawing GTAV in Australia on the evil feminazis), for a start. --Backway (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And to note that it may be a busted flush as far as winning the hearts and minds of non-fuckwits goes, but it's not over while the victims are still being harassed and can't go back to their houses - David Gerard (talk) 10:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I've periodically tried to go through the article and simplify overly complicated sentences. I think it's a byproduct of trying to condense a lot of information into short, tight paragraphs in the hope of avoiding daunting walls of text/bloat. -Shtrominer (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Any particular areas of the article that could stand to be improved in terms of wording or structure? -Shtrominer (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Full of lies

Make a serious investigation and write it again.^{— Unsigned, by: 186.79.145.222 / talk / contribs}

Care to elaborate?Brenden (talk) 06:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE? Hipocrite (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Rhubarb rhubarb rhubarb. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, per your quest, I have investigated gamergate, and discovered that it is full of dumb-dumb heads with poopy thoughts. Should we modify the article to reflect the truth? Ikanreed (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In all seriousness, OP's comments are useless, regardless of whatever merit there is in accommodating the pro-gamergate's viewpoints on gaming journalism. брэндэн (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

lol --Backway (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Has this ever worked? Has an empty "You are wrong, do it again" ever lead to someone changing his or her opinion, at least if the person saying it is not an undisputed authority in the field? What does someone really expect when writing something like this? Everyone suddenly realizing that they have been so wrong and bow before the anonymous poster? Let's face it, a posting like that is as useful as dropping your pants in someone's garden and put your bodily wastes there... You might feel relieved, but besides everyone thinking that you are missing some cups in your cupboard, nothing will change. --Irian (talk) 12:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Branch

Are we going to use this lovely event in the future on this page? Also it's down for some reason but I don't know if that's permament.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we knew what lovely event that was ... what is the link when it's not 500ing? - David Gerard (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It was a debate between Deanna Zandt (of WAM), Arthur Chu (of Jeopardy! fame), Fredrick "Hotwheels" Brennan (of 8chan), "Brooke", and David Auerbach (of Slate.com) hosted by Al Jazeera America's "America Tonight" program.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we make a page on the w:Eggslut now considering some gator decided to edit war over it with me?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

David Gerard Good news! [5]—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

MUST it be so one-sided?

The most frustrating part of this is that I know that no matter what I write, people are just going to call me an MRA troll. But some of the things on this wiki are so far from the truth that I can't help but feel it's being done on purpose.

There are so many people involved in Gamergate that are being mis-characterized here. And it's really a double standard. Feminists detest when people do that to them and stereotype them, but when a bunch of innocent gamers are portrayed as women-hating sexist bastards because of the actions of a few, they are quick to hop on the hate bandwagon.

How about this, then? Let's make a deal.

I'll accept that 100% of all Gamergaters are trolls and horrible people if feminists will, in return, accept that every single one of them are man-haters based on the actions of a few? Because fair is fair. ^{— Unsigned, by: Parogar / talk / contribs}

I reckon people wouldn't call you an MRA troll if you didn't go around acting like one. - π 05:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

As much as I support the ideals of the GamerGate movement, I find myself in agreement with П. It may just be a matter of perception, but a few of your talk-page comments do resemble common "red-pill" arguments. брэндэн (talk) 06:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If I seem like an MRA, then it is only because, through sheer coincidence, we have ended up on the same side but for drastically different reasons.

In a nutshell, I'm against political correctness or at least the ridiculous way it's governing our free speech. I'm not a conservative, I'm socially liberal, and I'm not interested in advancing male rights. I'm interested in disallowing freedom of expression to be chastized by a vocal minority of feminists who would rather attack comet scientists than address the pay gap Parogar (talk) 06:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I oppose feminists and side with Gamergate for the exact same reasons I have been against social conservatives for my entire life: for the exact same reasons I fought for and voted on gay rights any chance I had. I am vehemently against those who wish to force their religious beliefs or moral ideologies onto other people.

Through my eyes, I really can't see any difference here between what feminists do and what the Christian right do. If there is a difference, I'm missing it. Both are groups that cannot be reasoned with, their minds cannot be changed, and they will not stop until they have managed to demonize their opponents. Both groups want to recruit; both groups want to censor opinions they don't like. Both groups want to ban Grand Theft Auto. Only one group, however (Australian feminists) is actually succeeding.

In fact, the morality of the Christian right is slowly becoming the same thing as the feminist morality. Their targets are so similar, too. Even if their internal reasoning is different, the parallels between feminism and dogmatic Christianity are so numerous it's actually startling. Arguing with feminists on here evokes every single emotion I have felt in the past when I argued with creationists. There's that hopeless feeling of knowing that, no matter how much scientific evidence you bring to the table. No matter how many facts you present. No matter how much of a logical argument you make: it won't matter, because they have faith. They have faith that there is a patriarchy (Satan) that needs to be crushed, and it is driving all our actions.

My points are invalid because of my male privilege ("Satan's influence") and my peer-reviewed studies are invalid because they were influenced by the patriarchy ("Satan put that evidence there to test our faith").

Christians want to ban gay marriage because they think it's immoral; Feminists have succeeded in some places in banning videogames because they think it's immoral. Christians believe that if gays get married, it will somehow ruin straight marriage. Feminists believe that if men play fantasy video games, it will lead to rape.

Both groups operate on the basis of fear. Both groups want to control us. Both groups don't care about any facts that contradict their ideology. And both groups don't deserve to call themselves skeptics. A feminist skeptic is an oxymoron. Parogar (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I resent your characterization of all feminists as censor-happy reactionaries. Those who are in favour of censoring artistic expression in order to promote the status of women in society are in the minority. In case you were wondering, it is often the red-pillers that characterize feminists as evil, fun hating feminazis. Take it from a feminist supporter of gamer gate - there is strong support for gamer gate in feminist circles. брэндэн (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Nearly every feminist on this website (I realize now that you're not one of them) supports Anita Sarkeesian, and supports censoring video games. Parogar (talk) 08:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"If you are not against Anita Sarkeesian you must be pro-censorship because Anita Sarkeesian wants to censor video games." Completely and utterly wrong. When has Sarkeesian ever explicitly said that video games need to be censored rather than just criticising them? Also, just because you don't oppose someone, but oppose their opposition doesn't mean you support that someone, that's just plain logic. Nullahnung (talk) 08:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It's more that the articles on this website call for political correctness and censorship. But whatever. I don't even want to get into it anymore. Convincing someone to change their ideology is the same as trying to convince them to change their religion. I get that now. The whole point of making these articles (the feminism ones) open for debate is a sham. Because nothing anyone ever says is ever going to get anyone to change their mind. It's an illusion that discussions are permitted. There's no objectivity here. Feminism is just something I'm going to accept as being an unchangeable, immutable part of Rationalwiki. It's a belief. And beliefs can't be talked out of someone. Parogar (talk) 08:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That goes for the internet as a whole, doesn't it? When have you ever convinced someone who has an opinion that his/her opinion should be changed online? Also, it is untrue. I'm easily convincable by facts and statistics supporting arguments. Also, I could probably say the same about you, that your negative impression of feminism as "censorship and political correctness" is such a deep delusion that we won't ever be able to convince you that feminism, and our articles on it on RationalWiki, do not in fact support censorship. Nullahnung (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if I'm wrong, then why did feminists get GTA 5 pulled from stores? Why do they care what other people are playing? My philosophy is completely at odds with feminism. I believe in live and let live. If someone is minding their own business and doing something in the privacy of their own home, then whether that something is having gay sex, playing video games, burning the bible, or praying to God, it should not be our business and we should keep out of it. Parogar (talk) 09:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Every movement has stupid people, doesn't it? There are plenty of people who support feminism and oppose gamergate that disagree with the feminists who want to get GTA 5 pulled from stores. You can't blame the flock for one sheep. Nullahnung (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

That's true. Parogar (talk) 09:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

A great deal of the time it feels like you just can't win when it comes to feminists. If you have a character that wears too much clothing, I've had feminists say, "That's sexist. Women's bodies are nothing to be ashamed of."

If you have a character who's wearing not enough clothing. "Wow, you're subscribing to the male gaze. That's sexist. Women are not objects."

Tough female protagonist? "Wow. You're reinforcing the stereotype that it takes a physically strong, violent woman to earn respect. That's sexist."

Weak female protagonist? "Wow. Why are the men capable of fighting? This causal cissexism is disgusting."

Feminists send so many mixed messages it's impossible sometimes for me to understand what they even want. So with that in mind, I once tried writing something with NO female characters. Guess what? Turns out that's also sexist. It feels to me like it's sexist no matter what you do. If it's snowing outside, it's sexist. If the Jets win the superbowl, it's sexist. If I breathe, I'm being sexist for inhaling patriarchy air. Parogar (talk) 09:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I even made up a game. It's fun, try it. Google the name of any movie in the world and add "sexist." Then try not to laugh. My favorite was back to the future, which has one popular feminist blog that had some stupid Tumblr GIF that said, "Sorry, but women can't time travel." It's bullshit, too, because in Back to the Future 2 the girl DID actually time travel. So they don't even know anythingParogar (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• You
• are
• full
• of
• shit
• and
• you
• lie
• all
• the
• time
• you
• insufferable
• fuck.

How many of the other things that you say are fabricated? Hipocrite (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

If it helps, what I think it should be is "we need more interesting female characters, doesn't matter if they are manly or girly, just interesting enough to love, also the main focus of why they are interesting should be character traits, not how big their boobs are". Nullahnung (talk) 09:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, the problem is with generalization of feminists. The idiots who ripped into that ESA guy for his shirt are simply that - idiots. Those who are legitimately working for gender equality, or more recently, class egalitarianism, have credible causes. It's rather disappointing to see the word "feminist" become such a dirty word. I don't think I need to make it any clearer - putting all feminists in the same category as the perpetually offended special snowflakes gives a victory to the SJWs, and cheapens the real issues that feminists tackle. брэндэн (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I dunno about "idiots". Maybe it's worth listening to some of the criticisms of wearing such a shirt. It's just the internet amplifies all criticism and makes it seem like "ripping into someone". Nullahnung (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I know they're not the same. Some in particular are people I look up to more than anyone. I think my friend Anne is a feminist. She helped me get started in my writing career. She's brilliant and she's even had movies come out based on her books. So there's lots of them I do look up to. The problem is the younger generation and this new wave of feminism. this hyper aggressive, antagonistic feminism. Parogar (talk) 09:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Would it make you feel any better at all if I told you that I truthfully dislike MRAs way more than I dislike feminism? I'm not lying about that. As hard as this might be to believe, I'm still a diehard liberal atheist. I mean, FFS, I'd trust a fortune teller over Fox News and I think Bill O' Reilly is Lucifer. And I don't even believe in Lucifer! Parogar (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I'm getting off the feminist thing because it's not productive at this point. It's one topic out of hundreds that matter. I think it's gotten to the point where we're not going to ever agree on this, so I might as well move on to other topics that concern RationalWiki, because I'm wasting all our time at this point. Parogar (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

....

Well, that accomplished fuck-all. --Paul S (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Please don't call my friends neo-nazis

I have a lot of friends in the #Gamergate movement, and I'm a Jew, and we don't really have any problems. Must this article label them as nazis just to win an argument? Is it really fair of you guys to try to use the Jewish people as your shield in order to demonize the gaming community? I distinctly remember supporting #Gamergate on ONLY four occasions on Twitter. On two of the four occasions, feminists called me a "dirty kike nigger." Feminists said this, yes. But I'm not calling all feminists neo nazis. Parogar (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The article says that there are neo-Nazis involved in #Gamergate (because there are), not that everyone involved in #Gamergate is a neo-Nazi, and not anything about Jews (other than than Sarkeesian has been caricatured as one). As for what was said to you on Twitter, I'm skeptical that whoever said this was a feminist in any meaningful sense. Please link to the posts if you want to discuss further so we can see what said by whom & in what context. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I only remember one of the Twitter accounts, but I don't want to start any trouble back up. This was one of them: [redacted] the Tweets were eventually deleted after ANOTHER feminist said something about "denying him agency." I have the account blocked, so I can't see what they've been up to lately. Parogar (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Let's not dox people, k? I suppose you can email Weaseloid if you want.. брэндэн (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My bad, not my intention. Parogar (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Twitter is frequently cited in WIGO & this wasn't even anybody using their real name or anything that would compromise their IRL identity. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:07, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

But seriously, some people took the gamergate shit way too seriously, and they were on both sides. I made like 4 tweets and I regret every single one of them. What an awful storm of just hate they had swirling around twitter when I last tried to make a few tweets about it. Parogar (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

to be 100% fair, I wouldn't be surprised if the entire war, on both sides, was actually all the same group of people. You just never know when you-know-which website is involved. If they're involved, everything just becomes confusing, and nothing can be trusted. Parogar (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Using Twitter, where everybody has to express their stances within less than a proper sentence, for communicating about controversial and complex matters was your first mistake. Nullahnung (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Twitter sucks. So does Tumblr. And snapchat. Come to think of it, most social media sucks. Twitter is especially bad, though. It's even more difficult if you're someone who refuses to use improper grammar if it can be helped. That makes getting a thought out near impossible. Parogar (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Nullahnung, that's only about the tenth or twelfth time on this talk page you've told us how much you hate Twitter. But please keep saying it. That's clearly the important issue here. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be like that. I'm sorry, I'll shut up about it. You might notice I have a tendency to talk about tangential things on talk pages (Wouldn't be the first time you've scolded me for that.). Nullahnung (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that hating Twitter really is a way more important issue than anything Gamerghazi has brought up. Vulpius (talk) 18:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Turns out Jimmy Wales just trolled Gamergate

http://i.imgur.com/q2FBVgq.png

Gators are mad that Wales purged the Wikipedia hitlist article at the Gamergate Wiki.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 10:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The great thing about gators is that their every protest when people point out they do deeply fucked-up things is in a manner that demonstrates that they have things seriously wrong with them - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The awful thing about them is that this never has any effect on their acceptance in places where the right-white-male contingent aggregates. There is no ethical breach sufficient to break the "actually it's about ethics in games journalism" mantra. Ikanreed (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, the complete absurdity of that final "prove he made it up". Without contrary evidence, "That isn't something I've done" is an absolutely reasonable assertion. Ikanreed (talk) 14:29, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Ignore Ikanreed, the known murderer and furry. 94.7.188.16 (talk) 22:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B5L_tA2CIAAJMsW.jpg:large Jimbo replies to a GG supporter--60.242.159.224 (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo did in fact write that reply email. (Confirmed in a closed mailing list. He figured it was one of the ones that would get forwarded to the world.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

FBI investigating Gamergate

[6] Apparently that is the "case in progress" form letter - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Mischaracterizing #NotYourShield

I do not deeply follow the GamerGate campaign one way or another but I have seen videos posted on Youtube that are collections of brief testimonials from women and girls, blacks, Asians, autistics, gay and transgendered people, even elderly folks. They are videos of these people actually saying they support Gamergate, that it's not about misogyny, that they support it because they're concerned about corruption and ethics, and that they are speaking their own minds about this and don't need others to speak on their behalf. This article's section on #NotYourShield writes it all off as sockpuppets on Twitter operating with stolen pictures. These videos show otherwise. Perhaps there are a lot of sock puppets on Twitter. I wouldn't know, I've never looked at the Twitter for GamerGate. But these videos show there are a diverse lot of people out there who are genuine supporters.

This article in general seems to be a one-sided screed more often than a rational analysis. It ignores the existence of a substantial bloc of people I'm aware of on the Gamergate side (who claim to be the majority of its membership, though I can't say I know enough to be certain) who are actually focused on corruption and are not misogynists. The rabid minority of hateful people who doxx and send rape threats are a real group that should rightfully be condemned - and indeed are condemned by the 'authentic' Gamergater movement as well.

Is it some kind of heresy to examine or even acknowledge the existence of this other (and perhaps larger) wing of the Gamergater movement? Because this article just strikes me as polemics if no one makes the effort to do that (or if any such efforts are suppressed in editing). 192.160.165.63 (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem with #NotYourShield is that it is, in fact, using people as shields against criticism. The bugbear of #Gamergate, the SJW, doesn't try to use any disadvantaged group as a shield against criticism. Gamergate does. The irony is overwhelming. The presence of people genuinely invested in #NotyourShield also doesn't negate that a) there are sockpuppets under the tag b) It's obvious that some are sock puppets because they are using stock photo images and c) members of gamergate are on the record as planning to sockpuppet in support of the tag. The numbers of geuine/sock might be up for debate, but it's inescapable that a significant part of Gamergate is prepared to lie to get their point across, and boast about lying to their buddies.

The 'authentic' Gamergate movement is the rapid part that doxxes and sends death threats. It was that group that began the whole shit-train and it's that group that has stuck with it ever since. The members who want to 'concentrate on corruption' are the johnny-come-latelies - the 'inauthentic' Gamergate - and they've been suckered into supporting the whole reeking edifice by the dishonest wankers who started it. And let's not forget that the only significant result of the 'corruption' campaign has been to exert pressure on outlets' content through threats and bullying - the opposite of journalistic integrity.

All of that is well-documented in the article, and when it has this quantity of supporting evidence it can hardly be called polemic. I would love for it to be the case that one of my hobbies was not infested with misogynist, racist troglodytes. Alas, the available evidence is crushes that hope. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

↑ +1 Scream!! (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

↑ +1 --Irian (talk) 12:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The presence of sock puppets does not negate the fact that real support exists. Here are some videos of genuine people who support the NotYourShield hashtag. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYqBdCmDR0M and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzwGIHUCtjU . If there are sockpuppets, then of course mention that, but why can't the article acknowledge that there is support for GamerGate outside of the stereotypical white cismale demographic? It's bias, pure and simple. It's dishonest.

Read the reply to your concerns next time. Restating them does no one any good. Ikanreed (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the person who initially posted these concerns, I was simply adding some support and evidence (and am still learning how to format stuff correctly). But to address the response; #NotYourShield is not using others as a shield, it is people coming forward to speak for themselves. Even if the hashtag is flawed, that is no reason to misrepresent the people behind it by disregarding them all as sock puppets, which the article currently does. It may be "inescapable" that parts of the GamerGate movement are prepared to lie, but it is also inescapable that it has some genuine support from women and ethnic minorities.82.11.182.154 (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's absolutely using people as a shield to say "hey a woman agrees" as an excuse for sexism. That's basically the definition of using minorities as a shield. Ikanreed (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The trouble is, the article clearly assumes the entire focus of the movement is misogyny and then cannot explain why any women would support it, so conveniently omits the fact that there is female support. I doubt that people using the hashtag would deny that there is misogyny in Gamergate movement, but they do not want to see the entire movement written off as misogynists when they believe it has some valid points to make, hence "notyourshield". Regardless, whether you think Gamergate is itself using women and minorities as a shield or not, it is a fact that they exist. The article makes it look like the hashtag was entirely populated by fake accounts, when it clearly was not. 82.11.182.154 (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Many woman hold misogynistic views. Their presence in a group does not mean much. Who gives a shit if a few people took the #notyourshield bait? Marlow (talk) 22:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The article is written like a historic account of the unfolding events, and then materially misrepresents this event. It's dishonest. If your complaint is that the support of women does not legitimise the movement, then the article should say that, but it does not. Instead, it rather pretends the women weren't there at all, which is factually incorrect. 82.11.182.154 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

How does it pretend that women aren't there? A summary for the #NotYourShield section is basically this: #NotYourShield is merely a tactic by Gamergaters to showcase their women and other minorities supporters. They're trying to counter their misogynistic reputation, but in the end, #NotYourShield ends up being dishonest, especially since a significant portion of #NotYourShield is sockpuppeted. There is no denial that women aren't there. You may be reading statements that aren't actually there, but you can point to us where we "conveniently" omit any hint of women supporting the group. LEFTYGREENMARIO 22:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe instead of being dismissive of IP's misguided concerns (which many people appear to hold, thus we should address it) we could include something in our article which says what you just said: "a tactic by Gamergaters to showcase their women and other minorities supporters. They're trying to counter their misogynistic reputation, but in the end, #NotYourShield ends up being dishonest, especially since a significant portion of #NotYourShield is sockpuppeted. There is no denial that women aren't there." Also we should probably include this: "Many woman hold misogynistic views. Their presence in a group does not mean much." I know these things seem like 1+1=2 to you guys, but they're not such simple to grasp things for other people, so we should cater to that. Nullahnung (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"and then materially misrepresents this event" Can you point to anything specific that you think is inaccurate? We can fix specific inaccuracies, but vagueness doesn't give us anywhere to start. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:22, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a suggestion - the line

• Gamergaters created sockpuppet Twitter accounts to push "#NotYourShield," fabricating user profiles and swiping pictures from places like Cheezburger.com for use as user images

Change to

• Although many of the #NotYourSheild tweets were genuinely from women and minorities, logs from sites such as 8chan showed that Gamergaters were creating numerous sockpuppet Twitter accounts to push "#NotYourShield," fabricating user profiles and swiping pictures from places like Cheezburger.com for use as user images to inflate the apparent size of the movement. Ironically #NotYourSheild became their sheild.

Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be in line with what everybody's been saying. Nullahnung (talk) 13:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I think

#NotYourShield was a hashtag intended to demonstrate that Gamergaters were not exclusively while and male. However, logs from sites such as 8chan show that from its inception it was intended to include sockpuppet Twitter accounts to pad the number of its supporters. Images were lifted from sites such as Cheezburger.com for these fabricated user profiles, to general face-palming. The hashtag has since attracted a number of seemingly genuine supporters, although it's uncertain how many are actually genuine and how many are just somewhat better attempts as sockpuppetry. Ironically #NotYourSheild became Gamergate's shield.

is probably better, as it emphasises that the origins of the hashtag are less than unimpeachable. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Better than mine - get's my vote. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Very good, only change is "Ironically #NotYourSheild became Gamergate's shield," should read "Ironically enough, GamerGate promptly used #NotYourSheild as a shield," or something. It's not a shield, because it deflects nothing. Hipocrite (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

"Ironically enough, GamerGate intended to use #NotYourShield as its own shield." Maybe? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 21:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(It's not irony when it's blatant lazy hypocrisy) Ikanreed (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

The information in the article is based on what the sources say. If GGers don't like the picture it paints, perhaps it's time for them to examine themselves. But, in the meantime, we don't need to contort our coverage to fit their narrative. -Shtrominer (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

+1. There's no point trying to strike false balance to appease a hypothetical swayable gator - anyone still grouping themselves with Gamergate is either malicious or stupid. Just tell the truth in simple blunt sentences with excellent references - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Original poster again. My understanding from my first glance at the site yesterday was that RationalWiki's image is based on, well, rationality. Rationality itself being an ideal one aspires to follow in their thinking by examining and analyzing the facts of an issue to produce a logically sound conclusion - which, if one has and understands all the facts of an issue correctly, will be more probably the truth of that issue than a conclusion arrived at by any other means.

The existence of these videos is a fact. They exist just as much as the screenshots of those 8chan chatlogs do. This article dismisses the fact that those videos exist. It allows those chatlogs to have first and final say on the matter. This is because the article as presently written provides its reader with a narrative, not an analysis - and so facts that conflict with the narrative are conveniently absent. Perhaps my first impression of RationalWiki was incorrect; perhaps conducting a logical analysis using all the available evidence to reach a conclusion, or, in fewer words, rationality, is not what this wiki is all about. In which case I'd suggest a re-examination would be in order of the image that this wiki presents by its name.

If my first impression was correct, however, than rationality is what this site is founded on and aspires to. In which case I would ask why there would be users on here, users who believe in the principle of rationality, who when presented with new facts would object to including them in their analysis. Facts aren't good or bad, right or wong in a moral sense; they are true or false. Links were posted to these videos; my assertions of their existence were not false. Whatever one makes of them, there they are, and the people in them are not stock photos taken off of Cheezburger.com by sockpuppeteers. The fact that these videos are not congruent with the "picture [the information in the article] paints" of Gamergate should not preclude their inclusion in a rational analysis.

Is this how a skeptic acts when confronted with facts that conflict with the ideas he already believes in? Does he acknowledge those facts and subject his beliefs to a reexamination under the new evidence, either changing his claims or producing a logical defense of them based on the conclusion of that reexamination? Or does he pretend that he didn't see or hear them?

To those in this discussion who have openly stated their concern is maintaining an anti-Gamergate narrative in this article, I would warn you against excluding these videos from it. Feel free to include your arguments against the validity of the statement they're making. But don't cover up their existence. Because someone who did end up finding these from somewhere else might just think he'd been lied to on here, where he was told #NotYourShield is all just sockpuppets from 8chan on Twitter. And it a grave concern for this site's credibility and intended image and purpose as a voice of reason and skepticism if it starts constructing narratives based off selectively-admitted evidence, and people as a result start seeing it as just another propaganda outlet. 192.160.165.63 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

For someone with such a great dislike of mischaracterisations, you certainly seem to love mischaracterising the article. And not one word on the suggested rewording, taking the article from 'accurate' to 'accurate but more informative'? Ignoring that thread seems awful lot like an apologist's work, making the other criticisms seem not in good faith. Particularly given the sheer amount of noise you're making repeating the same point over and over again. Incidentally, "Rationality itself being an ideal one aspires to follow in their thinking by examining and analyzing the facts of an issue to produce a logically sound conclusion" is inaccurate. Rationality is about developing coherent (internally consistent) theories based on logic. Checking your working against reality is empiricism. Rationalism run amok without empiricism is a flaw a number of mildly-famous rationalists have, particularly those self-proclaimed rationalists who have thrown their support behind gamergate. OK, so RW's brief is actually empirical rationalism, but there's no lack of that on show. The article does not say that those earnest #NYS people don't exist. I've not spotted anyone on the talk page making that claim. So whither your mithering? Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"My understanding from my first glance at the site yesterday was that RationalWiki's image is based on, well, rationality" *DRINK* Typhoon (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I actually did manage to find the *DRINK* page before you linked it. Real cute. But it's convinced me my first impression about this place was indeed wrong, and that I've been far from the first person to have made that mistake. Seems I'll be wasting any further time I invest here if that's the prevailing culture. Take care, folks. Know I won't be missed and the feeling is mutual. 192.160.165.63 (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Assuming NYS is a shield assumes too much. Let's clear our slate for a minute. 1. People are angry about how the gaming media uses minorities. 2. Minorities agree, and create a hashtag to draw attention to this fact (NYS was invented by a black guy) 3. Evidence of no more than three sockpuppets come up and some jokes on IRC lead to NYSers writing notes to hold up in their selfies to prove that they aren't sockpuppets. Nearly everyone who is relevant to the hashtag does so (including myself as a Latino Black Jew). 4. GG uses NYS to prove that it's a concern about the gaming media, and not about "harassing women out of the gaming industry" (seriously, if that was the case Roberta Williams would have been made to fuck off a long time ago and less concentrated efforts to do so would be nothing new... guess what? She has said she's never been confronted with significant sexism.) 5. The "opposition" that only exists because of the media's and Quinn's defender's attempts to portray GG as something it's not decided to say that NYS is being used as a shield. This is not the case. NYS proves a point about what the true intention is.

"Many women hold misogynistic views"- being pro-life is "misogynistic"? Having different ideas of chastity and gender roles is "misogynistic"? Some of these may count as fucking stupid but I'm pretty sure I don't know any women who hold vitriol to their own gender. (Sad I can't say the same thing about men.) There is no reason for women to support women being harassed out of an industry, so the only intention left over is a) harass Zoe Quinn (HAHAHAHAHAHAHA IF YOU BELIEVE THIS I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO SAY), and b) talk about journalism, corruption and agenda. Guess what? GG hasn't harassed anyone out of the industry. In fact, the most vicious thing Wu ever received were the memes making fun of her dumb template on Memegenerator and the dox which has questionable legitimacy (considering that an image came out discussing the event that dated back to BEFORE it happened, and assuming the dox was legitimate, it was clearly unplanned. Yeah, it was her.) even she has admitted at times that she hadn't received much from GG since then.

As for Quinn, one could argue we want manipulative psychopaths out of the industry. I never participated in the postZoepostZoe harassment (I was watching with my BUENO face on, because quite frankly as nasty as some of it was it was the closest to retribution she was going to get for actually raping Eron and being an overall piece of shit) but it was never because she was a woman to anybody. There were some people just yelling at her and there were others who wanted her to fuck off. But it was NEVER because she was a woman, and this is undeniable.

Felicia Day has nothing to do with the gaming industry. Anita is only tangentially involved. Neither of them are even remotely relevant and Anita was only relevant for a while because her dishonesty is really hard to look at without calling her out for it.23.116.173.152 (talk) 20:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Some useful information on TFYC

[7] [8] —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how things are supposed to be formatted here, so here's what I've thought could be useful:

The winning entry in TFYC's indie game jam for women was to be developed by the Bogotá-based group Autobótika,<ref>http://pixietalksgamergate.wordpress.com/2014/09/16/tfyc-questions/</ref> with an all-woman staff listed on TFYC's website.<ref>http://www.thefineyoungcapitalists.com/Staff</ref> Autobótika's website, however, shows many men in the group, including TFYC's vocal spokesperson Matthew Rappard.<ref>http://autobotika.com/who-we-are</ref><ref>http://thefineyoungcapitalists.tumblr.com/post/97490126080/hey-matt-its-dad</ref> It has also been stated by Rappard on Twitter that Autobótika's team worked on the winning entrant's proposal,<ref>https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B47qerlCUAMp51k.png:large</ref> as well as all of the other entries in the competition. Don't expect Gamergate to care about this actual breach of ethics though.

I'm not sure if I'm doing it just right yet.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Tone, facts, snark, calling a spade a fucking shovel: I give it five stars, would c'n'p into the article again. Welcome to RW :-) - David Gerard (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

But the reference formatting is fine with bare URLs?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We try to avoid little blue numbers. URLs are fine. If the URL is unclear (e.g. a link to a web archive site) a bit of explanation would be appreciated.--TiaC (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I mean should we give page titles and stuff in the tags? Also, I learned that they're using the word "ludophobia" today to define their opponents (also "aggro" was used). Ludophobia derives from "ludophile" (a lover of games or puzzles) to invent a word to mirror being called a bunch of homophobes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The tag should give some idea what you are linking to and why if that wasn't already clear. For some links, the raw URL is enough, but if you are unsure go ahead and add a little more.--TiaC (talk) 06:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Bronze" status as an edit lock

I understand that as a controversial issue editing of this article being restricted might be a good idea. However, I also understand that the editing of this article boils down to like 12 people, same problem as Wikipedia. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if it was half of the same niggas as Wikipedia considering Ryulong psoted on the talk page.

So we have contributions from 12 people making what's probably in the top 5 longest articles of the site on a hot button issue. These 12 people control the output and stance of the article. Nobody else can edit the article, and the talk page has pointed out numerous problems and nothing is being done about them. In fact, nothing is being done with the article period, because "GamerGate" hasn't "harassed women" as of late and that damages the narrative.

I feel as if the Bronze status is completely undeserved, and more likely than not is just a way to lock off the editing from people who give a shit about the topic but hold different opinions and don't censor content that is inconvenient to the white knights of the round table.

I pointed out in a series of tweets to the Twitter account for this Wiki that this wiki is seriously biased. I have read the essay and I realize that you are OK with that. However, if you want to have a half decent wiki you can't censor facts you don't like by locking the editing and ignoring the talk page. You also can't play off Radfem Hub as "they probably weren't serious!!" and then have A Voice for Men redirect to a hit piece on its nigh-irrelevant founder. This is just me, but I also don't like the way Feminism and MRM are presented. Feminism is pretty much dick sucked and MRM has a huge section on why the MRM should just fold into feminism (disregarding the fact that neo-feminism always acts questions like "is chivalry dead??" despite it being feminists who got rid of it in the first place, and other examples of "benevolent" sexism being totally ignored by the movement) with a quote on the top of the page saying "MRM isn't doing anything!!" when anyone even remotely involved knows that this is mostly because of Feminism cockblocking them, such as Feminists boycotting that attempt back in the 80s(??) to open a men's shelter and the constant conversion of mixed shelter's to men's shelters, not to mention the "no hate speech on campus!! FUCK WARREN FARRELL!" video and Chanty Binx pulling a fire alarm, etc. Really, the spreadsheet around the middle makes decent points, but the MRM seems to be more concerned about male abuse (which the spreadsheet pretty much says "we'll give you that one") and societal issues and double standards (which are also a problem for women, but ironically, the MRM seems more concerned about double standards that hurt women than Feminism is about double standards that hurt men, speaking as an egalitarian pseudo-important tumblr blogger), so the spreadsheet is a red herring of its own. This is kind of ranty, but it shows that, for a wiki that is mostly about backing up opinions with evidence and logic, it kinda sucks at doing that a lot of the time and instead presents only facts that prove its points.

And as the top section pointed out, this page probably doesn't even belong on this wiki anyways.23.116.173.152 (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This tempest started in a teacup, moved to a teapot, and is now flaming along in a full sized trash barrel. It says more about the interests of a certain demographic than it does about the RationalWiki mission, and I would argue that from a gobal view, that demographic is limited in scope. Best thing for this page would be a successful AfD. Flux gate gamma (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk page locked now

Just had to suppress a string of revisions. FFS. It's locked for three months, maybe that's excessive, but it's not a parameter to iteratively experiment at the boundaries of - David Gerard (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I was worried for a while when the latest gator BoN started to directly link to illegal content along with the usual rambling. Typhoon (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

RW sysops anyone who isn't actually completely insane, so if there are any non-sysopped regulars who don't appear to be that particular variety of insane but feel a burning need to waste electrons here, ping me - David Gerard (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

It's about ethics in child pornography

So, FoldableHuman did an in-depth investigation of how much prevalent child pornography images are on 8chan. The Gamergate crowd has been acting incredibly butthurt about this on both twitter and r/KotakuinAction, culminating with him being doxxed. Ethics! Typhoon (talk) 17:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The really great thing: the article contains no mention of Gamergate, gamers or games.

The other really great thing? The /r/KotakuInAction poster was /u/RogueStarGamez.

The other other really great thing? 201 upvotes as I write this. This really is GG unambiguously attacking on behalf of a CP site - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you realize that every board has separate moderation, right? You also realize that child pornography isn't allowed on 8chan, right? You also realize that any malicious content that isn't deleted is the responsibility of the moderators of said board, right?

There are no "disguised child pornography" boards. Hotwheels hates CP, but he has a strict policy to allow everything legal. Unfortunately this tends to include revealing images of children.

/cuteboys/ isn't a pedo board, though it may sound like one. /hebe/, /younglove/ and arguably /loli/ are.

As seen here: [LINK TO CP SUPPRESSED]

And the GG mods are quick to clean up anybody acting stupid.

Also, you realize people come on the GG board to false flag and demotivate all the time, right?

One time somebody went in an all caps rage and doxed that IGDA guy who ended up on the blocklist. Upon further inspection of the wordwallrage they were decidedly anti but because it was on KIA it obviously became our fault. 23.116.173.152 (talk) 19:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a wonderful place to hang out. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I will admit it's no cakewalk to put up with the place, especially with the occasional /b/astard coming along and posting something like "let's rape zoe :DDD", shills posting things like "Look at this dumb cunt slut bitch, let's go harass her out of the industry!" while being painfully obvious (so obvious that they've stopped trying to be undercover and now post demotivational snark every now and then) and /pol/ posting things like "we have to remember that at the bottom of all this is cultural marxism!" (which is almost true) but the vast majority of content is sane people posting about journalism, corruption and agenda, and most of the movement is left-libertarian as shown by a graph I have on my SSD here.

The rest of the place is much less of a headache. Except the pedo boards. And the zoophilia boards. And the neonazi boards. Which I should point out Reddit also has.23.116.173.152 (talk) 21:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

We would be remiss to mention the 8chan owner's proposal to change to a hosting service used by NAMBLA. Or how they try to SWAT anyone who has presented the medium link for distributing CP. Or how Patreon decided to address the fact their service is funding harassers and kiddie porn and that led the site owner to decide to open a second account for videos on his cat which just happens to be named after the Japanese word for 8. Also I recall their line of reason for defending the site owner is because he is wheelchair bound due to a congenital disease that is totally the only reason he's notable if my conversations with gators on his other wiki talk page have been going.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that maybe we should begin an article on 8chan. This article is already long enough. Opinions? Typhoon (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't even have one on 4chan yet ... though possibly - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That's mainly because most of the 4chan stuff is covered by our article on Anonymous. Typhoon (talk) 14:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

That would suggest that 8chan is inherently notable separately from the Gamergate shit, which IMO it isn't. However, you can't dare let me say that on the other site because it counts as paid editing in the gator eyes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

We should have some sort of article on 4chan, & it's already on the to do list. 8chan is worth mentioning within that article as a breakaway chan site (I think there are others) but probably not significant enough for its own article at present. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

RW doesn't have "notability" as such, but basically almost everything there is to say about 8chan is (a) Gamergate (b) CP support for poor souls in dealing with these unacceptable urges and some pictures to help them deal with them - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Currently a redirect to the relevant section of this page, but I've added it to the to-do list - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I had some free time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

+1, and drink copiously in recovery - David Gerard (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Finally, someone documents all of Gamergate concisely and comprehensively

Reddit user /u/RexMundane - David Gerard (talk) 21:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

+1. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I think he actually hit every single event excent Sarkeesian on Colbert - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

To be a true send-up of The Aristocrats, it needs some incest and pedophilia. I laughed anyway. Thanks, David. Flux gate gamma (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

They defend the zoophilia boards too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the child porn defence came just days after ... - David Gerard (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Slight reorganisation

8chan is now a stubby starter article. Probably more of the 8chan refs in this article should be used there too.

I've also made post-Colbert a separate section. They had their best shot and their enemy beat them; GG is now in decline and fall. The child porn defense seems to have been actively driving away whatever slightly sane participants remained.

The post-section also needs a section on how the harassment continues to this day - David Gerard (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

What else to cover?

We need a list of stuff that could do with mention. Add more! - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

• The continuing harassment. GG is over as an interesting media event, but the harassment continues.
• Jimmy Wales interaction? It did get a fair bit of publicity in the wider world, all of which made GG look like frothing loons.
• Devs' opinions on GG. I've seen a coupla pieces noting just how much they hate it - it's destroyed their ability to interact with fans, for instance, without GG sealioning.
• Crib more from the Wikipedia article, particularly for sources.
• The ridiculous campaigns. These could be their own section.
• Fredrick Brennan writing for a neo-Nazi site is finally too much for Milo.[9][10] A neoreactionary asks him to at least not condemn the Nazis.[11]
• Jack fucking Thompson as an ally. Hatred, a literal Thompsonian "murder simulator".

Sounds good. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:46, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Needs some info on how Jimbo gave them a wikia to futz about on to make their own version of the Wikipedia article but with hookers and blackjack and instead made the hit list we already link to in their section. Unless it's already covered. I'm so tired right now that I don't feel like checking.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

This is arguably part of the whole Wikipedia saga. Did that start before or after Colbert? I vaguely recall it was before - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess the easiest way to check is by looking at the page history at the Gamergate Wikia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:59, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo made the page on November 12—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page

For the following reasons:

1. Protecting the talk page makes it impossible for non-RationalWiki-sysop editors to add their opinions, which gives the impression and perhaps the reality of surpressing alternate opinions, because almost all RationalWiki sysops think quite similarly.
2. One child-pornography-poster does not a valid threat make. Further, If more child-pornography-posters arrive, we can do the same as before, as we do an all other pages, very few of which have protection

If anyone disagrees, please tell me why. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 22:23, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, let's see what happens - David Gerard (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Rational?

What's the point of having a "Rational Wiki" if you insist on only looking at one side of the argument? Brooke (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

*DRINK*. -Typhoon (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see, claiming the name was a bad choice excludes you from having to present both sides of the argument. This whole article is "muh feels" with very few facts. Even the facts that are here are taken exclusively from one side. This is pathetic. Brooke (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Next thing you know we'll be accused of being part of The Media Conspiracy. Like we could ever be that organised... -- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There can also be an unorganized angry mob, a melee, etc. Landmartian (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki takes a rather special point of view. Please read our Mission statementбрэндэн (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Possibly we should find more of a happy medium between extensively-cited facts and made-up bullshit? ... nah, we're fine thanks - David Gerard (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Brooke has a point. It's so unfair when evidence contradicts your opinions. We should be more understanding of people struggling against reality. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

But... There's more evidence that's pro-gamergate than against it. Maybe the page should show some of that? ^{— Unsigned, by: 76.92.64.57 / talk / contribs}

It is literally Conservapedia but for lefties. 96.250.1.133 (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not. For a start, unlike Conservapedia, RationalWiki is not supposed to be a "rival" to Wikipedia or a "correction" to its "bias". It's just a wiki about a niche topic.--ZooGuard (talk) 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Conservapedia was created by people who disliked Wikipedia's perceived biases. They started with an emphasis on history, but eventually expanded into other topics. RationalWiki was created by people who disliked Conservapedia's perceived biases. RationWiki started with an emphasis on science, but eventually expanded into other topics. Conservapedia devotes at least 40 articles to showing why Wikipedia sucks. RationalWiki has a Conservapedia category with 26 sub-categories. Neither website attempts to be neutral, and clearly spel out their reasons for not attempting to do so. The main difference between Conservapedia and RationalWiki is why people look down upon each site. Conservapedia is full of idiots and stupidity, but it is correct when they say they are different enough from Wikipedia to be a separate website. RationalWiki has, to my knowledge, become more popular than the website it was created in response to. But unlike Conservapedia, which is mostly an small, isolated corner of ideology, RationalWiki has no reason to exist. Skepticism and calling out the bad behavior of Zealots is hardly fringe on the internet. Much of this website's content is covered by Wikipedia, and often takes similar stances to what's mentioned there. If Conservapedia is a pathetic hole in the ground for people scared of the universe, RationalWiki is a place where young men (this website's visitors are heavily younger men) can come to do the exact same thing, except in their case the universe is somewhat more welcome. But what would I know? I'm just a bunch of numbers... ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.118.180.29 / talk / contribs}

I thought this place existed to laugh at the quacks flocking to Citizendium rather than the inevitable slant at Conservapedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"There's more evidence that's pro-gamergate than against it." Oh, my. Did Zoe Quinn sleep with someone for a review? No. Have GG members been sending violent threats? Yes. Are 'SJWs' forcing their way into games? No. Does GG rhetoric display copious quantities of misogyny and racism? Yes. Are SJWs trying to censor games? No. Are GG member trying to censor journalists? Yes. I'd love to hear what pro-gamergate evidence you think there is. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is actually it's about ethics in games journalism. Did I just blow your mind? Ikanreed (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Auschwitz was actually about Jewish welfare, too. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 14:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Too far. Nullahnung (talk) 14:45, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Esepcially since I was not genuinely making the ethics in game journalism point. Ikanreed (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I didn't take it as such, Ikanreed. I was (perhaps ham-handedly) snarking the point that 'X is actually about Y, but not in the way a plain reading of the sentence without context might suggest'. I couldn't come up with a non-Godwiny example on the spur of the moment. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion...?

So I usually have better things to do than deal with whatever petty arguments fourteen year olds can come up with. Then most of my weekend tabletop group spent our cleanup time yesterday talking about GamerGate. I got online (for the first time in weeks) to do some research, and saw... quite a lot of bullshit and no-one really listening to anyone else. Here's my two cents, for what it's worth. This is actually an interesting little teakettle-tempest, worthless as the protests are.

There is a genuine problem with ethics in games journalism, in that there is a financial incentive for games news outlets to give positive reviews and press to games to try and ensure they do good, since the vast majority of their advertising revenue comes from the same companies whose products they write about. There is also a genuine problem with sexism in video games, in that there are far too many idealized and stereotyped depictions of both men and women in games today (or at least the ones with pretense towards realism and a cohesive story, most open ones tend to do a better job). Maybe rewrite the article so it focuses more on the massive strawmanning that both sides are targeting the other with, as well as the threats, harassment, and generally hypocritical incivility that's filled the whole argument? Plenty of gamergate supporters threatening people, plenty of people against them threatening right back and, as I've heard repeated ad nauseam (though i've no real way to confirm this, I'm looking for sources) at least two people with syringes/a pistol (?) mailed to them, though which side of the argument mailed to which tends to change back and forth a bit. 174.98.201.96 (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What is your take on this BoN? There are many branches of journalism that are plagued with similar conflicts of interest. For example car, electronics and audiophile magazines. All of which, at some time or another, have had their ethics questioned by their fan base. Yet, in none of those other genres did the debate descend into a madhouse of harassment. Is there something unique about the gaming community that it should be afforded a special accommodation for its behavior? --Inquisitor (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

My own field is one of the ones that has the potential for such conflicts, and with as passionate as the people involved get and as (sometimes ridiculously) passionate as the fans get, I can easily see it getting into as big a shitstorm if they each had roughly half of Tumblr and a major board of 4chan apiece to call their own. From what I've seen so far, I personally think this is actually two different movements, one for increased scrutiny of the ethics codes of major games news outlets and another for increased realism in characterization, that happen to be incorrectly fixating on each other. From what I've seen, there are virtually no arguments from people against Gamergate about how games journalism has no ethics problem, and virtually no arguments from the Gamergate supporters about how games aren't actually sexist. It'd be nice if it took place off the internet, so people could be reminded that they're talking to other actual people instead of a username.

to answer your actual question, that's making the assumption that "the gaming community" as a whole supports this. I'm a gamer, and heavily involved in video games in my free time (relatively speaking) and I only heard of this whole thing last night, and don't really disagree with either "side." Insofar as there's hostility, it seems to be a bunch of assholes calling themselves gamers, accurately or not, screaming at a bunch of assholes calling themselves feminists, accurately or not, with some reasonable people on each side mostly getting drowned out in the lunacy. I'd say hold the individual assholes to task for their behavior and leave the group as a whole alone. Like fundie loons. They're individual crazies, doesn't mean Christianity as a whole advocates for genocide. 174.98.201.96 (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not a gamer at all, and I've been hearing about this foolishness for weeks. I find it odd that a self-proclaimed gamer is only finding about all of this just last night. --Inquisitor (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of my time is taken up by vocal rehearsal of one form or another. The last two months in particular, since I've been preparing for four concerts within a fortnight of each other, an end-of-semester vocal assessment, and a Christmas Eve cantata. When I call myself a 'gamer,' it's in reference to the fact that I play and enjoy video games, mostly rhythm-based with a few open-world sandbox thrown in (love Skyrim, tho more for the instrumentals than the gameplay). That and, as I mentioned above, I'm rarely online. My research into this movement today marks the first time in several weeks I've used Chrome for anything other than looking up alternate keys for my music or checking my email, and obviously neither of those generally involves the latest whine to sprout from Tumblr's ulcered colon. 174.98.201.96 (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it does get busy for everyone at this time of year. So you're not up to date on "...the latest whine to sprout from Tumblr's ulcered colon". Can I take this to mean you have kept abreast of what the "other side" (presumably some multiple of 4chan) has been saying? or have you decided to drop the "a pox on both their houses" routine? --Inquisitor (talk) 06:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate was started with the explicit goal of trying to harass Zoe Quinn to the point that she would commit suicide. This is the entire reason that the movement exists. The shift to arguments about ethics only happened after the harassers realized they weren't going to be able to accomplish the above and tried to settle for destroying her career by tarnishing her reputation as a consolation prize. This has been publicly available information for over three months now. The fact that there are actual ethical problems with game journalism is completely irrelevant, since GG neither started in response to these problems (Jeff Gerstmann was fired for writing a negative review seven years ago for God's sake) nor has any intention of solving them (since they can't blame the actual problems on women or the dreaded "SJW's"). This "both your houses" approach is a joke. There aren't two sides here, just a small group of people desperately trying to ruin the lives of anyone they don't like. Abed Nadir (talk) 06:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your research consisted of, no. 174, but if you think there are "virtually no arguments from the Gamergate supporters about how games aren't actually sexist", you're way off. Check any of Thunderf00t's videos about Anita Sarkeesian, or any other videos/blogs by Sarkeesian-haters. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Inquisitor, pox on neither house would be more accurate. I agree with points made by both sides. Weaseloid, mostly just random Google searches to see what came up, I haven't actually gone to Youtube yet. Abed Nadir, you're right. There aren't two sides here, there are two entirely separate arguments, and neither camp is remotely listening to the other. This is why in my original post I suggested either rewriting the article or, and this might actually be a better plan now that I think about it, adding a prominent section near the top detailing the massive strawmanning going on on both sides of the argument and the bad-faith assumptions that seem to me to infest most attempts at conversation between people in different camps (though thankfully this conversation's avoided that so far.) 174.98.201.96 (talk) 13:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Try & look at this from our perspective: Some of us have been following - and chronicling - this saga to a greater or lesser extent since it first erupted this summer. You heard about it a day or two ago, did some cursory research consisting of Google searches, and are now suggesting we rewrite the article according to what you think is going on. Doesn't this seem a little unreasonable?

Stuff you find about Gamergate through internet searches can be misleading, because the people pushing the hashtag have been relatively successful in getting their talking points aired widely - it's all about ethics in journalism, SJWs want to enforce video game censorship, there's trolling and harassment on both sides - but that doesn't necessarily mean these claims are accurate.

If you want to research a bit further, this article is a good place to start. You don't have to agree with everything it says, but look at the sources cited re how Gamergate originated, developed and got perpetuated. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I realized that when I looked over my comments after a night's rest, which is why I amended my statement just above to include a suggestion that you might just put a section near the top of the article about it. As for my searches, I've found to the contrary that it's exceedingly difficult to find arguments supporting the ethics camp. And regarding the origins of the ethics camp (I certainly am interested in the development and current activities) I really couldn't care less. I take any given group of twits by what they say and do, not how they started. Origin means infinitely less than their current makeup.

One thing I would be interested in, albeit not as a matter of judgement but purely because I can't seem to locate it independently, is the origins of the sexism camp, whether they came to prominence solely as a reactionary twitch against the ethics camp or whether they existed beforehand as supporters of Quinn and Sarkeesian and whoever else and just decided to start mixing death threats and harassment with their anti-sexism rhetoric when the ethics camp popped up through whatever method.

There isn't an IRC I can access to carry this conversation on in real-time, is there? I have limited non-rehearsal time each day at this time of year, and a real-time conversation would be more efficient, I think, than refreshing the Recent Changes page every few minutes. 174.98.201.96 (talk) 14:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"the origins of the sexism camp, whether they came to prominence solely as a reactionary twitch against the ethics camp or whether they existed beforehand as supporters of Quinn and Sarkeesian and whoever else and just decided to start mixing death threats and harassment with their anti-sexism rhetoric when the ethics camp popped up through whatever method." wat. "how do you do, fellow kids." - David Gerard (talk) 14:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, are you taking umbrage at the way I phrased that, or is there some legitimate thing related to the statement I made that you'd like to talk about? 174.98.201.96 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your statement makes very little sense. The "sexism camp" and the "ethics camp" are both part of GamerGate, they aren't reactions to one another. In any event, the harassment and death threats against women who speak about sexism in the video game industry goes back long before the GamerGate hash tag. It's Sarkeesian's main claim to fame; she says she want to make some youtube videos about sexism and gaming and then gets bombarded by heaps of sexists harassment. Harassment against people speaking about actual ethics in video game journalism is essentially nonexistent. It's a red herring thrown out by people trying to distract from or minimize GamerGate's true nature which has, from the very start, been about women rather than ethics in games. If you want to be incredibly charitable towards GamerGate and ignore all the vitriol, you'll find that it is at best a movement opposed to socio/political analyses of video games. Under this light it's just an extension of the kind of childish backlash you see whenever someone criticizes a game that someone else likes. GamerGate has never been much for identifying actual issues regarding ethics in gaming journalism, of which they are obviously many and the backlash against GamerGate has never been about denying these issues exist. Marlow (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sarkeesian's main claim to fame is... complicated. And since we're likely going to disagree severely about her, I'm going to leave that at that. Keeping in mind that I've only known about this for a little over a day and a half, and don't particularly care about "sides" or puling children that claim that criticism is harassment (plenty of that in both camps), what I'm seeing from taking statements from both sides about themselves at face value is that the ethics camp are concerned with ethics in games journalism and the sexism camp is concerned with stereotypical representations of females in games media (personally, they could focus more on sexualization and stereotyping in general in my opinion, male characters get it just as bad, but that's their call). And, as I've said, that neither camp seems to give two shits about what the other is actually saying. The sexism camp makes their points, refuses to respond to the ethics camp's points, and claims that the ethics camp is actually about harassing women and keeping them from getting into the games industry. The ethics camp makes their points, makes barely any effort to respond to the sexism camp's points, and claims that the sexism camp is... a bunch of different things, most of them not remotely complimentary. Both of these claims about the opposite group fly in the face of good-faith assumptions about intent and actual observation of what the people in each camp are saying that aren't involved in abusing the members of the other camp.

I tend not to listen to people opposed to a particular camp when they try and define it for me, in the same way I wouldn't look to Christopher Hitchens for a definition of Islam. 174.98.201.96 (talk) 15:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC)^You are simplifying the issue immensely by categorizing it into an "ethics camp" and a "sexism camp". The truth of the matter is way more complicated than can be boiled down into your average forum post. If you are not concerned about Gamergate's origins, then consider what it is now. It is now a hashtag, the way these work is eventually with increasing popularity they become leaderless and anyone can claim them, thus you have vastly different people trying to claim the hashtag as being about one thing or another. Thus you have:

(1) some people genuinely concerned with legitimate concerns like financial ties between games companies and the games media who are using the hashtag (or you had these at some point, though their numbers seem to have dwindled in the wake of other groups using the hashtag taking it over as well as opposition to the hashtag ruining it for them via guilt by association), and then

(2) a lot of other people who are more concerned about pushing their political position of wanting less feminism in video-games-related media, and then

(3) another bunch of people who don't even care about video games and are just concerned with opposing "Social Justice Warriors" (I do not condone the use of this label) and then likely a

(4) or a (5) of even more different people.

This is not to say that (1), (2) and (3) are mutually exclusive, they overlap somewhat. Problematic behaviours like silencing women and social justice advocates (male and female) into silence via rape and death threats, doxxing, etc. are coming disproportionately from, it seems, groups like (2) and (3) listed above, which make up a large part of Gamergate, which is why the hashtag seems irredeemable to a lot of people. Nullahnung (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What's wrong with the label "social justice warrior"? Warrior may be a bit of an exaggeration, but going by what it actually means, it's basically a compliment. Kinda like "do-gooder". Bullies and bigots throw it around like it's an insult, but at its core, it denotes a very positive thing. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(EC)I don't want to derail this discussion too much with a long post about the problems of such a broad, dehumanizing, nuance-killing label, so I will instead refer you to this: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2014/09/04/gamergate-a-closer-look-at-the-controversy-sweeping-video-games/ Half-way down the page Erik Kain does a reasonabel job at outlining why the usage of such a word to put so many different people in a box is problematic. Nullahnung (talk) 16:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that anti-SJW people typically think the people they label as social justice warriors are only in it for personal benefit. But if that's the case, I'd say that strengthens the case for reappropriating the term. If they think all social justice warriors are in effect pretend-social justice warriors, what better way to disprove this notion than to proudly identify as social justice warriors en masse? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And how will that dispel the notion, exactly? The volume or proudness of proclamations is not the issue. The issue is (1) the lumping together of people who honestly care with the people who just care to make themselves look better, (2) the lumping together of people who are kickstarting initiatives to improve society with people who just sit on their asses talking about the improvements that could be (the "slacktivist" notion of "SJWs"), (3) the lumping together of people who shout at you about an issue with people who just want to have civil education and discussion about an issue (the "puling child" notion of "SJWs"). If anything needs to be dispelled, it is this lumping and dehumanization under one label which is just a distraction from each individual and each individual issue that deserves examination in its own right. Nullahnung (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"Social Justice Warrior" is a term roughly equivalent to "slacktivist" combined with "angry, puling child." It refers to those members of social justice advocacy movements who most closely approximate third-wave "feminists." Which, on that topic, Nullahnung I'd personally classify (1) as the actual ethics camp and those who are solely (2) or solely (3) as "assholes who happen to use the same moniker as the ethics camp." Just like how, for example, I'm a feminist and most of the screeching loons on Tumblr who were the original subjects of the "Social Justice Warrior" slur are assholes who happen to call themselves feminists. Claiming a name doesn't mean you actually represent the name. Just like how the anti-sexism camp is represented by people like Quinn, who are trying to make games with more realistically-written characters or advocate for it, and then has people like that loon, whoever it is, that sent a syringe to Yiannopoulos and got some cartoonist on Tumblr fired from her job. They may claim to be part of the anti-sexism camp, but their actions speak more to a desire to hurt than a desire to advance the quality of games writing. 174.98.201.96 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You can talk all you want about who is the actual tr00 ingredient for the sides, differentiating between "real advocates" and "assholes", but the truth of the matter is that all of these elements play a role and consitute the situation that the hashtag is in. Unless you have statistics on how large each group really is you have to just continue looking at sources and make up your mind about the proportions that Gamergate consist of. As you can see, the sources cited in the article have prompted RationalWiki to make up its mind about what the proportions are and they are in favour of (2) and (3). Nullahnung (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. That's one of those bad-faith assumptions I was talking about earlier, and one of the reasons I'm thinking I'll just leave the entire thing, both camps, alone, get back to my rehearsal, and come back in a few months and see what, if any, miniscule reaction the actual entertainment industry has had to the chucklefucks who think that their puling idiocy will ever actually affect how sexist video games are or how corrupt journalists are. 174.98.201.96 (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it's best to leave this and live in blissful ignorance. Sometimes I kinda wish I'd just not followed this whole thing... and be like most of my gamer friends who have either never heard of Gamergate or just decided not to follow the issue. Nullahnung (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd call it the "anti-sexism camp" rather than the "sexism camp" if you're referring to people opposed to sexism in video games. Where are you seeing people using GamerGate to discuss actual issues of ethics in video game journalism? The thing about GamerGate is that more or less everyone who isn't a part of it is opposed to it. It's nature is quite obvious, which is why you'll find almost nothing positive about it in the media. It's only supporters are far right publications like Breitbart, reactionary figures like Milo Yiannopoulos and long term anti-feminist crusaders like Christina Hoff Sommers, all of whom quite obviously don't give a single shit about video games and instead see this as an opportunity to raise their profile among a new generation of potential anti-feminists. 16:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Anti-sexism camp, if you prefer, then. As for the discussions, quite a lot on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter now that I'm looking about for them. Though the more I look into this the more I'm thinking I should just take another break from the Internet and wait for both of these utterly ineffective camps to close up shop and realize that they'll never actually change anything.

As an aside, Christina Hoff Sommers is in matter of fact a feminist, and one whose videos I find educational on the rare occasions I have time to watch one straight through. At least she is if feminism is defined as "a desire to see both genders brought to an equal playing field on a legal and societal scale." 174.98.201.96 (talk) 16:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read this to get an idea of the conflicts between Christina Hoff Sommers and feminism: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christina_Hoff_Sommers Nullahnung (talk) 16:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any actual conflict there, mostly just factual statement of her unpopular opinions. She has some truly weird stances, true, but in that she still advocates for societal and legal equality she's still, assuming that's the definition in use (and I hope it is, because otherwise we get into third-wave "feminism"), a feminist. 174.98.201.96 (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that, unlike Sommer's "equity" bullshit, third-wave feminism is widely considered to be a form of feminism. Typhoon (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Part of why its is wrong to frame this as an 'ethics' vs an 'sexism' argument is because the people who want to frame GG as an ethics thing have only a vague notion what ethics in journalism actually looks like. What it mostly boils down to is that they think it is unethical to write things they do not like. Most of them do not like people taking a look at games from a critical perspective. They actually want games to be reviewed only be people who like the games. Seriously, google that manifesto. So these are not two sides with different arguments that are engaging only strawman arguments from the other side, gamergaters actually find it unethical that sexism is being discussed in relation to games. 62.145.204.23 (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2014 (UTC) 62.145.204.23 (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

A writeup of poor widdle Eron's fine work

Worth digesting into the article. [12] [13] - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong.

1. Eron broke up with Zoe, not the other way around. 2. He clearly says he put up the Zoepost as a warning to the industry of a manipulative psychopath. 3. "evidence" he made the r9k thread is inconclusive. He knew about it. 4. The Zoepost talks about how, in Zoe's own words, Eron was raped. "Poor widdle" indeed. 5. He gave a few nuggets of advice and contribution, followed by "but seriously do what you want", "but seriously I don't care", etc. Never source WHTM ever. That guy is a fucking mastermind at presenting things contrary to the text and having his dumbass readers believe them. The mammoth hunt is more like a witch hunt, because he'll never find enough actual misogyny to run a blog on.23.116.173.152 (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither Zoe Quinn nor Eron Gjoni described her actions as rape. That's a rather sensationalist misquote that keeps being bandied about by those who love to stone the adulteress. But read the Zoe Post properly and Eron comes across as really quite a manipulative guy within as well as after the relationship. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(am I doing this right?) I will admit that when I talked about the rape it was hearsay, but I have no reason to believe anything else at the moment, and Zoe Quinn has demonstrated suspicious promiscuity even outside of the Five Guys (see Wolf Wozniak @Ouren's tweets) so I still do not feel any sympathy for Quinn, in addition to the fact she's making money and getting attention out of all of this.23.116.173.152 (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

"suspicious promiscuity" - but no, it's not at all about publicly shaming women for being sexual. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 21:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

"getting attention out of all this" Yeah, receiving all those rape and death threats must be a dream come true for her... Seriously, what horrible things has she done to make her ineligible for moral consideration to you? >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Bandai Namco

A GGer sent BN a request for support. BN sent back a form letter saying they were just making games. GG touted this as support. BN actually had to issue a statement otherwise. gg GG - David Gerard (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Put it into article 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 21:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Explanation of imageboard culture

[14] Attempts to neutrally explain how we got here. Might be useful - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a useful source for an eventual 4chan article, explains how some of the more cancerous boards got to be (mentioning /pol/). Nullahnung (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If there's only one thing bothering me about the article...

...it's that 'gators aren't so much focused on feminism as they are against anything that falls under the "social justice" banner. Women's issues are naturally the biggest part, but there's also LGBT themes and the representation of ethic and religious minorities. There are a lot of 'gaters (the ones who arn't outright bigots) who think that game developers are being pressured or "forced" to make their titles more inclusive, which they feel limits creative freedom (the old "PC out of control" nonsense). So while they still hate feminists and other women who speak out, it would be remiss not to mention their dislike of other oh-so-icky "social justice" issues. In other words, they're not just playing around with misogyny, but also dabble in homophoba, transphobia and even casual racism. --Paul S (talk) 06:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Click edit :-D - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess my problem is figuring out how to cleanly edit that in. --Paul S (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You guys were right

After seeing the transphobia of the pro-gamergaters I'll admit it. You were right. Sanelib (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Sanelib

If it helps you feel better, they've almost certainly gotten worse over time as moderate-ish people caught on to what was going on. Ikanreed (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Houston Press summary

This is excellent - David Gerard (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And they weren't the only one. I found this list on Wikipedia's GamerGate controversy talkpage:

• Bloomberg: "The year just ended was a banner year for misogyny—review the scandals of GamerGate"
• The Boston Globe: #GamerGate brought to mainstream attention a problem that had been bubbling under the surface of gamer culture for years: A small but vocal minority of gamers have a real problem with the medium’s broadening fanbase.
• The Boston Globe: Five takeaways from the year in gaming: Gaming isn’t immune to reactionary politics. Luckily, GamerGate has fallen out of the headlines, back to the under-the-radar online redoubts where it belongs. But even though it was an embarrassing episode that probably set back gaming as a mainstream pursuit, it was interesting to follow. When you stripped away the flimsy facade of complaints about “ethics in gaming journalism” (a phrase that became a deserved punch line-meme), GamerGate’s proponents were making an argument straight from far-right playbooks — that the “traditional” (gaming) culture was moving too fast, that minorities were being granted special benefits and fawning treatment, partly as a result of assistance from their complicit, overly “PC” majority allies. This was a decades-long culture-war skirmish wrapped in new packaging — nothing more.
• Wired: "Actually, It’s About Ethics in Journalism" Not only do we derive joy from mocking hateful, spineless Gamergate dirtbags who wish violence on other humans as punishment for seeking respect, we also enjoy turning your rallying cry into a textbook indicator that some very hilarious mansplaining is about to occur. Thanks for the LOLs this year, you guys (if not the basic human decency).
• The Washington Post: Although we’ve known for years that to many video games portray women in a distasteful, negative, and sexist way, it took Anita Sarkeesian being threatened with a shooting massacre, just for taking a stand against these portrayals, to make us realize that it’s time for the video game culture to change.
• The Irish Examiner: Though it was inevitable gaming would eventually have a conversation with itself about sexism, it was a shame it took the form of Gamergate, the clunky affix applied to the deluge of online vitriol directed towards several outspoken female gaming figures.
• The Guardian: Yet 2014 seems to have been the year that “Twitter” and “rape threat” became synonymous. It’s also been the year that sexism in video game culture hit the mainstream with Gamergate.
• The Hamilton Spectator: In August, the Gamergate controversy exploded in all it misogynistic gore exposing the virulent sexism lurking not so deep beneath the surface of gamer culture. The women involved had their personal information leaked online and were subjected to death and rape threats, some had to move or otherwise restrict their freedoms for fear of their safety. Gamergate is the direct result of women standing up for equal access and fair representation in an industry dominated by men.
• Metro: Metro GameCentral video games review of 2014 – things can only get better: Back in October GamerGate was at its poisonous height, a movement so illogically motivated it would almost be funny – if it weren’t for all the rape threats that sent several female developers and industry figures into hiding. Ignoring the fact that the incident that inspired GamerGate was quickly proven to have never happened the supposed goal was to enforce higher standards of games journalism; something which proponents decided would be best achieved by harassment and death threats.
• Digital Trends: Here’s hoping culture clashes take a back seat to great games in 2015: That term sprung up in response to a string of opinion pieces discussing the “death” of the less savory aspects of gamer culture. It was also closely connected to the public airing of a female game developer’s dirty laundry. From these events, GamerGate quickly became synonymous with a vague, undefined call for “ethics in game journalism.” Harassment, doxing, misinformation … these are the tools of the Internet’s cowardly anonymous. The long progression of events that led one thing to the other is immaterial at this point. What is important is the way GamerGate exposed what has long been a dark underbelly of the games-loving community. Certain people lean on the comfort of anonymity to attack those they disagree with, and oftentimes that comes out in socially unacceptable, even downright reprehensible ways. Harassment, doxing, misinformation … these are the tools of the Internet’s cowardly anonymous. Whatever the term “GamerGate” means to you, personally, it’s been weaponized by this nameless minority – make no mistake, it is a minority – that will to go to unseemly lengths in expressing their discontent.
• WBUR, The Artery: Dwarves And Dungeons, Science And Tech: The Year In Geek Culture: 2014 also brought us the deplorable Gamergate controversy, which flared across the Internet, got ugly, and spilled into the real world. Possibly initial legitimate concerns about ethics in the field of video game journalism—some gamers were making accusations about corruption and favoritism—were quickly discredited, and forgotten, when others made threats of violence, rape and death to those who disagreed. Two women key to the controversy, Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu, are local. As Wu wrote in the Washington Post, “Supporters say they want to address conflicts of interest between the people that make games and the people that support them. In reality, Gamergate is a group of gamers that are willing to destroy the women who have invaded their clubhouse.” Let’s hope those men who feel threatened by female inclusion in the video game industry find more productive ways to express their frustrations and grievances.
• Post-Bulletin: ‘Gamergate’ fallout may be positive in the long run: Much of the past year in gaming was marred by a quasi-Internet-driven movement known as "gamergate." The phrase was almost immediately associated with violent, social-media-driven comments directed at female game developers and writers, namely those who dared to speak out about the boys club that has long been the video game medium. Gamergate is convoluted, but it's driven by a fear that criticizing games for misogyny or a lack of social awareness will result in a politically correct makeover of the medium.

Typhoon (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Collusion with Wikipedia and censoring unwanted opinions

You guys aren't really doing yourselves any favors by talking to Ryulong who has actually been paid to portray GG negatively and other Wikipedians. Hell, here on the talk page you propose borrowing from the Wikipedia article (which opens up saying that GG is about defending sexism in the first sentence, Jesus fucking fuck, and has other misinformation such as the bomb threat mentioning GG anywhere.) Maybe bring up the fact that an extremely cheesy "we are anonymous we HATE brianna wu!!!" image popped up and the metadata said the picture was from before Wu actually got any threats, implying she had planned everything? Anita and Wu don't even use the "harassment blocklist" for fucks sake. Or the fact that a women's charity was shut down by most likely SJW hackers claiming to be Indiegogo staff (despite grammatical errors and other tipoffs) because GG was donating to it. OH, or that Quinn and Kotaku editors took selfies together on a bed. Not to mention that some articles completely ignore the ethics part or downsize it to "but nobody actually cares" and say the goal is something that it's clearly not, or, my personal favorite, say that it's "not clear". Or Hatred getting its developers accusations of Nazism (don't take ANYTHING on a blog called "Fuck no, Video Games" seriously. Seriously.), getting boycotted, and getting pulled from Steam because it's "violent!! ;__;." But everyone knows the actual reason is because it shows defiance to the new attempts to censor or change video games, which certain people don't like. Also, while I was typing this, Ryulong reverted several edits someone made where facts were pointed out including something talking about why something illegal wasn't actually illegal. So. Yeah. http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AGamergate&diff=1403547&oldid=1403546 --70.195.193.209 (talk) 00:11, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you worked out that nobody believes any of this? - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

deleted 70.195.201.225 (talk) 01:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Selfies on a bed? My goodness, how thoroughly debauched. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This guy is hilarious. Next he'll say the SJWs paid me to edit here instead of Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

After "ethics" GamerGate has now also ruined the word "collusion" for me. Typhoon (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It was the most pissweak doxing in history, but in any case the talk page is autoconfirmed as well for a few days - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Gamergate SWATing... but with a concerning twist.

Didn't want to put this on WIGO, but thought it was significant enough to bring to attention, espcially given the recent discussions about doxxing. According to Ars Technica, a former Gamergate supporter who left the movement due to recieving anti-trans sentiments got SWATed recently, wasting the time of twenty police officers... who were sent to the wrong house. It had been an old address -- the victim had moved elsewhere earlier. Thankfully, Portland police had suspicions that it was a prank call and just sent them as a precautionary act, but still. It's a harrowing thought. Noir LeSable (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It's just harmless internet threats. Oh that and uncalled for paramilitary raids that sometimes get innocent people killed... Wait. Actually it's about ethics in games journalism. Ikanreed (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

A technology journalist who covered the swating incident has also been doxed at 8chan as a result. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I've also added the DDoS on a webcomic site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The talking point now is that since the attacks are being carried out by a different board hosted by 8chan that means GG had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, they continue to insult and dehumanize people they don't like. I feel really sorry for those involved who have genuine concerns about the state of games journalism. --Paul S (talk) 20:55, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't feel sorry for those people at all. 8chan's depravities & depredations can hardly come as much of a surprise to anyone. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still mostly galled that people who can't take responsibility for their movement's behavior still talk about "ethics." Their need to cast themselves as lily white and pure when they're on a fucking chan site just undermines any hope of credibility. That they don't grasp the core incongruity is just baffling. I don't expect people to be perfect, but this is just zero self-awareness. Ikanreed (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

MALE TEARS

[15] re: [16]

My current theory is that Gamergate are actually all deep cover cultural Marxists - David Gerard (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you please stop with that stupid meme, please? Thank you.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I couldn't really tag them RATIONALIST TEARS - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A perfect encapsulation of how gaters think.

[17] Talking about how reasonable said person is while saying she crawled out from hell? Yup. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It says she is hated by reasonable people, not that she is reasonable. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. As this person is posturing that he is reasonable, then later gives an insult laden sentence. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 22:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

JBS pamphlet recycled into Gamergate manifesto

[18] Apparently someone posted an old John Bircher manifesto on Roosh V's pro-GG gaming site Reaxxion and replaced "communists" with "SJWs", and "JBS" with "Gamergate". That's some master trolling.--137.111.13.200 (talk) 04:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Nominate for Silver Brainstar

Reasons: 222 references (Wiki's article only has 144), quite comprehensive about the history of GamerGate, and readable. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 03:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

+1 And is one of the go-to articles in the wider world - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll third this. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 14:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

-1. The sheer number of references does not necessarily make a good article, neither the fact that it's an entry point. It still has instances of bad writing, bad framing and bad reasoning, e.g. sentences that treat "Gamergate" as a monolithic entity, or a living thing with agency.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Which specific bits seem unduly monolithic and/or teleological to you? - David Gerard (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

In the very introduction there are wording choices implying agency and text that can be read as describing it as an organized group, instead of the banner of a chaotic, angry mob. Examples of the former: "Gamergate started ..., adding claims of ethics later"; "Despite claiming to be... the aim of Gamergate is..."; "...allowing Gamergate to enlist...". Examples of the latter: the second and third paragraphs of the introduction, including the aforementioned "... the aim of Gamergate is to eliminate ..." sentence. And that's just the introduction.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Gmaergate is legion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That didn't end good for the poor pigs.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, no. They are in fact an organised group, so I don't see a reasonable objection to speaking of them as a group - David Gerard (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there is not an organized group in the sense I used. There are the occasional organized operations, but they qualify as "organized" only in the same way a organizing a flash mob or a boycott does.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I think it's clear it's a way more consistent group than that. Certainly to the extent that pretending it isn't a group is incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

+0.5. Seems roughly comparable to another mid-silver rated manufactuversy article. More depth here, a dash more verbal polish there. Ikanreed (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@ZooGuard: Silver means "worth reading, not perfect", not "worth reading, impeccable" -- that's gold. The article is worth reading, because it is so well-sourced, and so it can be so well-assured of being near the truth.

That makes +2.5. If it gets to +3.0, I'll silver. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

+1 A lot of time has been put into this article and it shows.--TiaC (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

+0.999999999999999 repeating.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That makes +4.499999999999999r, which is greater than 3.0. Silvering. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

ZooGuard's vote is negative, so I think you mean +2.4999999... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

+1 from Fuzzy. +1 from David. +1 from Zero. -1 from ZooGuard. +0.5 from Ikan. +1 from TiaC. +0.999999999999999r from Ryu. That makes 1+1+1-1+0.5+1+0.999999999999999, which equals 4.499999999999999r. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:26, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't know 0.999...?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fuzzy Ah, I see. I forgot to count your vote and Zero's. @Ryu Also, 0.999... only equals 1 because regular math ignores infinitesimals. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Most proofs suggest otherwise.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I've seen proofs that 0.999r = 1. Pls show a proof that 0.999r =/= 1. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

What those proofs actually prove is that decimals are the Devil's work, and that you can only trust honest fractions. Decimals lead to decimalism! - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{A ⇒ ¬A.} 05:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh god, please don't open those flood gates. This is one of those topics that pointlessly divides nerdy communities for no good reason. It's bad, because even though I know the consequences, I have to point out that a convergent infinite sum is absolutely mathematically equal to its convergent value. You have to take some very strange predicates to find otherwise. Ikanreed (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggested changes

Today, it's more morphed from "grr...Women" to "Grrrr...anyone who dares be against gamergate". Could the page be adjusted to reflect this? SnoopDogma (talk) 18:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

This is recurring issue since day one, but the fact that some men are being targeted as well as some women doesn't change the fact that Gamergate is misogynistic in root & branch. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that in its later stages it has diversified - David Gerard (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it diversification so much as target incontinence. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 09:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

What about the women AND men targeted by SJWs? I guess it's okay when it's your side. "There are no bad tactics, only bad targets" 74.108.17.194 (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

If you think 'SJW's have targeted anyone in the way that #GG frequently targets people, I have a very nice bridge to sell you. That said, anyone being a needless dick over their ideology is probably fair game on RW. If you find some actual examples, add them to the relevant page. Please make sure they are actual examples of harassment, though. Lists of 'SJW bullying' I've seen bandied about by the GG side of things have been something of a joke. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess threatening to murder and rape someone's children is a "joke" when it's an acceptable target. And of course you put SJW in quotes - since this website is SJW as fuck. Literally Conservapedia of the left. 74.108.17.194 (talk) 14:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess reading comprehension isn't your strong suit - when I say "Lists of 'SJW bullying' I've seen bandied about by the GG side of things have been something of a joke" I mean that the lists turn out to be piss-weak, containing no actual harassment but plenty of argumentation and the occasional insult - not that the items listed are jokes that shouldn't be taken seriously. I can see how you would get confused, though, seeing as how standard protocol for #GG is to claim that harassment was just a joke and shouldn't be taken seriously. I tend to put 'SJW' in quotes because, in the mouths of #GG, it doesn't mean much more than 'anyone who doesn't agree with us 100%'. Also, why is being a SJW a bad thing? Social justice is good, surely? The more, the better. Even if you can cough up a genuine example of harassment to try to make your point, it doesn't really change that much, as the sheer volume of fucknuttery spewing out of #GG swamps any poor behaviour going the other way. In either case it's bad. But when one side has a dribble of harassment, and other is often nothing but a torrent of harassment, it's pretty obvious which of the two has completely abandoned the moral high ground. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Why on earth do you think threatening to rape and murder someone's family is something to be justified, or swept under the rug? Because you're a hypocrite.74.108.17.194 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Queex doesn't think that "threatening to rape and murder someone's family is something to be justified". You haven't provided any examples of this occurring on the SJW side, and Queex hasn't defended it. So... What point are you making? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I get the distinct impression that the BoN has a whiskery face and a cruel desire for raw fish. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 18:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This

Shit like Gamergate is why you never let 4chan take control of something you want taken seriously. Necromancer 03:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate: making 4chan look morally upright and wholesome - David Gerard (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think what we learnt from this whole experience is that in fact /b/ can be your personal army, so much so they are willing to abandon /b/ over it. - π 11:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Counterpoint: 4chan was essentially where gamergate started. There was no one to "take control" from. Ikanreed (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

"4chan did it!" is textbook ad hominem. As if 4chan is somehow "Evil" compare to any other internet forum like reddit, tumblr, or somethingawful. 74.108.17.194 (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what's going on. We're falsely attacking the people instead of the stellar arguments like "I'm gonna kill you". Ikanreed (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Punchline

I can't help but feel that this is the perfect article for a:

'==Who are these people?== The aristocrats.'

punchline at the end. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 12:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Been done, of course. (I think that actually covers everything except Colbert.) - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it dead yet?

I haven't heard of them finding themselves any new targets for a while, and they've been bleeding non-hardliners for months. Is it down to "trapped in its own self-reinforcing corner of the internet to only occasionally be acknowledged ever again" yet? Ikanreed (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Anita and Brianna were on ABC's Nightline last night. Gamergate's attacking their interviewer Juju Chang as we speak.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much. Now the targets just need to be able to go home again - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate has been declared dead many times over. Maybe if you weren't fixated on presenting a false narrative that GamerGate is about harassment of women you'd know that PC Gamer recently got caught with a conflict of interest, apologized, and promised to do the right thing in the future: http://www.pcgamer.com/a-note-on-disclosure/ . By the way, this is my first post here. I used to know about RationalWiki as a skeptic and atheist, but never contributed. As a skeptic, the mainstream coverage of GamerGate is a joke. I can understand Wikipedia has to follow source rules, and the mainstream media is going with a certain angle, but you guys can think for yourselves and evaluate non-Wikipedia sources and use some common sense. Chrimony (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's nice that PC gamer is reforming. Aaaaand did #GamerGate cause that? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 00:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, if this kind of incredibly minor ethical consideration is the focus of the GamerGate movement why does it spend so much of its energy attacking unrelated so-called SJWs? If this was all GamerGate was about it wouldn't be controversial in the slightest. Marlow (talk) 01:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Because they have cooties, obviously.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

SJWs are the other side of the GamerGate coin -- they aren't unrelated. It's not just ethics. But duly noted that you think undisclosed conflicts of interest are "incredibly minor", which of course is why the mainstream media or even gaming media never thinks it's worth reporting on. I guess that's why there's not a single reference anywhere to Patricia Hernandez and her reviews of tenants/friends/lovers, something GamerGate uncovered early on. Chrimony (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, GamerGate uncovered it and brought it to attention: https://twitter.com/thefartrises/status/555547927255732225 http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/2sh55k/tyler_wilde_the_pc_gamer_writer_who_compared_the/ http://gamesnosh.com/pc-gamer-owns-conflict-interest/ http://blogjob.com/oneangrygamer/2015/01/gamergate-pc-gamer-editor-has-conflict-of-interest-with-ubisoft/ Chrimony (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations. Gamergate has uncovered another person getting laid. - π 03:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations. You're another poster on "Rational" Wiki handwaving away an ethics violation: "Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived. Disclose unavoidable conflicts." http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp Chrimony (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we could add this into the article. It shows one of the rather few successes of Gamergate and how it also seems to touch back on sex. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And by success you mean the company was already avoiding conflict of interest and made the smallest step possible to placate the angry mob. - π 04:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's more of a "success" than a success. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh huh. So that's why they furiously started deleted articles when it happened, the guy changed his Facebook profile picture, and realizing that it was all too late, they did the right thing and admitted their mistake and promised not to do it again? It's funny, when GamerGate finds stuff you guys minimize it to the extreme, but when some anonymous jackass sends a threat, it's front page news and all of GamerGate is tarred with the brush. "Rational" and "skeptics" here, right? Chrimony (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you please provide links to the furious deletion of articles? Because, from our perspective, it looks more like a slight change of official, public policy for PR reasons. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

http://gamesnosh.com/writer-for-pc-gamer-tyler-wilde-revealed-to-have-undisclosed-relationship-with-the-communications-associate-at-ubisoft/ "He even tried covering this up, he changed his Facebook profile picture while we were saving stuff https://i.imgur.com/i5nd27y.jpg. These two live together, and the guy did a lot more articles on Ubisoft, never disclosed it More: here he recommended Far Cry 4 without having played it https://archive.today/ZTeBq here he shilled Watch Dogs on his Youtube channel, video is now unavailable https://imgur.com/nyWcTl7" Chrimony (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then it is more than just a PR fix, and may count as the single Gamergate success. Thank you for subbstantiating.

I have a question: If this is what happened, does this singular success (literally getting one person to stop reviewing video games with a conflict of interest) justify the massive amonts of hate seen from Gamergate? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I dispute both that it was a "singular" success and that there has been "massive amounts of hate seen from GamerGate". I already mentioned Patricia Hernandez, but you won't find any mainstream article on that, will you? Her Kotaku reviews were silently updated with a little note at the end to note the conflict of interest: http://wiki.gamergate.me/index.php?title=Patricia_Hernandez . Policies have been reformed at game journals, in particular with regards to Patreon. IGN came out publicly with a ethics policy this year. The mainstream media has been exposed as yellow journalists. Money was raised for charities. Alternative game sites have gotten exposure. The FTC reacted in response to GamerGate complaints. Hatred was reinstated on Steam. More people than ever are aware of the SJWs and their agendas. Chrimony (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate likes to go on and on about Hernandez and the fact that no mainstream news article or even no fucking video game website goes over it means it doesn't mean shit in the end. Nor does the fact that Gamergate would not stop harassing people who dared to submit to a Patreon or Kickstarter because it's frankly against the SPJ's guidelines. No one has been exposed as "yellow journalists". Gamergate has done nothing but attempt to weaponize its donations by like buying bullying credits. Alternative game sites have not gotten exposure, they're just being flocked to by Gamergate because they wrote shit that they liked and called out the "SJW press" they hate now because none of those people are journalists and none of them do any actual fucking research they just post shit to get clicks which is what you all fucking hate in the first place. The FTC has not reacted to anything; they apparently had something before Gamergate was a thing and Gamergate has just claimed it as one of their victories. Hatred is not a victory. And if you think that "SJWs and their agendas" are something people should be aware of then you really need to look in the mirror and ask why you hate feminism, LGBT rights, and attempts to reverse the trends of racism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

(EC) You dispute the hate of Gamergate. Our article only has about 200 references to instances of it.

You list all these changes -- I think you need to prove that they exist and that they were caused by actors within the Gamergate movement, and not merely a side effect of the increased publicity surrounding video game reviewing.

"More people than ever are aware of the SJWs and their agendas." What, the agenda to not have women be sexually-interesting background characters in video games? Really sinister.

Also: Chrimony, you have your sources about how Gamergate apparently reformed PC Gamer. Can you reformulate them into an edit that we could add into the section for actual achievements of Gamergate? (Ie, write up text and put those in as references.) 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 20:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

False narrative

"false narrative that GG is about harassment of women" Yeah, wherever did we get that idea? Maybe it was in one of the 3700 pages that GG spent in its first week discussing how badly they wanted Zoe Quinn to be raped and killed. And planning how best to drive her out of the industry. Seriously, do you fuckers honestly think we're stupid enough to not have noticed? Or are you just that ignorant of your own origins? Abed Nadir (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And how about the fact that we don't really fuck on her, anymore except for the paranoid cunts who look into her for "industry connections"? How about the fact those screencaps are from early in all this shit, when it was just about her, and the fallout of the Gamers Are Dead articles went down? How 'bout that shit, huh? 108.219.226.24 (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh of course, the old "we don't care about Literally Who anymore" line. Bullshit.

"I’ve been trying to take a day to just be a regular person, recenter myself, and have the energy to get back to work with the same enthusiasm I tend to have, but every attempt gets cut short by some fresh, new, horrible news about someone trying to get into my accounts, a new asinine conspiracy theory being used as an excuse to dox people I went to high school with, friends freaking out because anonymous message board people are talking about how to mail them bombs, or just another death threat. At least the death threats have become somewhat routine.

"Keep in mind that I’m also writing this about 3,000 miles from the home it’s no longer safe to be at while we try and figure out how to move on from this meteor hitting us and be people again. I miss sleeping in my own bed, having my own space. I miss my cat."

If you weren't a hate movement, you would be trying to fix this. Stop the harassers. Abed Nadir (talk) 05:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It's no use. They haven't become self-aware yet. We're slowly staving off the rise of Skynet the longer this happens.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

>Genuinley, un-fucking-ironically calling us a hate movement.

...

Why the fuck do I even....

We don't care about her trolls, because that's all they are, trolls. Besides, she's been proven to manufacture her own controversy. Oh, and Ryulong, don't think we don't know that you are collaborating with Wikipedia editors and purposely making our article bias. 108.219.226.24 (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Please. I asked one fucking person to fix some fucking grammatical errors and then realized that content was missing six fucking hours after someone else wrote about it on the talk page. And guess what? The whole reason Wikipedia exists is to collaborate between people. If you idiots didn't shit yourselves every time I wanted to fix a stray comma on that page I'd be editing it day and night.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)