From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, (new)(back)

All I'm asking for is a rebuttal[edit]

Instead of putting fucking boxes around what I'm saying. Why can't people just take a look at Randi Harper's findings which I've already linked, and explain to me why this is not mentioned in the GG article. This is *NOT* the same-old talking point. This is new, recent evidence. If no one is willing to look at it, then my claim stands: this article is bigoted and tries to paint an entire group of people in a negative light for political reasons. Randi Harper had no reason to say that most harassment was unconnected to GG. But she said it because it was the truth. Parogar (talk) 08:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Here it is again: Parogar (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if you took shit more than face value from Ralph, you would know that the graphic is NOT saying that only 12% of those blocked by the autoblocker are Gators but rather 12% of the reports were connected to accounts in the autoblocker.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and that is incredibly significant. Can you explain why it is not? And can you do so without resorting to feminist safe-space boxes? Parogar (talk) 08:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Now these suckers are really nasty. Forget alligators. WalkerWalkerWalker 08:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Fine. Fuck it. I'm just feeding the trolls at this point. You can't talk to people who don't want to talk. Parogar (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you don't understand what I said. WAM!'s report states that 12% of the abuse reports they handled in the 2 week period they were doing so were also accounts blocked by the autoblocker. It does NOT say that only 12% of the autoblocker is Gamergate harassers. Now stop edit conflicting me ass.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Randi Harper in that tweet did not say "Gamergate is not responsible for harassment on Twitter". She said "Gamergate is responsible for only a portion of the harassment on Twitter".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the comment section for that article is a great example of the Gator mindset. Thanks for giving us this piece of evidence, Parogar. ;) (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That fish is GAR. Typhoon (talk) 08:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Please don't bring that meme back it gives me nightmares.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Dude that meme has been back ever since JoJo got really big in 2012. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Kyubey stares into your soul. /人◕‿‿◕人\ 15:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

We don't need that paragraph[edit]

It is an unnecessary paragraph, the whole thing can be summarized in "the character is sexualized, due to a pornographic image posted on 4 chan" or something simmilar (and better written) Bubba41102Taste the shortness 20:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No. The point of the paragraph is to point out that it references an old meme that was a rape joke, which belies Gamergate's intentions of it being an apolitical figure.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the groups politics; it's a product of Gamergate's origins in "4chan culture" which includes a flippant irreverence to sensitive topics. Hell, I've seen the original gif, and it's not even readily apparent whether it's rape or rough sex.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
that can be summarized with "the character is a reference to a rape joke" there we go we don't need the paragraphBubba41102Taste the shortness 21:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It's "the character is a reference to a rape joke but Gamergate denies that reference". Maybe we don't need as much detail as there is presently, but it points out the hypocrisy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Do we even know if it's a rape joke? For all we know the sex in the gif could be consensual. Or are we going to assume that all rough sex is rape?ConfusedLiberal (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Every citation calls it rape. Unless you want to change it to "ass fuck" or something.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Removal of inaccurate opening paragraph[edit]

"Despite the fact that none of Gamergate's claims hold up under scrutiny, they were initially able to put a positive spin on their intentions by running an astroturfing campaign, recruiting useful idiots into a token subgroup to counter claims of exclusivity. Gamergate was also courted by opportunistic right-wingers, MRAs, neo-Nazis, and others who sought to exploit it for political means. Once moderate voices fled Gamergate's toxicity, leaving only those who believe in the "social justice warrior" bogeymen of the Internet, hangers-on were able to use it as their personal revenge army."

Here's why I am removing this: For one, I take issue with the fact that an article curated primarily by a white male has taken it upon himself to discount racial minorities and women as "tokens". Next, there is no evidence to suggest "moderate voices fled Gamergate's toxicity" - people who sitll identify with GamerGate like Brad Wardell would probably take issue with being called a radical for the crime of disliking games journalism after having false sexual harassment claims by an employee who sabotaged his company's current project being spread like gospel. It's worth noting that this this disproved allegation is still brought to this day. So unless you're actually able to provide sources for those absolutes (and like most absolutes, they are patently wrong), I think this histrionic paragraph can go by the wayside.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. You're a cockbag for trying to pull the #NotYourShield race card (and yes, #NotYourShield is still a text book example of tokenism). And simply because Brad Wardell may have some valid claims with ethics in video game journalism, does not erase the fact that the rest of Gamergate doesn't know what the fuck it's talking about. Do not cut anything out of this article again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Race card!--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't care how many black lesbian transgender Gamergaters born in China you can pull of your ass. #NotYourShield is a textbook example of tokenism because as soon as anyone in #NotYourShield asks a question about why Gamergate is so racist, homophobic, transphobic, and misogynistic, they get attacked for daring to go against the grain.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
What you have just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:50, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No one is watching that stupid fucking Gamergate video you keep posting that you somehow think proves that #NotYourShield is not an example of either tokenism or a friend argument to allow Gamergate to hide behind a shield of social minorities that was manufactured from the start. Stop posting the same hackneyed Gamergate denial and shut the fuck up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
For your efforts.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 21:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
And get better memes. We all work with rare Pepes these days.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and there's the history of #NotYourShield. Yet again, you've been lied to.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

What are we adding to the WP article here?[edit]

Hi all, although it may seem like a facetious question I mean it seriously. I made another ill-fated attempt to read the article today, actually in truth it has improved. That is until you get to the Zoe Quinn section, which throws us back to 2013 for no identifiable reason, then it descends into a mishmash of random names without context, grand accusations with no references and general incomprehensibility.

So I went to the WP article instead and, surprise surprise, it's actually a well written article that is eminently understandable. Rationalwiki has always shined when it covers material that is not notable enough for WP, or for which WP insistence on no original research has delivered a neutered article. What are we adding to WP with this article? Where can this article ever be better than the WP one? Tielec01 (talk) 05:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The "throws us back to 2013" thing is because that's when Depression Quest was originally released and when people got mad at Zoe Quinn without the existence of a hashtag to define them. To address your other concerns, please answer the following questions. What random names lack context? Where are there accusations without references? Where is the incomprehensibility? Explicitly list off piece of the page that don't make sense to you rather than just making these vague complaints about the state of the article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I doubt you can address any of my concerns Ryulong. Appreciate the offer to once again give you explicit examples of how fucked up this article is, but actually this is about a slightly different topic, so I'll decline. Tielec01 (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If you refuse to explain what the specific problems are then how the fuck can anyone fix them? You do this over and over again. You say that the article is fucked up but you don't say how or where and you expect everyone to understand what you're referring to. What names have no context? What accusations appear to be baseless? Give concrete examples or stop kvetching.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Also it simply appears that you want this page gone because you claim that the Wikipedia article is somehow superior to this one and why bother having both. Is that the actual topic here then?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong, fuck off and do some IRL stuff, like go for a run, drink a fine scotch, go on a date, kick a soccer ball or catch up and gossip with an old friend. Tielec01 (talk) 07:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No. Say what the fuck is wrong with the page instead of just vaguely complaining about it like you usually do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Our own user:conservative, except not quite as smart. Ole Ole! Tielec01 (talk) 07:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
All you're doing is waxing poetic that this page apparently doesn't serve any purpose while making vague complaints about its content without providing any sort of constructive criticism on how to move forward. You just want it gone. So put up or shut up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I imagine it's a wonderful gift to be able to hold conversations with yourself. Tielec01 (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Go fuck yourself.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No, no, no. You don't get to pull the evasion bit. You are asked specific topical questions, and every time Ryulong asks them, you completely evade. So regardless of your intent, the impression that you are giving is that you just want it gone. So why not be reasonable and answer the questions? --Castaigne (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Tielec01, you really do need to make specific claims. You've been asked for these repeatedly and failed to come through every time. Castaigne took you to task for this previously, and I concur with his estimation: " the equivalent of looking at a copy of David Copperfield, declaring "Derp derp! This is too long!" and ripping out all but the first 50 pages to bring it to a length your pitiful reading comprehension can digest." You need to stop flailing around like a doofus - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 15 May 2015
On my phone so forgive any errors. DG if I could show you times where I have pointed out specific issues, then point out the specific areas I am referencing above would you apologise and admit you are wrong? Tielec01 (talk) 12:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You know, if you have actual specific issues pointed out, just link to where you made them and I will summarize them here and go over them with you. Like, you know, editors generally do?
And frankly, that's what I would have done by now - presented a nice bulleted list every time the question came up. So just damn well get to that and stop pussyfooting around. --Castaigne (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a better idea: you refrain from trying to derail with "but when you get down to it, what does 'is' actually mean?" and just post your detailed list of problems, like you failed to the time I linked. If your first answer is procedural games rather than providing the actual details of your objections, you're doing RW wrong - David Gerard (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
So even though you are wrong, you won't admit it. What's the point of having a conversation with you? I don't need to produce a list of specific problems every time you want one, especially not in a section which is about a completely different topic and especially not when I have done so multiple times before. Castaigne I refrained from responding to your last comment because it was so wrong I didn't know where to start - you inferred I was an MRA, part of a cadre with Nutty (with whom I constantly argued against) and friends with Smerdis (who I have spoken to maybe once). You're dumb as fuck and smugly certain of your own correctness; which makes for a killer combination. Everyone except you three has pointed out that this article is shitty, maybe you should come up with a list of bullet points for why it's not. Tielec01 (talk) 00:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
You're blustering because, yet again, when called on your idiot bullshit, you can't back it up.
Now then. You have problems with the article. Why don't you set these out in actionable point form. Not argue about whether you should have to do so if you want to complain, but actually set them out. Can you do that? Yes or no - David Gerard (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Jesus Christ, even the talkpage of this article is a derailed jumbled mess. Mate, I'm not sure what this statement is in reference too but it's clearly not anything that has been talked about above. Tielec01 (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
He's just trying to pull the old Gamergate talking points that have been like this for the past 9 months. Now the narrative is "deny Gamergate did anything bad by saying no one's been prosecuted for it" which of course has nothing to do with your original statement or anything I've said in regards to it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That's all you fucking ANTI-ggers are is "emotion." Everything you do is emotion. You THINK with emotion. That's why you think wrongly -- about everything. For fuck's sake Randi Harper came out and said that we're not responsible for harassment and this article still demonizes us. Because that's what you're doing: you're projecting your own hatred onto us. Parogar (talk) 07:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That's some incredible projection from you, Parogar. GG is the one who's offended about articles and emotional about 'SJWs' Typhoon (talk) 07:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This ain't a court of law, Parogar, you jackass. Presumption of innocence only occurs in criminal law and has no application anywhere else.
And when the big ally bros that GG cheers on are Michael "JuiceBro" Cernovich, Vox Day, and Roosh, just for starters, then the claims of "We didn't harass anyone." fall real fucking short. Perhaps if GG stopped associating with dogs, you wouldn't have this flea problem. Just saying. --Castaigne (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

What are we adding?[edit]

Less than nothing. Because the current article is just a worse-written and longer version of Wikipedia's article. RW shines in refutation -- where it can use Original Sources and analysis to tear apart stupid arguments, unlike WP -- and yet this article has almost none. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 15:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assertion. The article is still in need of a giant red pen to excise superfluous material, but is very well-documented using both primary and secondary sources (I have serious problems with Ruylong as a writer and a community member, but I won't fault his research) and does a good job of cataloguing and debunking GG's claims and exposing the movement as deeply misogynistic. Problem is, that stuff is buried under an avalanche of "By July 23, GG fixed itself a ham-and-cheese sandwich, and, wearing a yellow t-shirt, sat down at a Linux-powered Dell laptop and doxxed pictures of Sarkeesian in which a blue teacup was plainly visible." The only problem with the article is form and structure, not content. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The article successfully proves only one thing: that Gamergate members have committed many misogynistic acts. But the article fails to make that information easy to understand -- as in a list of misogynist actions, versus buried under prose upon prose -- or to respond to Gamergate objections -- ie, "those who doxx aren't really GGers" etc. -- and so falls short of even that goal. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Not at all true. The article successfully debunks multiple claims made by GG, reveals the astro-turffy nature of the movement, traces how a variety of opportunists piled on and drove it, and links the movement to important trends in anti-woman thought and activism beyond the gamer community. That shit is all there, it's just not brought to the fore properly. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
You're right -- the information is in there. But if information isn't accessible, it really isn't there at all. Instead of organizing it chronologically, we should organize it thematically -- into a section on GG being racist/misogynist, a section on GG harassing/doxxing, on GG's "successes" (and the massive and successful counter-GG reaction), on GG trying to do PR, etc. Until we do that, the article has fundamentally failed. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I second this. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png
Basically, I'd want the following to happen: Peron A says something about how good GG is. Person B links to our article, which has a specific and tailored objection to Person A's argument. With this article, with this organization of the facts we present, that doesn't happen. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 15:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, we've got Rebuttals of Gamergate though, don't we? ;) (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong refuses to use that page, and nobody else wants to do it, so it's going to be a fail page. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, then I can't help but make note of the apparent contradiction between various editors complaining about Ryulong's influence on the Gamergate article and the sheer lack of interest in a Gamergate rebuttal page which Ryulong won't be editing. (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I second this, Good BoN. (Yes, that's how I style you in my head.) --Castaigne (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
? FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
While it's nice to use RW to provide refutations, I personally don't see that as the sole point of RW. Where does documentation of major woo events fit into your schema? --Castaigne (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The ultimate goal of documenting woo is to refute it (and show why that refutation is important). The reason we have a page on Natural News is to show what woo is present and then link to our articles that refute those concepts. (I think.) FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 16:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you and I have different ideas about documenting woo. If we're talking about a woo concept, like the vaginal steaming, then yes, refutations are in order. But I focus on documenting events, promoters, and enablers, and historical documentation doesn't require a refutation.
By your line of thinking, an article on GamerGate would not be necessary. All that would be necessary are three articles refuting MRAs, neo-reactionaries, and "racial realists", since GamerGate in and of itself is not a woo concept, but merely an event involving various woo. --Castaigne (talk) 17:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not that documentation requires refutation, it's that the point of documentation is to make refutation easier. When a person Googles Natural News, and we document NN's views, the person can click on the Anti-vaccination movement article and get a refutation of that worldview.
If Gamergate had no arguments aside from those three topics and no other impact, it wouldn't need a big article. But Gamergate (a) argues that it isn't MRA/sexist/NRx/racist/racialist/etc. but about journalistic integrity, and so we need to refute said points in order for the links to apply and (b) has had significant impact on internet culture and real-world views on feminism, which deserve documentation to prove why the refutation is necessary. (That said, I think documentation for documentation's sake is also a good idea, but it's secondary to refutation.) Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)\
I'm afraid we're going to have to agree to disagree. I come to it with different premises and so don't see refutation as a primary point, the same as not needing to refute Vox Day if he declared himself Emperor of Europe by fiat. --Castaigne (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Comparing the two articles, they seem approximately the same length. The main difference is that ours has more headers. (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The only issue about "chronological order" is that we have to give a decent background to what happened with Zoe Quinn first, and then how that snowballed into including Anita Sarkeesian, Brianna Wu, Randi Harper, et al. And as we've discussed prior to this, the page was like this before I got here so don't keep heaping blame on me, even when vagueposting about it as below.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
(1) We can document the history. But, aside from the backhistory up to the Zoe Post (and maybe the Quinnspiracy and harassment of Quinn, plus the rise of the movement in popularity), none of the content on this page should be documented chronologically, since that hurts the article.
(2) Nobody blames you. If you'd like to reorganize the content thematically, I'd support the shit out of it. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 16:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I wou;dn't say GG falls into the realm of woo, it's more a reactionary movement. It fits more neatly into our political category than the woo category. FCP and AH both raise good points, but AH I think you will be struggling to create an article with more detail than the WP one. I feel like FCP is right, we should focus on debunking some of the major thematic claims of GG (eg. we are about ethics in journalism). The timeline of gamergate can be used to document every tiny detail. WP does a better job of documenting movements, we do a better job of refuting movements. Tielec01 (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
¿Por qué no las dos?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:34, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Sentences that make no sense.[edit]

  • "The reports they handled and escalated to the Twitter support that were acted upon were more to do with inciting hate speech rather than malicious doxxing, and that while they were only operating for a two-week period, they found that 12% of the reports they handled regarded Gamergate."
  • "Twitter's internal security measures roving mostly ineffective for immediate responses, game designer Randi Harper developed a tool to filter out and block a large bulk of Gamergaters." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. Looked right when I first wrote them
  • WAM! took over the Twitter reporting process for 2 weeks last year while this was going on. They found that Twitter was twice as likely to suspend the accounts of people posting hate speech rather than people who had been reported for doxxing. Also, 12% of the reports they handled correlated with Gamergate.
  • I wanted a better way to segue into GGAB and I failed obviously.
Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

" did sexual acts on herself."[edit]

Jesus Christ, son. Are you so hung up that you can't bring yourself to type "masturbated"? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm using what the sources say.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Another sentence that is at best a head-scratcher.[edit]

  • "She felt that Gamergate wasn't in on the joke and was just trying to use her as revenge porn by proxy, which she insisted wasn't the case, while co-opting Gamergate jargon to pander to them."
Fine.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

GG Essay?[edit]

Given a certain user's... zeal in regards to this topic, who here agrees with a proposal that Certain User move the GG article to their very own Essay with which they can make it as in depth as they wish, while this article gets pruned down just to the basics? CorruptUser (talk) 15:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

But who will put the bell on the cat? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree strongly. GG is germane to gamer/internet/geek/social justice culture and as such is missional and addresses important target audiences that RW needs to to reach. Letting any user have monopoly control over such an article as a personal essay would be extremely countrerproductive. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not my suggestion. My suggestion is for certain user to copy over GG page to an essay, with blackjack and hookers, while the current GG article is edited to what we think is appropriate without certain user adding in the mountains of bloat. CorruptUser (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? This article is a de facto personal essay. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png That rug really tied the room together. 15:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
@ CU: I disagree strongly. If a user wants to write their own personal factual article about a topic that the wiki is already addressing, that user can start a blog. It's easy and it's free. RW is a project that works collaboratively to achieve particular goals. A personal essay on a topic we are trying to cover in a decent manner only undermines that process.@ Raysenn. It's not. You can go ahead and edit it. Someone might bitch and moan, but you can edit it. You can't edit an essay. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
In that case, let's just have Certain User make a blog to host what they think is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY OR ELSE I'LL GET SEALIONED! Seriously, every sentence has a shitload of citations, most of which will be rejected outright by Gators, so taking their demands for evidence seriously is pointless.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I'm not the Certain User despite the name, but everyone here should have a sense of whom I am referring to. CorruptUser (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Enough of this coy shit. This page was here before I showed up and it was practically the same then as it is now. A few people's complaints about content without any actual merit or explanation of those complaints does not mean that this gets shunted out of the mainspace.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:15, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Also agree with this. Instead of saying "Certain User", man the fuck up and name some goddamn names. --Castaigne (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
What? When people said "certain user" they meant Ryulong? I had no idea! Has he been very involved in this article? I almost never see it on recent changes. Well - occasionally it's less than 80% of recent changes.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 19:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Then say "Ryulong". The only reason to not be plain-spoken on the subject is due to weaseling, conniving, malfeasance, some sort of passive-aggressive malice. If one is going to accuse people of treason against the state, you don't emulate Robespierre by muttering and passive-aggression. J'accuse, instead!--Castaigne (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Ummmmm ... Right. (Note to self - sarcasm obviously works badly in plain text.)--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
When you're making the exact same statements that other people are doing non-sarcastically? It will not be taken as sarcastic. --Castaigne (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I also disagree strongly. Gamergate is an ongoing thing; the article will continue to have items added (and subtracted) to it until the whole thing is done. Which will probably be...another year from now before it really loses the steam and devolves into total crankdom. It's already halfway there now. --Castaigne (talk) 16:18, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd say 90%, considering Parogar was dropping MRA laden ad hom attacks here this morning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not an essay, nor should it be. Just because you don't like the current state of an article, does not mean it should goto essayspace. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 16:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"This page was here before I showed up and it was practically the same then as it is now." Really? Then what was the effect of the hundreds if not thousands of edits you've made to it? Would you object at all if I reverted it to the last edit before you touched it? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
It was updating with the times but the inherent structure is the same, which is what everyone gets on my case about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The main problem here is that you are too wordy and addicted to adverbs. It takes you two paragraphs to say what could be said in 3-4 sentences.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
What the fuck is wrong with adverbs? That's all you and AgingHippie cut out.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Because they are unnecessary, water down the flow of the article, and give the piece an overly emotional slant. I understand you are heavily personally invested in this conflict, but I want this piece to be informative, NOT a Livejournal screed.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Grammatically, one is supposed to avoid adverbs in order to increase clarity and avoid passivity in the sentence. --Castaigne (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why AgingHippie cut out every adjective too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

My proposal in simple terms:

  • Ryulong creates the GamerGate essay of hez dreams
  • Everyone else creates a GamerGate article that is shorter than a novella. CorruptUser (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This page is practically the same size it was before I joined RationalWiki. Stop kvetching about length.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
More of the damn "David Cooperfield too long, tear out all but first 50 pages." argument, Christ-all-fucking-mighty. --Castaigne (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

My Goal[edit]

My personal goal is to get the page down to less than 100,000 bytes. I do think it's possible if we try to be less wordy and not document every little thing that happens. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 23:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You realize 20% of the page's content is citations right? Stop saying "we're cutting it down".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:30, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I WILL cut it down.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 08:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Why the fuck is its length so god damn important to cut back? Why do you all keep complaining about this? Seriously. Stop wanting Ernest Hemmingway style coverage when this needs Frank Herbert worthy esoterica.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And here's the real problem with yours and AgingHippie's slicing and dicing. You've removed so much god damn content that what's left behind is patently false.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Because the sheer size of it is intimidating to casual readers, and no, it does NOT need coverage of every minute detail. Check your damn ego.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 08:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The omission of these words you've been makes shit fucking wrong because neither of you feel like actually reading any of the citations that make up the bulk of the page's file size.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
And for fuck's sake leave the god damn ant and goat content in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Why? They are just floating out there as punchlines with no setup, and are just another excuse to add more of your beloved citations.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 08:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Because all the fucking set up had been cut out after weeks on end of you two cutting everything back.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Then I guess the punchline goes too.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe the fucking setup should have never been cut out in the first place.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
It is not intimidating to casual readers. In fact, that is a big damn lie. It's no more intimidating than a similar length article on this or any other wiki. I'm really sick of this David Copperfield argument; any changes that I see happen to this page that I think are due to it will now be summarily reverted. I'm terribly sorry if you find lengthy wiki articles to be "intimidating", but you should frankly gain a reading level beyond Dr Seuss before venturing out onto the interwebs. --Castaigne (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
+1 - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Why does it need o be cut to less than 100K? How did you come about this arbitrary number? Should this be applied to every article in the wiki?
Or should I enforce my own arbitrary limit of 10K for every article and immediately create obedience to my dictates?
I'm going to need to have a specified reason before I agree to an arbitrary limit for any article. --Castaigne (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It really doesn't. Mind you, 100kB of main body text is the sort of length where I'd consider how to split an article into bits (Historical Jesus was ripe for it for ages, and the splitting is now happening in a reasonably coherent manner) ... however, all previous attempts to subarticle the Gamergate shitpile have been inept and not actually helpful - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Reformat the article[edit]

(from above)

I propose that instead of organizing this article chronologically, we should organize it thematically -- into a section on GG being racist/misogynist, a section on GG harassing/doxxing, on GG's "successes" (and the massive and successful counter-GG reaction), on GG trying to do PR, etc. This would make the page vastly easier to understand and vastly better to rebut GGers, since, when questioned, a specific section can be linked that proves a point. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 16:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

But this has been done for the most part. The only items listed chronologically are the events that led up to it and the hate storm of "The Zoe Post" and "The Quinnspiracy". Everything else is thematically tied but also somewhat chronologically discussed. The only vague evidence that chronology is a problem is that dates have been given in the text to provide some sort of context. Like if people actually pointed out parts of the article that have these fucking problems in them maybe they could be fixed without making a third attempt at saying "it's shit we need to rewrite it".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
4.1 Harassment and doxxing
5.7 The campaign of harassment expands
One example. Why can't we put both sections into a section, "Harassment and doxxing?" αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 18:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Because the first section is what happened in the first week, particularly to Quinn, and the second one is just general harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hence why they are both harassment and could be organized together. Imagine a level 2 heading, "Harassment", with both as level 3 subsections. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 21:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
This hasn't been done "for the most part." The two biggest sections are "Gamergate escalates," and "Gamergate reaches the attention of the general public." (There's also "Zoe Quinn," "Gamergate begins," and "Gamergate's inevitable decline" at the end, but those are shorter.) Seems like a timeline to me... Player 03 (talk) 02:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The reorganization idea put forward doesn't make sense. The ridiculous level of interconnectivity between events and people makes it difficult not to present this information chronologically to an extent. You can't talk about the restraining order Quinn has against Gjoni without bringing up the "lawyer" who made it public for Gamergate to tear apart. You can't talk about Gamergate's ridiculous conspiracy theories about Brianna Wu's gender before discussing the "journalist" who published it all for Gamergate to have some form of reactionary credibility on the matter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:54, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else support? Or should this article just be abandoned to the tug-of-war between AH and Ryu? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Florida SPJ stuff[edit]

Re-add that if and when something actually happens. Don't use the article to live-blog stuff that is still unfolding. Use your Twitter account for that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not going to happen because no one sane is going to sign up for that, while the criticism of the plans is something we can cover. It's an example that fits where I put it even if it's an alleged future event.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
We are not going to write about things that don't even happen. Put it in the timeline, or your blog.
It's going in this fucking article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Why should it? If it isn't going to happen, it just adds to the pile of already existent criticism. --Miekal 04:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Because it's new criticism that is thematically relevant to that section.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
"Somebody doesn't understand what GG is and wants to do a bad panel involving them" Woopty doo. --Miekal 04:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
"Another person with ethics violations under their belt becomes the newest ordained hero of Gamergate by playing to their balance fallacy".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
"I'm a special snowflake that gets the final say on what goes on the page."ConfusedLiberal (talk) 04:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Ehhh you ruined the fun--Miekal 04:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm the one doing the fucking primary research here to get all this shit up. Why do people who refuse to do anything resembling that get to decide what doesn't belong when their only concern is that this page is too long. Stop telling me to get a fucking blog or post about this shit on Twitter, too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Do I spy entitlement? I dun güd, so I get to call shots? WalkerWalkerWalker 05:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I do all this leg work and for what? One person saying "I don't think this is relevant" when the only opinion they've expressed about the page is that it's too long for their liking?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Dude, I hate to burst your bubble, but a lot of that "legwork" is unnecessary for our purposes. At the end of the day, this isn't an earth-shattering event in human civilization, so there's no need to document absolutely everything that happens. If it were up to me, I'd cut it down to the very core themes; I might even stop it at the first three paragraphs at the top of the page. Everything else can be on the Timeline. What else needs to be known besides "Gamergate is a misogynistic, reactionary backlash in the video game community started when a bitter ex-boyfriend posted a screed online?" There is almost nothing else to it.ConfusedLiberal (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Then I don't think you see the problem with it. It isn't just a backlash and that screed was only the first spark of the flame. This will turn out to be a major event in the Culture Wars, Racefail was only the first opening salvo; this is only the first actual battle. There is much, much more to it than just a reactionary backlash. --Castaigne (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
They didn't write, so they can't help write it? That seems self-defeating. WalkerWalkerWalker 07:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Shit is getting cut out left and right because of their decision that it's not relevant when they've repeatedly said that they are seeking to get this page down to a length that gets it out of the top 20 longest pages. It's already out of that if you cut out all the references so now it's just going at it like this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Can this be reported to the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services? WalkerWalkerWalker 05:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I do all this leg work and for what? One person saying "I don't think this is relevant" when the only opinion they've expressed about the page is that it's too long for their liking? 1. I have actually said quite a few things about the article other than to comment on its length, much of that complimentary on the diligence of your research. That said, 2. If you don't like the way a long-standing communal project is treating your work, LEAVE. Go start a blog. Nobody, as far as I know, asked you to come here (after you were booted from Wikipedia, no less) and dictate the terms of a particular article. You have done good work as a researcher. You have chosen to share that work with a community that reserves the right, if not actively encourages, for that work to be, and I quote "edited mercilessly." Those are the terms and conditions. Accept them. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
(after you were booted from Wikipedia, no less) This claim is false, and not particularly relevant. The main problem with your edits is that you've been sloppy as fuck, putting in rewrites that are factually wrong and refusing to accept that your rewrites are factually wrong. As I have noted before, you really, really need to take more care if you're going to pontificate - David Gerard (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
This particular conversation is about the need for us to be live-blogging ongoing events in an article. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
So we're only allowed to cover things that are over?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
We have never really live-blogged anything. This is just another minor development, not worthy ofr coverage until something meaningful happens. We have a section titled "Gamergate's inevitable decline". It has declined. Leave it be until something noteworthy happens. A "panel" with an unnamed teenage kid is not noteworthy. Keep adding it, I'll keep removing it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 04:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that some jerkoff with some semblance of professional clout has given Gamergate yet another platform to abuse and harass people with in the interest of actually believing their balance fallacy is relevant to this page. Just because this talk he is planning is 3 months from now does not take away from its relevance to the fact that it's shit like the rest of GG. Hell, the article doesn't even include the names of the 4 people picking speakers, or the speakers who were chosen. That's off at the timeline. This is just setting the pace for it being another example of balance fallacy garbage and persecution complexes that allows Gamergate to harangue people to debate them over their falsely claimed goals. I don't even think it matters if this is going on as we speak or if went on 4 months ago. You just want to keep this page short and this is another thing for you to endlessly remove with no valid reason other than the page's length. Why do you get to decide what is and isn't relevant here?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:27, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
"Why do you get to decide what is and isn't relevant here," really isn't a question the person who's been doing just that should be asking. --Miekal 13:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't get to decide. I get to add my voice to that of a community working together to produce a consensus version of the best article possible. Just like you. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This article is often linked to and mocked to on 8chan and KIA. I judging from the groans about "jaqing off", that's probably the primary group linking to you right now - and you aren't puting forth a compelling case for them. This article is bronze, if that, and it has hundreds of manhours put into it. Not really productive by any measure...--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Says the Gamergater on a liberal website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Says the unpaid PR lackey rabidly defending a bunch of Beverly Hills rich kids.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Get your Gamergate propaganda right. It's San Francisco. Not Beverly Hills.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
For comparison, the articles on engineering or scientific topics are actually alright, probably due to a more rationalist approach.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 04:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
So this is the whole "feminism isn't rational" thing? Do Phil and TJ serve Kool-Aid with their videos now?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please remove this lie[edit]

"However, Quinn released archived 4chan posts and #BurgersAndFries chat logs that debunked these notions, exposing Gamergate's true intentions. She produced numerous posts showing that Gamergate was a coordinated attack upon herself, Anita Sarkeesian, and anyone else viewed as "social justice warriors". The evidence also exposed #NotYourShield as an astroturfing campaign involving Gamergaters creating sockpuppet Twitter accounts, fabricating user profiles, and stealing profile photos for use as avatars.[89][90] Even the chatroom's attempt to show they were innocent by releasing more than Quinn had released only refuted their own claims.[91][92] However, #NotYourShield did ultimately garner support from real people it was intended to represent, becoming both a dictionary definition of tokenism and a new source for friend arguments for Gamergaters. "

You've been lied to - check the results for yourself. You can see the first account which tweeted this in relation to GamerGate was not a fake. So yes, you've been duped by a gaggle of profiteering figureheads.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Come back with a complete statistical breakdown of all Twitter accounts using the hashtag, and we'll talk. Even if you are correct, the fact that the tag started out with a "legitimate" use does not undo what subsequently happened with it.Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
How do you know "what happened with it"? Did you read that somewhere?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, how thoughtless of me, people don't lie twice. I've proven they lied once, but it's like lightning. No, these people are your friends and have nothing to gain by spinning a narrative, noooo. Also, GGautoblocker is an effective tool because a literal harasser with literal issues would never ever bother to create a new twitter account, literal harassers who commit literal harassment are notoriously easily discouraged you know.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Dude. Anti-GG's showed statistics. Anti-GG's showed chatlogs conspiring. Even if Anti-GG was wrong about Poster No. 1, that's irrelevant to the overall evidence. And stop holding up a Twitter search as some authentic proof. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 03:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Wait can tweets/accounts be, like, deleted? OMGZzzzzzzz!!!!!!1&3@!!1@!!!! (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
So the only source concerning "statistics" was one which posted the age of the accounts and retweets, which wouldn't be conclusive even with control data. The only "evidence" I'm seeing is a few chat post in a public chatroom which - need I emphasize - anyone could post in and which just happened to be picked up by someone who happened to be there at the time. And seems to always be right there to document and profit from these waves of harassment against her (link me to the professional victim page if you want, but if you have a better name for someone who has made $4k a month for over half a year whilst producing no good or service, please tell me what that is). Oh, and Mr. Random IP Editor, it archives deleted accounts too so you'll have to find a new conspiracy theory.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 04:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
They're called BoNs, not "Mr. Random IP Editor". Get it right. Also, #BurgersAndFries dumped all of their chat logs which showed Zoe took nothing out of context. Also nice professional victim swing there. You know who's really profiting from Gamergate? The Honey Badgers, Aurini and Owen, Thunderf00t, Sargon, MundaneMatt, Ralph, RogueStar, TFYC, and the list goes on.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"#BurgersAndFries dumped all of their chat logs" Which anyone could post in. Also, you know who's not profiting from Gamergate? Let's see, how much of that $4k has Zoe given you for your work?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Where are you getting these numbers from like really—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Have you seen her Patreon? She is raking in $4k a month for posting the occasional Twitter comment while you're sitting in your little hovel playing her PR agent. Your work is responsible for at least some of that money she's getting. If you're okay with your and her comparative situations that's fine, as long as you're aware of it.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't helping you, Ryulong. These individuals are radioactive and you've only been manipulated by associating with them. You need to take care of yourself, not Zoe and her Patreon.--Naqoyqatsi (talk)
Droll. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 06:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Linking to a Gamergate owned redirect to Patreon doesn't really help your cause here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
You might try making one. Adieu.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
How much of that $32q (Kryptonian dollars) has Superman given you for your talk page posts? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 13:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong, please, for the love of grammar, could you please, please, baby please do something?[edit]

Maintain easy verb consistency and write in the simple past tense. "Jonathan McIntosh would write that." "Jonathan McIntosh wrote that..." Thanks. Appreciate it. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

+1 FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 03:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Bad habit, sorry.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, no. You're not one of those people that role-plays in future-tense, are you? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 07:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Is "would" even the future tense? Seems like one of those weird other tenses.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a conditional future-tense. I like to turn them into conditional present- or past-tense statements when I see them. (Alice would stroke Bob's sausage. *Narky barges in* If she were able to, but she's a T-rex and therefore has stubby little arms.) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 13:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Goodpost.gifPeace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"Conditional future tense"? The very existence of a "future tense" is debatable in English as, strictly speaking, English only has two tenses. "Would" is a modal verb which (like most modal verbs) has variable uses. It is unusual in that is can be used to refer to the past - "When I was a young lad I would travel to X every Saturday." ("X" is a little-known location on Jupiter) But "would" as some new-found "conditional future-tense"? I rather doubt it. At another level it is often used in what are called conditional sentences but any conditional could be regarded as referring to a hypothetical future situation. But it's not a "tense".--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess the whole "would later go on to X" something makes more sense in some contexts?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The only time I would use it would be parenthetically: "AgingHippie (who would later become famous because of his torrid affair with Nathalie Portman) was a regular contributor to Rationalwiki." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The "would" in Bob's example, "would travel to X every Saturday" marks the habitual aspect of the verb "to travel". English does not render verb aspects compactly and unambiguously. For that, I believe Greek is more appropriate, or some western African languages. For more, see tense-aspect-moodWikipedia's W.svg at the other wiki. Alec Sanderson (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, man. I realize that I derped at some point. When I was saying "conditional future-tense" I was talking about role-play, and I didn't make that clear. (Mostly because I forgot the context.) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 11:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Alt organization[edit]

Example. (Only moved whole sections, but parts of sections would be moved, too. Don't hate on the quality of my ability to reorganize, hate on the idea itself.)

I think this makes it easier to read and makes our points (that GG harasses/doxes, that GG manipulates media, that nobody sane lieks GG) more clear. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 21:30, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't think that order works. It splits apart a lot of related issues into what you want to be the Rebuttals page garbage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The entirety of Gamergate is "related issues". Currently, it all blends together in a gigantic wall of misogyny-harassment-publicity-reaction. The individual sub-issues need to be separated out to make sense. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 22:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
How does the way it's presented now not make sense though?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
As I said -- everything blends together. Right now, it reads very chronologically, not thematically. Misogyny, then harassment, then lieing, then harassment, then lieing, then misogyny -- blends together. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand how thematically discussing this is better than chronologically.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
... Because it allows the reader to easily see the separate problems with Gamergate. It also makes this page easier to link to, as a rebuttal, when somebody tries to defend GG. ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 16:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Except you've thrown everything out of order for the sake of presenting it as something to use for rebuttals. For pretty much everything that happened in August and September last year, that has to be told chronologically. It has to be clear for example that the #GamerGate hashtag's creation predates the "Gamers are dead" articles that Gamergate allegedly formed around as a response to (rather than being the mob trying to get at Zoe rebranding itself to have legitimacy). I've tried to combine similar topics together already but your proposal does that too much.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a fan of some of the details, but it's a good start. +1 for the general idea. Player 03 (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Are Video Games the Source of Sexism[edit]

So at this point are we blaming video games, players or developers? While there is a lot of sexism in the gaming industry, the page is saying that the gaming industry as a whole supports violence against women. How is that when you play a virtual reality you are automatically a misogynist? Are they created specifically for discrimination? Is it entirely the media's fault for sexism, or are we only hearing from the vocal minority?-- (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"the page is saying that the gaming industry as a whole supports violence against women" - No it isn't. Read it again, for comprehension. Like any creative endeavour, computer games reflect existing attitudes and reinforce them, without any need to explicitly support anything. All that's needed for the status quo to endure is a reluctance to examine assumptions and a reticence to abandon hoary old clichés. And even where a given game falls down in those respects, it can still be enjoyed. It just does no-one any favours to pretend that there's nothing wrong with it. When it comes to vocal minorities, GG is pretty much the apex. No-one in the industry has any time for them apart from failures who see a bunch of easy rubes. Gamers don't have any time for them. The general public has no time for them. They are just poseurs. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Those who can't create, hate.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Is that why RogueStar is in GG?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Bolded for emphasis: No-one in the industry has any time for them apart from failures who see a bunch of easy rubes. Creators have no time for GG. GG themselves have demonstrated that they can't make games for toffee. Queexchthonic murmurings 09:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Brad Wardell's company and its latest game are doing quite well the last time I checked. At the other end of the spectrum, you have people who have people who have, ironically, made themselves unemployable in a twisted example of poetic justice. You really aren't speaking on behalf of productive society, and you're doing yourself no favors with this delusion.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
You'll forgive me for not taking reaxxion at face value, given that it's a site run by a self-confessed rapist. Well done on Wardell. I'm sure that one single successful supporter is merely the herald of an avalanche of other success stories, once has-beens Mark Kern and RogueStar have been swept away. Onward to the glorious future filled with games of HuniePop quality!Queexchthonic murmurings 14:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
If you're going pull a genetic fallacy based on extrajudicial accusations, take it directly from the source then. For balance, you can see a few more obvious candidates than "meme-laden emails".--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not an extrajudicial accusation - it's a free confession in one of his own books. He's also on the record as saying that he hasn't even played computer games since, IIRC 2002 - which makes his little site an even more obvious attempt to cash in on the idiot dollar. You also seem to glossing over the fact that Lifschitz is hard to employ because GG are such a bunch of shits, not because of any failing on his part. It's like crowing about Salman Rushdie finding it hard to keep a publisher. The fault is with the detractors. Queexchthonic murmurings 13:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No, if he was good enough he would either have a job or be able to be self-sustaining. There are plenty of options out there for productive people to sell their work. Nope, he's not a victim of the Gamergate-run video game industrial complex, just a loser.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Naqoyqatsi, you need to stop popping Red Pills like they're Tic Tacs. Alex Lifschitz was clearly good enough to have a job because he had one until Gamergate inundated them with emails to fire him and he resigned to protect the company from you and your idiot friends.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Uh huh.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 04:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what this link is trying to prove to me. It's basically saying that Gamergate was directly responsible for shitting up her video game's review scores and for Alex losing his job. Were you trying to disprove what I was saying? Because I think you failed miserably.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Victim! Persecuted!--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 07:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh. I see. You subscribe to the "Gehr Group" conspiracy. Have fun with that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you say, man. The important part is that he is a rich boy who can't let go of his bullying days. But if you are happy being an unpaid intern for your former bullies, then have a blast.--Naqoyqatsi (talk)
[citation needed]Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It's funny you should put it that way, because it just shows something I've thought has been rather obvious for a long time: you gators are still intellectually and emotionally stuck in high school. At bottom, this is all it's ever been -- a revenge fantasy against the people who melvined you. And you know what? I bet most of you didn't have it half as bad as you think you did, especially compared with, say, your LGBT classmates. Grow up. EVDebs (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
No they don't reflect existing attitudes and reinforce them that's just a bunch of stupid woo. There exists absolutely no reliable evidence that this is the case. The idea that sexism exists en mass in popular video games is just laughable. Moreover, no one has actually presented a case that the available range of video games for consumption has anything remotely resembling a gender norm "status quo". That's a laughable straw man, much like the right wing's gay "war on marriage", a tactic the left wing co-opted (and recently has been backing away from due to it's dismal failure) in it's "war on women" which generally is what narrative slant most liberal media picked up and ran with during the mid-term election last year which not only failed to seriously help the left accomplish anything but propped up a bunch of professional victim con artists in the public eye and only served to make the GamerGate scandal even worse. -- (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
(SNARK WARNING: User is showing more snark than usual, which may hurt feelings) "Professional victims?" I have no idea if I should focus on that or the BoN's lack of ability to analyze data. Please, one piece of bad logic at a time. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 18:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article of Anita Sarkeesian describes the game industry as a whole supports violence against women. So your argument that developers don't promote sexism and violence against women is invalid.-- (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That's bull, just ask the devs of any game with a female protag (i.e Mirrors Edge)) Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 12:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Bungee threatened to rape her for speaking out, Kickstarter threatened to block her account and the University of Utah had threatened to massacre their own students. How is that bullshit?-- (talk) 12:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

That wikipedia article sounds oddly opinionated especially for wikipedia. Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 14:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed]Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It may or may not represent all gamers but it does represent the reaction to the feminist criticism of video games.-- (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

...the reaction of a tiny minority of gamers who pal around with racists, rapists and paedophiles to the feminist criticism of video games, in fact. I submit that the opinions of people who keep that company are not worth a great deal. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
So, this is where the party ends? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 16:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

No, I am the source of sexism in video games. Woe be unto me. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I... I AM A MONSTER... COACH 17:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

OF COURSE! It all makes sense, now! Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 17:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that Gamergate represents the criticism of Geek Feminism.-- (talk) 05:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the word "geek" appearing anywhere on w:Gamergate controversy so where are you pulling this from exactly?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
It may not be mentioned by name but its implied on Wikipedia. Yes Geek Feminism is an actual form of feminism, which includes gender politics in video games.-- (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
If it's not mentioned by name on Wikipedia then you can't really say that Wikipedia talks about it at all. It's just a construction in your head. Also, I don't think there's been any real criticism of feminism coming from Gamergate. Particularly if you think "I'm going to stab you in the vagina with a knife" is criticism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I think BoN is RNG. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 14:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
But he's consistent with being anti-feminist like when he was User talk:ūlóng (琉竜) 14:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
No Anti-Feminism? Gamergate was created specifically to troll feminist. Its all over the article.-- (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
That's not what we're saying.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Then what was Gamergate created for other then to troll the masses?-- (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a link to the brief summary. Glad to be of help. ;) (talk) 03:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I mean to say, that's not what we're talking to you about. You're just being annoying and obtuse. Gamergate is what an abusive relationship became with the help of the Internet and the general MRA sentiments bubbling in the "gamer" community. Really. Just look at the article and it will say that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Statistics and the average Gamergater's perspective[edit]

Two suggestions here. First suggestion: Gamergate is a huge movement, and to get the a good picture, you need statistics. I'm not saying the current content should be removed, but I'd like to see a new section on statistics.

I looked through a couple different analyses, and this one seems pretty good to start with. Sadly, the "15% positive/75% negative" thing is his opinion, but everything else looks solid. I also found what seemed like a good analysis written by a Gamergater. He has good credentials, but - again - the categorization is largely opinion.

But the important thing about the latter analysis isn't its accuracy or lack thereof. The important thing is, it gives a good picture of how an "average" Gamergate supporter might see the movement. The average supporter doesn't see much harassment, and they do see a large number of on-topic posts. They don't get targeted by the worst of the "pro" side, but they may get targeted by the worst of the "anti" side.

Second suggestion: write a section for these people in particular. The way the article is currently written, they're likely to think, "my personal experience is that Gamergate is polite and SJWs are rude, so this article must be wrong." Or would that work better as a separate article? Player 03 (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

"Gamergate is a huge movement" Judging by the size of the petitions they've organized, no it is not. Vulpius (talk) 12:21, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. It's a huge sockpuppet army, though - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
316,669 tweets in 3 days seems like a lot to me. Plus, "Roughly 25% of all Gamergate activity is coming from accounts created in the last two months." (I'm quoting my first link, which was posted a while ago, but my point stands.) Even assuming the new accounts were all sockpuppets, rather than just an influx from 4chan, that leaves almost 75% of Gamergate activity coming from non-sockpuppet accounts. Player 03 (talk) 04:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
But how many people is that percentage because every other analysis has said that Gamergate is statistically insignificant to the whole world. They're just really loud.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
It was 75% of those 316,669 tweets, which could have been more or less than 75% of the accounts. (That's why I used the phrase "Gamergate activity" rather than "Gamergaters.") But even if it is just a few people sending hundreds of thousands of tweets, it's still a good idea to use statistics, because, well, how else are you supposed to analyze the contents of hundreds of thousands of tweets? Player 03 (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm asking how many accounts sent out those several hundred thousand tweets. Also his data seems to unnecessarily skew that there's harassment coming from "anti-Gamergate" and his data only includes people who used the hashtag #Gamergate which is a convenient way of hiding any actual abuse from Gamergaters who would probably not use the hashtag when sending threatening messages for that air of superiority. For example, we can see that the person who first threatened Brianna Wu's life never used the hashtag or there's the fact that the so-called "Gamergate Harassment Patrol" threatened and harassed people without using the hashtag. And not to mention that what a Gamergater would consider outgoing harassment is probably not on par with what they would consider harasment of Gamergaters. Basically, the whole study you link to in your first post is probably incredibly biased in favor of Gamergate and would not really be of much use. That's why WAM!'s study is much more effective in showing anything despite its relatively smaller sample size.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
I quoted two different studies. The first is mostly neutral, with one part that's biased against Gamergate. The second is obviously biased in favor of Gamergate for the reasons you mentioned, and I only brought it up because it leads to my second point. All of the numbers I'm quoting come from the first study. Player 03 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
There have been other studies that have been done to examine the statistical nature of Gamergate, such as something by Newsweek that I honestly cannot remember where it went. Or if it was another newspaper. But I'm not sure about the second point you raise. I'm pretty sure the rank and file gator sees and/or praises the actions taken by Gjoni, Rogue, Sargon, Fart, Ralph, etc. which has at times been extremely harassing towards Gamergate's victims. While a "leave me the fuck alone" from someone considered "anti" would be taken as harassment by Gamergaters. There's no real objective way to look at all of this. You can't say "anti-GG said 'fuck' more often than GG" and use that as evidence for something.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I can't tell if people here are objecting to my idea, rather than just trying to correct my premise. To clarify: who here is actually opposed to adding a section on statistics? Player 03 (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
If the various calculations people have done haven't been cited, they'd be worth noting - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable. Here are a couple points from my first source (the good one). First, Gamergate brought a lot of new accounts to Twitter. Possibly sock puppets, but more likely legitimate users. Either way, it would be a good factoid to mention when talking about "dog-piling." Second, there's the divide between the two communities. This comes with a sweet graphic (see the end of the article), and it's evidence of an echo chamber forming within Gamergate. (Likewise, it's evidence of an echo chamber forming on the anti-Gamergate side, but at least the latter group agrees with the world at large.) Player 03 (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

CON being run out of pocket[edit]

"Gamergaters bombarded their group's Twitter account, demanding "proof" they had helped anyone and decrying the project as a scam (even though they run it all out of pocket) or a false flag operation"

"Support Zoe Quinn creating Crash Override" (title)

"Patreon support frees me up from doing contract work to invest more time in projects like Rebel Jam and the anti-online mob harassment effort Crash Override Network." It might also be worth mentioning that Rebel Jam's twitter has been in stasis since April 2014 and its website's similar radio silence, but for some reason I doubt that will make it in here.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

...I am too sleepy to properly respond to this. But, know this: Your reading comprehension skills are pretty poor. The Patreon says it's to free up her time, not to fund CON. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 04:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are you all obsessed with fucking Rebel Jam like damn she would have had time for it if Gamergate didn't happen. Also the Gamergate claims it was a scam is negated by the fact that there is no direct donation link for Crash Override Network. Nice going calling it "CON" too when I don't think anyone has before.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not convinced.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
You believe they're trust fund babies and god knows what else about Anita and Brianna. You're not this page's target audience anyway.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Wu herself admitted she blew $200,000 of her parent's money at age 20 and called it a "learning experience" - you could send six students to a private four-year college for that. Zoe Quinn could, as of 1 August 2014, afford to spend "spend the last 3 months of this year in Europe". So yeah, you're either mistaken or lying right now.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
God you're insufferable. "I hate these women I've never met and who've never done anything to me so much" is just not healthy. You really need to grow up. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Actions speak louder than words.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Please don't link conspiracy nutbags as if they were real sources. It's obnoxious as heck. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Fine. I'll just ignore you then.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I guess "Not be a useless single-minded shithead" is still not an option? I really want to push the grow-the-fuck-up possibility here. I mean really. Please? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
And so fucking what? You're making a correlation equal causation argument here without providing any supporting proof.
Not to mention that you're providing evidence for my own personal theory about the majority of Gators; that y'all are all basement-dwelling poors jealous of people with views you don't like who have more money than you. Low-rents, in other words. --Castaigne (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You actually posted the "Google Helldump" thing JuiceBro is pushing. I've got nothing to say.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I figured it was more about hate than defending the oppressed.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about now? "Google Helldump" is the most stupid thing Gamergate came up with. SA's "Helldump" forum has been shut down for years and JuiceBro is claiming that Zoe doxxed him on it in the past few months. Put down the Koolaid bro.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I was waiting for one of the more social justice types to step in, but it seems like evil capitalist "you should earn what you have" me is gonna have to spell this out for you: if you'd rather yell at me than even acknowledge the classism coming from your own camp, you aren't a champion of the oppressed. Have fun yelling at people.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know what you're trying to prove really. Some people who oppose Gamergate are financially more privileged than others? Like why does this matter?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
And donations should be banned because they're anti-capitalist? Christ, someone you don't like gets some money and it's the end of the world. Get over yourself. (talk) 04:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
No, the problem with these "charities", such as CON (AKA ConJob, get it? You know Zoe is laughing at RW and pretty much everyone else that's seriously supporting her), is that they accept money to do nothing. A charity should actually purport to do something, the people running it thus are earning a living and actively pursuing a career through their non-profit endeavors. What we have seen with Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu (who's game has been pulled from Steam likely for her attempt to false flag harassment, again, so she can try to play the victim card; laughably she can't even get the amount of death threats she has received correctly), and Anita is a bunch of people getting paid money to nothing more than get in internet slap-fights trying to troll people on the internet and present the results as further proof of their victimhood. That's not charity, that's hipster welfare and it degrades the institution of charity altogether. -- (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(WARNING: User is sleepy and cranky. Uncharacteristic indifference is expected.) First, you start off by making a presumption about somebody's character. Then, you go on about false flag and professional victim nonsense. Do you know how many people show up from Stormfront saying that kind of stuff every day? We're not even phased by it. Get something original. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 18:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Why is a group of people running charities based off of social capital they solely received due to "internet harassment" undeniably false flagging harassment in order to harass themselves and further promote their charities and professional lives nonsense? Also, you're committing a basic logical fallacies by disingenuously equating me with Stormfront. Each and every single one of those women I mentioned have been caught red-handed staging harassment. That seriously damages any sense of credibility they have. Your only rebuttal is to A) say "so what if they did?" and B) argumentum ad hitlerum. Once more, RW: where rational thought comes to die. -- (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
You did a thing that Stormfront users keep doing. We're used to it. That's all I said on that note. I did not say "Stormfront users do this, so it is bad." (I also never said "so what if they did?") Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 19:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
No, you were associating me with Stormfront to discredit my point, hence you stated A) that what I had to say was "nonsense" and then B) argumentum ad hitlerum & ad hominem via comparing me and what I said to Stormfront. Really, you guys get away with a lot of shady and dishonest argumentative tactics on this site. In your response merely tried to backpedal and claim you were just engaging in a meaningless, pointless red herring for no reason whatsoever adding nothing to the conversation other than to compare me to Stormfront, an insult by any imaginable means. You've failed to counter the point that each of the characters (Ben Kuchera as well) have been caught red handed both lying publicly and false flagging about harassment they have received. In dismissing that fact you are saying A) say "so what if they did?" and in bringing up how Stormfront has made the same arguement, just as those who would point out that Hitler supported cigarette warnings and vegetariansim to discredit the advocates thereof, you are making the logical fallacy of B) argumentum ad hitlerum. Once more Rational Wiki, on specific subjects, is where rational thought comes to die. -- (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It is nonsense though to think that each and every person has been lying about being harassed by Gamergaters. And if you want to talk about false flagging, maybe you should contact @j_millerworks because he has some experience with it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, Crash Override Network isn't a charity because they're not taking in money so like where the fuck are you getting that from?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
72, you keep saying "caught red handed." That doesn't mean that they were 'caught red handed.' And if we seem dismissive it's because we've seen this a thousand times. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 02:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

On Vivian James and tokenism[edit]

With the whole idea of Vivian, I was surprised that RationalWiki merely says the name got chosen because it sounded similarly to video games. I was under the impression that it also chosen as a portmanteau of first names of Vivian Malone Jones and James Hood, as would fit with their tokenism tactics. Is there any proof of that or is it just a cruel irony of fate? -- (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That is an interesting hypothesis, but it seems to be coincidental currently.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
From what I understand the name was chosen to sound similar to "Video Games" (say Vivian James a few times to get the picture). As far as I know there is not a deeper meaning than this. -- (talk) 05:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we know. That was just said. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 05:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"championing a video game made by white supremacists,"[edit]

Do we have definitive proof that Hatred was made by white supremacists? All I've seen so far is a single accusation, and I'd really rather this article not engage in partisan character assassination; leave that for the tabloids. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've read the source article. I'm still not that convinced that Hatred is an explicitly white supremacist piece, and for all we know those guys could have been liking far-right groups on Facebook for the sake of shock value. It's really hard to tell these days. Of course, it is just as likely they genuinely are rightwing nationalists. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if it's made by white supremacists, it's still better than Rev 60 huehuehuehue |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 17:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
See now I really don't trust the source used for the claim that Hatred is white supremacist (I checked some of its other articles and it seems to have an axe to grind). Actually that's a bit of a problem with a lot of these citations; depending on Gamerghazi and Tumblr blogs as proof of Gamergate's awfulness (which I don't dispute) looks bad. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. There are good arguments against Hatred, but being white supremacist is not one of them. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Yo, gatorade me bitch! 17:19, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
for all we know those guys could have been liking far-right groups on Facebook for the sake of shock value. I'd say that if they were trying that hard, it's not really our problem to save their reputations. It's really hard to tell these days. That's because Gamergate contains plenty of people who spew white nationalist tropes at the drop of a hat, and know damn well they are; whether they're "sincere" or "ironic" is, I posit, not our problem once they've consciously chosen to present themselves that way. You could add a footnote to this effect if you must, but the claim is backed up in the reference - David Gerard (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Not that the reference is all that reliable. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Meme on or be memed on 17:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Because when the guy becomes a fan of a group that does stuff like this is apparently still no proof that he could be a far-right Islamophobe. To claim that he could be doing this purely for 'shock value' is ridiculous since he outright admitted that he follows that group to be told "what the media won't tell about Islam". Typhoon (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Rollin' around at the speed of sound 18:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
While there is some overlap between groups, Islamophobes are not necessarily white supremacists. Least I don't think. I'm asking why we're just going to go ahead and call them white supremacists when it would be better to say they're Islamophobic and possibly homophobic. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
This is true enough, though from an outsider's perspective, white supremacists and Western-culture-supremacists are often hard to tell apart. (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Islamophobia is depressingly common in Poland, by the way. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Yo, gatorade me bitch! 20:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It's depressingly common in much of Europe, sadly. Though perhaps it's exceptionally severe in Poland. (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

And here's the kind of shit another guy working on Hatred participates in:

Aside from the Polish Defense League, much more troubling to Pankowski were the likes of Marcin Kazmiercz, the FX artist at Destructive Creations. His Facebook profile included even more radical, extreme-right organizations than Zielinski’s.

One such example was the Oboz Narodowo-Radykalny, or the ONR. Pankowski says the ONR is a fascist organization banned by the Polish government in the 1934. The group was reformulated in just the past few years, in the south of Poland, by a group of skinheads.

"It became a national organization once again," Pankowski, "and is clearly linked with violence, anti-semitism and with racism. It’s name itself translates to ‘National Radical Camp.’ For a time its Facebook profile was actually taken offline by Facebook… precisely for the promotion of hatred against minorities."


One event that Kazmiercz has said, via Facebook, he would be attending was the Marsz Niepodleglosci, or the Polish Independence Day March.

Pankowski says that the event, which sounds benign to Western ears, is in actuality organized by Mlodziez Wszechpolska, or the All-Polish Youth — another anti-semitic, racist youth organization.

As Pankowski tells it, the march, scheduled for Nov. 11 each year, has been co-opted by far-right political groups. It serves as little more than a flash point for violent extremist organizations to intimidate the Polish people. It’s become so successful that it has begun to attract groups from outside Poland.

"It’s an annual event for the last four or five years which actually gets bigger and bigger each year," Pankowski said. "By now, it’s a kind of international gathering of extreme-right and fascist groups. It’s not just a Polish event now — it also draws fascists from other countries such as Hungary.

Hilariously, their response was to claim that they can't be neo-nazis because they aren't Germans. Typhoon (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. See this is what I was looking for. So now it's been established that at least a few members are associated with skinhead groups. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 14:51, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Smells like bait.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Welp, at least one of them is has distinct Neo-Nazi connections. I wouldn't say white supremacist in the American meaning; more like typical members of far right politics in the German/Eastern Europe/Scandinavian vogue. IE, Neo-Nazis. There's at the very least a Breivik or Vikernes vibe to 'em. --Castaigne (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
>expecting a tumblr blog to be taken seriously |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png With just a head. And a burlap sack for a body. 19:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I actually played this game and here's what I have to say about it[edit]

It's... ok... I guess?

It's not nearly as offensive as the trailers would have you believe. The game is silly. Incredibly and overwhelmingly silly. Everything is so dark and gloomy and edgy it wraps around the scale and becomes accidentally comedic in its overblown drama. The player character himself is a masterpiece of accidental comedy. Every single thing he says is so gratuitously edgy and voiced in a really over-the-top guttural growl and when he said something like "I hate this world and the people who are the worms feasting on its rotten carcass" I couldn't help but laugh my fucking ass off for two minutes straight. The developers didn't lie about there being no ulterior political message, unless you count the ending in which you blow up a nuclear plant (and the detonation code is 666) as some sort of anti-nuclear message.

Gameplay's alright. It's similar to the first two Grand Theft Autos in which you just walk around shooting people and blowing up houses and car while being increasingly antagonized by the police (if the GTA player character spouted random 2edgy phrases). There are some random objectives while shooting about like "Ravage the mart" (which also made me laugh; seriously, "ravage"?) but they aren't anything of substance and can be completed in like a minute at most. The enemy AI is honestly abysmal. The pathfinding really needs to improve and it'd be nice if the cops could into tactics. The whole thing wears thin before long, however, and there isn't much in the way of replayability once you blow up the town.

Honestly, it wasn't that bad. And I hate to say this, but I think I agree with Naqo here: all this whole shebang about liking skinhead groups in FB may have been some sort of long con. After all, the code to blow up the nuclear plant at the end is six six motherfucking six, so I can't help but think this may be world's longest deadpan joke.

Final rating: 666 razors out of 1000. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png X-Men! Welcome... TO DIE!!! 18:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a game but it's a schlocky one and the dev team played Gamergate like a fiddle. It's Postal but even less tongue in cheek.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's 100% undiluted exploitation film-grade schlock. I'd recommend Hatred to anyone who is fond of unintentional comedy, like me. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png X-Men! Welcome... TO DIE!!! 22:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
It's long been a joke.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm reading that there are achievements titled "Misogynist" for killing 1000 female NPCs and "Feminist" for killing 1000 male NPCs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Obvious attempt to edge is obvious. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Anonymous user!rabbit BAG FUCK 00:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
What Ray said. Also, I think they did it wrong: they should unlock the achievement for each if they perform a killing streak of 10-20 - maybe even 100 - of a single gender. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Edgy enough to get gater dosh.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
There's less edge in the inside of meat grinder. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Follow me, set me free 02:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Relevant. Vulpius (talk) 02:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It would have likely been summarily dismissed if it weren't for the press coverage.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 05:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It also wouldn't be successful if Gaters weren't so intent on spending money in order to spite people.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
There was hardly any "press coverage" of the "oh t3h noez" sort. Most of it was either "Seriously? This is a thin veil." and "I suppose there will be outrage, which will make it sell more." This resulted in a bunch of "There is outrage, we must buy this game!" that everyone believed without a second thought. If the media are the puppets, the act is "Come watch these puppets play fiddles." And the puppets were the center of the real controversy. Y'know what that means? It means the puppet-masters and puppets get money, while the fiddles lose money. Wow, this is a dark paragraph for a bubbly nyar like me. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 18:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


Ongoing flame war.

Highlights include:

  • Hating on Nietzsche
  • Rapid pronoun change action! (Battery[sic] not included)
  • *villian voice* That which is seen as evil... Is illegal, but ethical.
  • "All GG asked for was transparency, no censorship, and good will."
  • "GG children were threatened! (Also, those people on the other side whom got doxxed resulting in their families being threatened need to grow a thicker skin.)"
  • "Our hobbies are being corrupted!"
  • "You are supporting her solely on the basis of her gender!"
  • "why do you support domestic abuse" Not paraphrasing, as indicated by the bad grammar.
  • Insisting that women being prosecuted means feminism is failing.
  • The one disagreeing with them is apparently the one unhealthily wasting their own time, despite the GGers being perfectly fine with responding to him.
  • Thinking that "McCarthy silenced political opponents while riding off of actual success in spy-catching" is a defense of McCarthy somehow. Gee, I wonder why.
  • "Everyone's been so mean to us, you retarded bitch asshole!"
  • The parking ticket is supposedly the most vital point in the world! "Report hours and vehicle release hours" can only mean she got towed!
  • After the GGers called a person 'sexist' four times, and he never called them sexist: "Quit calling us sexist! We're not sexist, you just keep siding with the woman!"
  • Update: "You're asking me if I can drive? That's an ad hominem, you retard!"
  • Final update (thread closed): Not absolutely furious that people over fifty years of age don't understand that young people have the opposite problem with getting it up? You support rape!

P. cray cray, yo. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 19:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and: One of GGers supposedly said that logic and rationality are meaningless in a previous conversation. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 19:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Hating on Nietzsche??!? That does it! (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ (talk) 19:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, one of the GGers is a teenager. That explains a lot. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 21:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Aren't they largely teenagers? Anyone done a demographic breakdown? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 00:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought the demographic skewed college to post-college age.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
And now the thread's closed. And the GG folk circle-jerk over how one person said something that could be misconstrued... While ignoring people in the immediate vicinity saying "bitch" and "retard." That's just a sad ending. The start of this was pretty funny, though. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 23:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


"When the International Game Developers Association (IGDA) put up a link to GGAB on their website, there were complaints about the collateral damage the tool caused, namely from IGDA Puerto Rico's chairman Roberto Rosario who found he was blocked" "A Twitter tool to block some of the worst offenders in the recent wave of harassment". So, was this sourced from another PM conversation like the photo hacking thing, or was the omission intentional? I also notice the later removal of the "tool" from IGDA was omitted. I'm also curious if you have any evidence of this tool's effectiveness. I mean, it can be circumvented with the creation of a new account, so it won't actually stop a criminal harasser or stalker who can just create a new account. In fact, blocking ~10k people without provocation seems like a good way to start shit with people who can then just, you know, create a new account. Edit: I'll add that if Gamergate is supposed to be this dangerous organization sending harassment and threats to rich white women, then people probably wouldn't be using this 200-line Perl thing to bait them via corporate accounts.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a publicly-distributed Twitter version of a Usenet killfile. If people want to use it, I guess that's their business. I've never seen what the issue with using it is. Does it really matter whether or not it's effective? Or more to the point, I don't see the point of you questioning its effectiveness or how it relates to anything. --Castaigne (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I think this is all some sort of annoying way of weaseling over word choice here like he did with the nudie photos. No, Naqoyqatsi, this is extrapolation from the fact the links to use Randi's script results ended up on IGDA's website, and then after that Rosario went apeshit about being one of the blocked accounts. Also, there are news citations referring to the collateral damage aspect. I also don't think it's relevant that we mention IGDA took down the link as a result of gator badgering.
Meanwhile, (which is how the blocker results are shared) has an option to automatically block any account tweeting at you thats new or has a certain low follower threshold. But perhaps you would know that if you actually did any research instead of whining about minor inaccuracies you're only aware of due to being part of the mob.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that wonderful tool used by ISIS to screen out dissenting responses. And ISIS does seem to have a habit of popping up with you people, doesn't it?--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 05:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I heard Hitler was a vegetarian and banned cigarettes too.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
So, spam-bots use random hashtags; Therefore, using those hashtags gives spam-bots power. ISIS's spam-bot tweeted the #StopGamergate hashtag; Therefore, tweeting that hashtag supports ISIS. What even is this nonsense? By this logic, we have to quit using *all* hashtags. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 07:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, you're experiencing other crazy jumps in logic: ISIS uses a block-bot, yes. This means they are also using the block feature on Twitter. Ergo, the blocking feature is a tool of ISIS. Therefore, not only does use of the blocking feature support ISIS, but the blocking feature being on Twitter means Twitter supports ISIS. For closer connections: ISIS uses Twitter. Ergo, Twitter is a tool of ISIS; Therefore Twitter is bad. ISIS uses the internet. Ergo, the internet is a tool of ISIS; Therefore the internet is bad. ISIS uses words. Ergo, words are a tool of ISIS; Therefore words are bad. But, that might not be enough to draw that conclusion, so have this: Words got Hitler into power. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 08:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Reorganization again[edit]

I reorganized the article's sections, again. I think this makes our points easier to understand and lets us include more detail -- because people know what they're getting into, rather than reading a history. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 01:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted. Stop setting this up to be a rebuttals page. There's a chronological component to practically everything related to this shit that cannot be adequately covered in your re-organized state. You put the sentence explaining how Gamergate was given its name at practically the end of the page. And what the hell is with the "Public Relations" section? Your rebuttals page doesn't work. Your reorganization doesn't work. Stop pushing this. Please.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Like really you can't just combine every single paragraph concerning harassment and doxxing under a single header and give everyone who had a paragraph or sentence about them their own subheading. It looks awful. The page should tell people how Gamergate started, how it peaked, and how it is now on its last legs. Where is this whole "I don't understand it if it's organized as a history" coming from anyway? You've been the only one pushing this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want a rebuttals format, make your rebuttals article so obviously good that people want to move it to this title - David Gerard (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you don't get it, Ryulong. I'm not setting this up to be a rebuttal page, I'm setting it up to make some fucking sense. Right now, with its organization based on chronology (which, btw, you said you weren't using -- spoiler, you are going based on chronology), your inside-joke section titles (just fucking look at the table of contents), your excessively long sections (that group together multiple events based on chronology that aren't obviously linked in effect), and your excessively long writing (and AgingHippie isn't active to reduce it), this page is extremely dense for anyone, especially a newcomer. This page shouldn't be a glorified, duplicated, redundant version of the timeline -- which it is, now -- but it should have structure and categorization of the events within Gamergate, to make it clear exactly what Gamergate is really about.

You say: "You put the sentence explaining how Gamergate was given its name at practically the end of the page." Then move it up top.

You say: "And what the hell is with the "Public Relations" section?" Because that's *what* Gamergate is trying to do -- control the narrative.

You say: "Your rebuttals page doesn't work. Your reorganization doesn't work. Stop pushing this."

You say: "Like really you can't just combine every single paragraph concerning harassment and doxxing under a single header and give everyone who had a paragraph or sentence about them their own subheading. It looks awful." Tough balls. More section titles aid navigation and make clear the number and extent of major harassment/doxxing/etc. incidents. And let me remind you that, in the status quo, the article groups together events based on nothing more than time of occurrence -- which is what the Timeline is for. Each event is a seperate indictment of Gamergate, not another page in this overlong history.

You say: "The page should tell people how Gamergate started, how it peaked, and how it is now on its last legs." Even in the reorganized version, it started with background, went over the terribleness, talked about the public swing against, and then went to a conclusion of failure.

You say: "Where is this whole "I don't understand it if it's organized as a history" coming from anyway?" Ok, Ryulong. Let's say I'm John Smith, and I wanna link to this article to make a point. I wanna prove Gamergate harassed people. Where can I link to do that? I can't. All I can say is, "Read the whole goddamn 100,000+ byte article", which nobody will do. And so nobody reads it all, the point remains unmade, and nobody understands the page.

You say: "You've been the only one pushing this." First, wrong, Player 03. Second, why does that matter? Only you and maaaybe DG have opposed it. So in terms of an argumentum ad populum, it's 2 to fucking 2. And maybe I'm pushing it to show other people it fucking works.

@David: There's no need to improve that article. Reorganize this article, and that one can be vaporized, since this would (a) fulfill the goal of being a rebuttal page and (b) fulfill the goal of helping people understand Gamergate; 2 birds. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 12:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

You've been the only one pushing this Ryulong, how the fuck can you be so willfully ignorant of literally everyone else? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Everyone gets hugged and turns into Tang 14:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I guess you're going to have to count me as someone else who is pushing for the chronology aspect.
GamerGate is not a thing, a philosophy to be debunked, a concrete organization or ethos. It's an event, composed of several events and it should be documented as such.
GamerGate is not attempting to control the narrative, any more than Evangelical Christianity is attempting to control the narrative. Elements of GamerGate are attempting to control various narratives, depending on what elements those are and what they are focusing on.
Also, this article - or any other article on RW - should not be used to prove anything. That's not what we do here. We may debunk on the pages, but primarily we document. Just as one does not link to Wikipedia to debunk/prove anything, one does not link to RW. RW just provides the references; that's what it's best at. Secondary references, which is what RW is, are useless to debunk.
As for nobody understanding it because they won't read the article, that's the Charles Dickens argument. Fuck that noise. And what's so hard to understand about "GamerGate is a combination of these various factions campaigning on the internet for their various causes under the guise of "ethics in game journalism"."?
Really, to do what you want it to do, all one would have to write for a GamerGate article is the introduction, and then a sentence that says "Here's a list of links that proves it. Go pick from one of them." Ta-da! DEBUNKED! --Castaigne (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
9-11 is not a thing, a philosophy to be debunked, a concrete organization or ethos. It's an event, composed of several events and it should be documented as such.
9-11 conspiracy theories are, though, and we debunk the false narrative pushed by Truthers.
In the same way, we should debunk the false narrative -- the one pushed by Gamergate, where they're shining knights riding in to save Princess Journalismethics.
These articles shouldn't be used to prove anything? I always put more emphasis on the "refuting" part of the Mission -- because what use is a wimpy version of Wikipedia? Just collecting references often isn't enough -- you need to put all the references together.
What's so hard to understand is what the distinct problems with Gamergate are, through the stream of consciousness narrative that Ryulong spews. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 17:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Except there is no narrative to GamerGate itself. There are no GamerGate conspiracy theories to debunk, unlike Truthers and their specific. There is no "false narrative" to debunk.
There are false narratives pushed by MRAs/Manospherian who happen to be GameGaters to be debunked. There are false narratives pushed by white nationalists who happen to be GameGaters to be debunked. There are false narratives pushed by neo-reactionaries who happen to be GameGaters to be debunked. If you're going to debunk them, then you should do so on the various MRA, neo-reactionary, white nationalist pages. GamerGate is a haphazard alliance between these groups with varying agendas; there is no unified anything that you can point to. There are no GamerGate conspiracy theories; there are MRA conspiracies, white nationalist conspiracies, etc. Look up Racefail 2009 on the web for a comparison of a leaderless, splintered, various-agenda-driven event with no definable over-all hierarchy or goal.
And hey, if you are insistent that the primary use of this wiki is for debunking, then I can easily make that happen if you take me out of the vandal bin. I can begin re-writing articles to remove any if this Wikipedia-style junk and instead for solid refutation like your GamerGate debunking page. I imagine it will be welcomed as much as when I previously decided to do what people said and didn't really want. --Castaigne (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Except there are examples of a false narrative. Look at Tyler Wilde and Anne Lewis and other "examples" of GG reducing journalism corruption. Look at all the shit Natoq spews.
Every fucking time I mention something about what I think the goal of RW is, you immediately jump to "let's exclusively do that". Documentation is necessary. Refuting is necessary. Stop acting like it's binary. The problem with this article is too much documentation, too little refutation. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Tyler Wilde and Anne Lewis was more MRA bullshit masquerading as GamerGate concerns. Effectively dealt with as another Manospherian attempt to slander another woman in the industry (Anne Lewis) as a mere "hypergamy slut" who should be relegated out of gaming and back to Kinder, Kuche, blah, blah.
I do things the way I do because it is better to commit wrong action decisively than to waffle, argue, or debate. It's the destination and whatever road is most expedient to get there works. If something irritates me, I apply the attitude of the knife. ("Arrakis teaches the attitude of the knife - chopping off what's incomplete and saying: 'Now, it's complete because it's ended here.'") --Castaigne (talk) 19:11, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Seriously? Why not say "All the 9-11 conspiracy theories are just libertarian/liberal/etc. bullshit masquerading as Trutherism?" Just cuz it touches on MRA ideas, does not mean it's not also a GG thing in and of itself. And wouldn't it be weird to have a rebuttal of TWAN on the MRA page, or similar, when it's much more obviously tied here, because Gamergaters did it? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 19:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Despite Naqoyqatsi's presence on this page and not being able to take a hint, Gamergate is not an ideology like truthers or anti-vaxxers or birthers that their talking points are easy to dismiss in a topic by topic manner. Gamergate is (or perhaps was) an event that ruined the lives of many women and those around them. It is a nearly year long Elevatorgate. I've done my best to reformat the page such that more thematically related content is next to each other but as this is still an event, there is a chronological aspect that must be kept.
For example, you can't discuss Baldwin naming the mob before discussing the "gamers are dead" pieces because the articles came after his tweet which debunks the Gamergate narrative that they formed as a result of the articles and shows that they merely rebranded themselves with his help. You can't adequately cover anything that happened his year without the context of what happened last year. The paragraph on that undergrad's sociology study is already mentioned too soon on the page but you and Raysenn keep pushing for thematic coverage rather than temporal coverage so that's how I compromised. If anything this page needs to provide an adequate chronological narrative that is based on reality rather than the varied narratives that Gamergate can't decide on what they're pushing this week.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Why aren't their talking points able to discuss in a topic by topic manner? What topics in their narrative did the reorganized version not cover (excluding specific rebuttals)?
We agree that it ruined lives; reorganization highlights that harassment by separating it out from all the other bullshit.
Then fucking move those two sections to the relevant places?
No, we need both. Truthers have a narrative; anti-Truthers have a narrative; but anti-Truthers, more importantly, point out all the flaws in the Truther narrative. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 14:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Rather, let me put it like this: Right now, no Gamergater is going to read this article and change their worldview, because they already have rebuttals to the stuff this page says. You need to question their worldview to enact change. This article doesn't do that explicitly enough. FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 14:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Used as image source[edit]

Apparently this article was used as an image source back in April 2015. [1] Hooray?

The study might also be of use. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 20:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Took me some digging to even discover that's an undergraduate paper. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The cover page clearly says so. No need to dig. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

the "thanks doc" thing is integral here[edit]

Really? Why? Either explain why it is germane to Gamergate -- the phrase appears nowhere else in the article, nor have I encountered it anywhere else on the internet-- or leave it out, because it seems to the casual interested reader that it's the colour scheme that's relevant. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it is referenced in the sources being cited. We already explain why it's called Piccolo Dick so why can't we explain why it's called Daily Dose?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
How is any of that relevant to the subject of this article, as opposed to an article on 4chan memes? Just because it is mentioned in the sources, does not mean it's relevant to the topic at hand. That's what good writers and analysts do -- distill the relevant information from the sources and focus on clearly building an argument with as few distractions and deviations as possible. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
If we're distilling relevant info of what Piccolo Dick is, we can distill relevant info as to what "Daily Dose" is, which includes touching on the fact that "Thanks Doc" is part of it and can be seen in all of the evidence that is being used to support the assertation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
But it ISN'T relevant. Our readers are big boys; they'll find out more about Daily Dose on their own. They don't need to know EVERY minute detail. And don't give me "but they need context!" Just saying green and purple are a reference to Piccolo Dick/Daily Dose, a 4chan meme, is good enough. Know Your Meme is a Gamergate stronghold, but they explain the meme far better than you ever could. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 22:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Still not seeing how any of those facts help you build your argument. It just clutters up the flow. I'm on my way out right now, but I'll take the scissors to it later. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll help. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Did Gamergaters say "Thanks Doc" after a posting of a Vivian James image? Else I don't really see how it's important. (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. In the thread where Vivian James was being created, people responded "That's literally Daily Dose" and "Thanks Doc".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Then the fucking article should say so, instead of looking like a series of disjointed Trivial Pursuit answers. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well you know Piccolo Dick ISN'T a rape meme, it's a BDSM ass-fuck meme. Vegeta tied himself down to get fucked up the ass by Piccolo. That's why his cheeks are flushed, his dick is hard, and (most importantly) Vegeta is tied down by the energy ring technique which only he can perform. But by all means continue with the "Vivian = Rape Joke" narrative. Lord knows ya'll'll delete this'n too for presenting facts counter to ya'll's world view. -- (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
So much context from a 5 frame gif of Piccolo fucking Vegeta in the ass. It was still posted for its shock value because no one's edgier than early 2000s 4chan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone left this on my talk page for some reason.[edit]

I propose that we block Ryulong from the Gamergate page. While I appreciate all the work he's done looking into Gamergate, he's demonstrated an inability to account for his personal axe to grind against the movement, and he seems to want to treat this page as his own personal liveblog on the subject. If it were up to me, I would torch half this article and let the Timeline be the main documentation of events. Also, his writing has an overly melodramatic slant to it that is both unfunny and insulting to readers' intelligence. We mock people who push the "I thought this was RATIONALWiki!" line, but he's definitely one of those guys that prompts the complaint in the first place.

Make no mistake, Gamergate is most certainly a hate mob governed by some truly awful people, and I am strongly critical of the movement as a whole. At the same time, however, there really is such a thing as an "SJW"; it just so happens that the term's definition has become too broad, and their influence on society at-large has been greatly exaggerated. That said, I think Ryulong fits into the definition of a social justice warrior - someone who attaches themself to social justice movements simply for the sake of being right and/or to stroke their ego. For this reason, I believe his access to editing this particular article should be restricted. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're posting this, since it doesn't reflect positively on you. Why would fervent support of social justice warrant bad faith assumptions? Even if some support social justice for dishonest or selfish reasons, at least they're supporting it. Here's a few relevant quotes from Martin Luther King, Jr. (perhaps you've heard of him):
There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.
—Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches
Human progress is neither automatic nor inevitable... Every step toward the goal of justice requires sacrifice, suffering, and struggle; the tireless exertions and passionate concern of dedicated individuals.
—Martin Luther King Jr.
History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people.
—Martin Luther King Jr. (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason to doubt Ryulong's sincerity. Furthermore, your words contribute to the overuse of "SJW." Everyone thinks they're the ones using it correctly. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 02:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Sincere or not, he is an egotistical ass who refuses to let anyone touch his precious little liveblog, and quite frankly I am sick of it. Look down on me if you must, that does not change my feelings on the matter. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Whatever you think, don't bring assumptions of his motive into it. Such assumptions only bring problems. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 03:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Maybe if y'all knew what the fuck you were doing with regards to this topic I wouldn't have to respond in a way that you don't like.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Also is this more of your "This page is too long" complaints as it was last time? The only thing I've fought in the past week has been FCP's god awful restructuring and also Naqoyqatsi's latest inanity.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Ryulong, tone it down a tad, okay? That is not a productive response. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 04:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
ConfusedLiberal has been at this for weeks now, making vague complaints about my participation and writing on this page. Before it was "I'm cutting this down to 20% of what it is now" and now it's "Ryulong should be banned because I don't like how the page looks".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
And that post is a much better expression of your thoughts. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 06:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I would say that his response merited, considering the ulterior motives of ConfusedLiberal on the subject. --Castaigne (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  1. Gives forth a sigh.
  2. Checks ConfusedLiberal's contributions.
  3. Notates the interesting interval between contributions last made in 2013 and then suddenly popping up to show on the GamerGate article nearly exclusively in April.
  4. Does the usual identifying search on Reddit, voat, and 8chan.
  5. Notes the usual identifying characteristics found in those places, noting again the current "Op" against RW on 8chan.
  6. Assigns ConfusedLiberal his appropriate place next to Chrimony and Naqoyqatsi.
  7. Ruminates on how these people always think that everyone at RW are total illiterate n00bs who are blinded by the most simple cons.
  8. Also ponders, as a further note, how this is actually a coop issue, and wondering why it was not brought there, but instead put to a user's talk page as a transparent attempt to gain an "ally" in the Op's progress. But then, thinking on that makes it obvious why the OP did not put it to the coop. --Castaigne (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
As the user who had this request left on his talk page, all I will say is that the only problem I have with Ruylong is that he is a terribly long-winded writer with a questionable capacity to understand the difference between "relevant to the argument" and "interesting, perhaps, but not really germane to the topic at hand," coupled with a less-than-stellar ability to accept the efforts of other people to bring those flaws under control. While these are not fantastic qualities to look for in a guy running an article about a multi-faceted, complicated narrative like GG, they don't even come close to warrant a topic ban, which, BTW, is not something we've ever done here, AFAIK. Yes, Ruylong is very close to the topic, and that has plusses (the desire to dig deep and keep abreast of new developments) and minuses (the tendency to see EVERYTHING as CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT). But a few good-faith, good attitude editors have generally been able to override his strong-willed nature and keep things under control, or at least from spiralling too far out of control. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Welp, looks like I wiped out any good faith I had here. Looks like the only thing left to do is delete my account in shame. Just know that I am not a Gamergater; those people disgust me. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
EDIT: Since it doesn't seem like I can delete my account. I shall instead refrain from participating on this particular page anymore. I'll make it up to you guys somehow. Feel free to topic ban me. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The secret is no one here likes it when one user goes to another user's talk page to talk shit about a third user. It doesn't matter if you're relatively respected, that's gonna be an instant annoyance and an indication of intent to stir up drama. I don't think we collectively like drama. I could be wrong. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 16:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I realize I fucked up. Badly. I'm used to there being a PM system on the sites I frequent. Like I said, I won't mess with this page or Ryulong anymore, and I already almost got banned. If you want to direct me to some stubs or pages that need some grammar cleanup, I can make myself more useful. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, when your statement includes something along the lines of "Make no mistake, X are definitely bad guys and I don't condone their actions, BUT" you can expect the text that follows to be highly scrutinized. (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Understood. So is there any way I can persuade you fine people that I'm not a concern troll, or is that label pretty much permanent? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Wait 3 days and nobody here will remember this. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 17:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, so not true. I study this sort of thing as sedulously as if it were my favorite sutra. --Castaigne (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
That's nothing I would admit to so quickly. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I was not raised to "forgive and forget", as people like to say. Someone around here has to remain watchful, suspicious, and vigilant.
That’s my last Duchess painted on the wall,
Looking as if she were alive. I call
That piece a wonder, now: Frà Pandolf’s hands
Worked busily a day, and there she stands.
--"My Last Duchess", Browning --Castaigne (talk) 19:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not one to label people; all I know is that you have something against Ryulong and don't like so-called "SJWs". If you don't get involved in drama and don't act against the overall pro-social justice stance of this wiki, I don't see why you couldn't redeem yourself. (talk) 17:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Alright. I can tell you that I am indeed pro-social justice. I just happen to use that term to describe certain people in the vocal minority (not Quinn, Sarkeesian, or Wu; they're okay with me). I usually use it as a reference to tone, but I acknowledge that the tone argument is a logical fallacy. And I will also acknowledge that I lost my temper and let personal feelings get in the way of my common sense, hence why I am recusing myself from this article. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
What the friendly BoN said. In 8 years, I have left in a burn-all-my-bridges huff any number of times. We're a pretty forgiving lot. Don't think you've done anything irredeemable. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Something to think about[edit]

Saw this on the escapist, think it sheds some light on the whole thing:

"Man, having been following this GamerGate thing for months now, I am noticing a LOT of harassment. I am surprised anyone in their right mind would support these kinds of harassers.

I mean, you have Zoe Quinn, right? She harassed a feminist organization and made them lose their funding. Luckily some gamers came along and helped them out. Glad to see some people actively working against harassment there.

Then you have Randi Harper. Man, some MAJOR harassment issues there. She has been known to send her followers after anyone who disagrees with her. Dogpiling, I believe the technical term is. And she harasses authors writing about women in the STEM fields. And even harasses poor fiction authors who write about badass vampires.

Then you have this social media data analyst. He is not the harasser, but the victim of harassment. He DARED to release statistical data pertaining to GamerGate, and he had to endure a lot of harassment and even threats to himself and his family. I don't even...

Then there is this adult entertainment actress who has also been on the receiving end of harassment, all for expressing her opinion online. I have seen people calling her a whore and a slut, all for not agreeing with them. Now, this is just my opinion, but those kinds of terms seem DREADFULLY misogynistic.

Then you have this lizzy girl. She has her personal information leaked online. Up to and including blueprints to her house, and she even has her young daughter threatened.

I just... Wow. How anyone can support these people who resort to this level of harassment so often is beyond me. I hope that anyone who supports these people reconsider their position. And I hope that more and more people openly take a stand against this kind of harassment."

And the guy didn't even mention wizardchan (don't forget, AGG is literally fonded on attacking a forum for depressed people). I wonder what AGg would have to do to be declare a hate movement? I'd say murder, but I'm guessing if it happens, AGG will either disown it, insist it never happened, or that the person is clearly some evil mra who deserved it.— Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

...Most of those are miscommunications with barely anything bad arising from them (the Wizardchan thing especially). Also, although there are small groups of people organized against Gamergate, being against Gamergate does not mean you side with any of them. Being for Gamergate, however, associates you with the entirety of Gamergate. Furthermore, for as much as GG shouts "false flag" at things, all the cases of harassment that have been proven to be false flags... Were committed by prominent GGers. Take that into consideration. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 22:07, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you think Wizardchan is a forum for depressed people and not a forum for Elliot Rodgers-like psychopaths, you're beyond saving. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Don't they call people like you stalkers? 22:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
AGG? (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
"Anti-Gamergate".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
"Literally everyone criticizing me," where 'me' is 'GG.' Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 02:09, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear BoN,
  1. TFYC is not a feminist organization. They're a crowdfunding front for media studio Autobotika.
  2. All these conspiracies about Randi Harper are new to me so [citation needed]
  3. What social media analyst?
  4. Another nameless person, probably Mercedes Carrera, but again never heard of anything like that happening to her. Only thing that happened was people calling her out for using that other actress's rape as a political tool for Gamergate.
  5. Lizzyf620 was doxxed by baph and in an amazing reach claims that Leigh Alexander's "Gamers are over" article is somehow calling for the eugenic murder of her neuroatypical daughter. I think that's what her thing was at least.
  6. Tell us to Google Helldump next time.
Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
So Randi Harper left a critical review of a book and Anne Rice posted about it and her fans dogpiled Randi and Wizardchan hated Zoe Quinn before Gamergate existed so the line about how "AGG was made to harass them" is bunk.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
[Edit Conflict] @2: Well, the first thing is either this, or, more likely, the whole "Claire" thing. That happened with Claire? Randi was disagreeing with them, Claire used the GG hashtag, Randi said that using the hashtag causes dogpiling, and a bunch of few-post accounts jumped on Claire while RogueStar pointed at it. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 03:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The last bit probably isn't saying "she criticized Twilight," but it's funny to think it is. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 03:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
The "Claire" incident was something else entirely.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Something else from what I'm saying? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 04:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It was just odd.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I assume you mean that the incident was odd. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 06:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Also this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
[WARNING: Way not canon] "Emperor, with the Darth Maul and Darth Vader standing up to your enemy, Luke Skywalker, it's time for you to unleash your weapon. I shall join." "Yes, very well. Send me the signal encryption, we'll chat." "Will do, sir Emperor." Wow that's so un-canon for 800 continuity reasons, I should have used the DC Universe for that one. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 08:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So, I poked my head into KotakuInAction...[edit]

And I saw this thread. I noticed this:

"She highlighted examples of native advertising on BuzzFeed, Wired and Gawker." The FTC isn't messing around. Gawker, Wired and BuzzFeed are in the sights of the FTC.

And, here's what was she said about that:

Some people I’ve talked to [think] native is inherently deceptive. I don’t agree. I don’t think it’s inherently deceptive any more than an infomercial is inherently deceptive.

Now, why would BuzzFeed/Wired/Gawker be examples? The examples would have to be the least deceptive. I'm not making statements about my personal views on those sites, nor am I making statements about my views on advertising ethics, but the way KiA swarms around this stuff is pretty bad. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 09:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, man. They have a thread about someone telling Nerd3 that he "must be a GGer because he supports consumers rights." The thread says that it's the people against GG calling him a GGer. It's the opposite: GGers are calling him a GGer. This is like that time when GGers said that Ken Ashcorp got roped into GG because "SJWs were looking for allies." It was the opposite: Ken said that GG was desperate for "allies." (He *was* a supporter of proto-GG, though.) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 09:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, this seems important. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 10:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
It's hard to distinguish between malice and misunderstanding when I see both coexisting. This is especially problematic for me because it's making my morals hard to follow. It is a shame that things cannot be black-and-white. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 11:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
JuiceBro is claiming he's MTM transgender now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I am always terribly amused that JuiceBro is their "Based Lawyer"...and can't sustain himself as an attorney, forced to hawk his beloved juice cleanses instead. --Castaigne (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I watch N3 and he is not a GG'er he supports women's rights if i am correct, and im pretty sure he is a liberal from his political views. Bubba41102Anonymous user is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike an editor 19:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

KIA is butthurt, for the umpteenth time[edit]

[2] αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 14:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh no. I was wrong for half a day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh they're pointing at this correction instead. Gotta keep those enthics unleashed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


[3] What's the story here? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 14:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not clicking that link. Do you mean "what is wizardchan?"? Or is there something more detailed you're trying to learn. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:53, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It's just the Gamergate wiki, which is ideologically biased (obviously we aren't) but not virus-filled. Gamergate says Quinn falsely claimed harassment from members of Wizardchan; they have no evidence to back it up, but I'd like to hear more on the other side of the story. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 14:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It means gamergate desperately needs to cast itself as a victim. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
"The threatening posts made on Wizardchan were made by Zoë herself for attention and by trolls from other websites, as was confirmed by IP checks. Some media outlets recanted their story, but by then the damage was already done." - Q&A with Fredrick Brennan of 8chan
TL;DR Her word against his.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
How would they know her IP address? (jw) Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The IP address of the first harassing post could have shared ZQ's city. For more info.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
And this is why you guys are conspiracy theorists who aren't ever taken seriously. A series of tangential arguments to build a specious case that, in the end, is nothing more than a "NO U". ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I know what Wizardchan is. Just... do not ask me how I know any of the following info.
Wizardchan is a loveshy/incel forum that spun off from /r9k/. It is an extremely toxic place that caters to lonely men. As a result, it forbids meet-ups, giving out contact information, and outright bans women (denying that they have any right to complain about a disadvantaged life). The result is a community almost entirely about self-loathing, intolerance towards gays and women, and less than spectacular personal hygiene.
Honestly? Don't pay attention to their fake claims. This is one of many, many instances of them playing the victim, because it also has a persecution complex the size of Andromeda. Trust me when I say that engaging with Wizardchan is a losing battle.
The name is derived from "Wizard", an old Japanese IRC term for 30 year old virgins, by the way. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png I suppose there is no fantasy like power fantasy 20:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Did any of the journalists seek comment from Wizardchan members or the admin before printing their story? "This post has been edited to correctly assert that the claims were made by the accuser and have not been confirmed by another party."--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Are you really repeating the false flag shit?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Nah, that's all you.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You're the one clearly trying to prove to us that Zoe posted about herself on Wizardchan.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning there are two sides to this story =/= trying to prove something. I'm not going to fall for your red herring. The current discussion is whether it was right for the outlets to only report Zoe's claims without offering the accused a chance for comment.--Naqoyqatsi (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
It's not a red herring. You're giving reasons as to why the Wizardchan shit could be a false flag with Gamergate-biased sources. Hotwheels saying that Zoe posted about herself on Wizardchan or claiming that someone representing Wizardchan should have been approached for comment on this is weaseling your way out of outright claiming the false flag conspiracy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Incels. GamerGate has allied itself with incels. Christ, now they just need to ally with Westboro Baptist or the Duggars or TERFs and they'll have the full deck of wingnuttery.
And I see Naqoyqatsi is stanning for incels. Not surprised. --Castaigne (talk) 21:39, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Incels? What're those? (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
An incel is a person who is 'involuntarily celibate'. Basically because women aren't having sex with the guy when he wants, then clearly women are at fault for not wanting him. You can find more MRA jargon at the Manosphere glossary.--Owlman (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
They are detestable creatures. --Castaigne (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, no. Wizardchan was around before GG and there isn't a lot of overlap between Wizardchan and GG, as Wizardchan is too busy self-pitying to pay attention to harass- ETHICS IN VIDYA JOURNELISM. There may be some Wizardchan anons that are into GG, but the alliance is neither de facto nor de jure. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png That's why our council tax is so high 22:07, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Ally is whoever they've chosen to side with. That's why GG are Vox Day's allies, Milo's allies - and apparently, Wizardchan's. Hey, you lie down with dogs... --Castaigne (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, the average Wizardchanner would probably agree with GG. But GG is very, very rarely discussed in Wizardchan. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png In a few minutes, bitch 23:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Leigh Alexander, racism[edit]

I know it's encyclopedia dramatica, but just for hosting her tweets:

It seems like she actually is racist. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's been explained a billion times how taking shit out of context is Gamergate's bread and butter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
What's the context? ʇυzzγɔɒтqoтɒтo (talk/stalk) 22:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Fuck if I know.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
She called a bunch of African Americans "hood men" and then went on later to say that she toned it down. I also enjoy that no one at this site has an issue with the "Thug = Nigger" narrative (but "hood men is like totes ok ya'll!")-- (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah I said her comments were clearly racially offensive down below. Though I doubt you care about the comments themselves.--Owlman (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
So, to be racist you need to make racially offensive statements on a regular basis? |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png The female paper of lolling! 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's kind of unscientific to draw conclusions from a single data point. But yeah, this "hood men" stuff sounds pretty majorly racist. (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
No, not necessarily. What I mean is that if someone were mad at someone and called them a faggot then that is offensive because it is a homophobic slur, but that person may not actually be homophobic. So from her posts she was trying to be offensive towards the African Americans that, according to her, were harassing her.--Owlman (talk) 21:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
So, she was trying to insult a couple of men that happened to be black and instead decided to insult all black men. Got it. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png Must've been one swood dude. 04:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I will reiterate that her comments were racist and were meant to be racially offensive, but I don't think she was referring to all black people or black men. Though I have thought more about her comments and how they imply she is racist. I would say that because they were black that she decided it was okay to say something racist which, if true, would make her racist in my opinion. I also tried to look up more of her past and found an essay by her where she talks about her prejudice. It seems like she internalized stereotypes about black people which, again, I would say makes her racist.--Owlman (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Standard GG smears. Find something shitty they said years ago, accuse them of still holding the same views. (i.e. Ian Miles Cheong, Bob Chipman, Zoe Quinn, etc) Cykosys (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
After looking for these comments elsewhere I can tell you I only found them from the ralph retort. I actually read that mind numbing site I have to say it doesn't compel me to believe she is racist. Based on the screenshots of her twitter I personally wouldn't judge her as racist, but her comments were racially offensive.--Owlman (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
From left to right: Looks like she's talking about people in poor neighborhoods; Second picture confirms; Third picture is clearly a joke (Yes, I'm tooootally doing this!). Saying stupid stuff and being racist are not mutually inclusive. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (BoN is paranoid!) 04:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd say they're pretty racist. However, these were one-off comments made four years ago. A lot of people have said shitty things in the past, and if you dig deep enough into their personal history you can probably find them saying something questionable. The question is: has Leigh Alexander repeated these views since then? Is it something she does on a semi-regular basis? If she's moved on from that sort of behavior, I would say it's unfair to characterize her as still racist today. Zennistrad (talk) 21:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

/r/KiA continues to fight for "ethics"[edit]

Massively upvoted discussion about ethi- pffffhahahah. Full story here. Could one of the resident GGers in here pls explain to me what this has to do with videogame journalism? Typhoon (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Anything to destroy all SJWs is a victory for ethics in journalism! DEATH TO THE SJWS! UP WITH MANBROISM! FIGHT FOR ETHICAL FREEDOMS! GLORIOUS VICTORY TO THE ETERNAL REVOLUTION! --Castaigne (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh look, it's Nayqoyqatsi and his fellow KIA/8Chan "Ops" bros attempting to get us to ban Ryulong again! (Note to RationalWiki admins: THIS is why RyuLong was banned from Wikipedia) Apparently, we are daring to let Ryulong talk like this without repercussions. Very weak of us, totally unManBro, very beta male.
More agitation. And here they get themselves into a tizzy over FCP's claims page. Which now makes me endorse keeping the page, purely out of spite.
But really, I just love that these cowards refuse to directly engage people. I haven't seen them dare to come at me. They just don't have the stones to confront people who are not SJWs. --Castaigne (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Ethics! Ethics! Ethics! Oh wait... maybe not LlamaPastor31 Something else 03:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

More Whinging[edit]

More weak whinging from the KIAers. They are terribly pitiful, hiding over in their Reddit fortress. Complete beta males; it's a wonder why Vox Day and Roosh and Cernovich support them. If this Jattok and his minions were worth a shit, they'd have me fully doxxed already and gotten Baphomet to trash my bank accounts or get me swatted.
Of course, this is proof-positive that the Gators don't have what is called "the courage of their convictions". They have no stamina, no true will, no principles. They're not willing to die for their beliefs, like truly principled people are.
Again, notice they want to focus on Ryulong. They think he's the easier target. They fear to engage anyone else here - especially me. Their fear is palpable, and yet, they seem to think they deserve respect and discussion without having earned it.
I'll wait for them. Let them show up on my talk page, if they have the cojones. I'd consider it amusing to deal with a few puppets of the Nrx/MRA alliance. Maybe they can explain away Totalbiscuit's membership in the British National Party or some such similar crap.
--Castaigne (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WTF? Why are you talking like this? Are you sure you're OK? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 06:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm totally fine. I talk like this all the time, here and elsewhere, so I'm not real sure what you're going on about. Are -you- OK? --Castaigne (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems a perfectly ordinary Castaigne to me - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Come the morning, it occurs to me that you might not be used to aggressive types like myself. :D Don't worry, this is SNAFU for me. --Castaigne (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I've encountered aggressive types before but your conviction that people are obsessed with or frightened by you is peculiar and challenging people to "die for their beliefs" in this context is bizarre. WẽãšẽĩõĩďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The Gators aren't obsessed or frightened with me personally. They're obsessed with fighting their bogeymen, the "evil SJWs", and because they're rather pathetic they go after what they perceive are soft targets. Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian? Women, and therefore these basement-dwelling "gamers" think they can push them around. After all, they're big manly men and these are WOMEN, and of course the weak wimminz are incapable of standing up to them. But guys like Chris Kluwe? They pass on, because they know they'll lose the fight and get pasted. Gators are nothing more than your standard school bullies, shaking down those they think they can dominate, and avoiding fights with those they know they can't win against.
And people like you and me, they'll avoid like mad, because they don't have the backbone to try against us. Just how it is.
As for the courage of their convictions, look at a guy like Hovind. He may be wrong as hell, but he's willing to do whatever it takes in order to back up his beliefs. So does Westboro Baptist. So does the Army of God. If you're not willing to die for the cause, willing to go to the wall, willing to sacrifice...well, then you ain't much of a believer. You just don't have what it takes.
And it's really contemptible, because they talk all tough in KiA and 8Chan...but you know that if it were a face-to-face confrontation? They'd back down. They'd cower. They wouldn't be willing to brotango with the likes of you and me. They hide behind their anonymity. It's one reason I'd like to see them stripped of it. Do you think they'd do all this crap if it could be linked back to them IRL? Shoot, no - they'd shut the hell up. They'd stop their little campaigns.
How do I know this for true? There was this guy who used to harass women online, get their real-life deetz, try to force them to cyber with him. If they wouldn't bow to him, his MO was to sic the cops or family services on them in revenge. I know of about 27 people he did this too. Guy was very, very careful to keep his online persona and his IRL identity completely separate. So once those two were linked, documentation made showing the link, and that documentation sent to his family, his workplace, and his hang-outs, the ass found himself homeless and jobless for two years. After which, he was jailed on charges of kiddy rape.
Anyway, long story, short, all these Gators are just the same as this guy. Not in the sense of committing kiddy rape. I mean in the sense that they keep their IRL identity separate from the online stuff. In IRL they act like normal, polite gamer types, very Norman Bates. Then they have their secret online identities, and hey, if they SWAT Zoe Quinn or whatnot and she gets shot in the face and killed in the process, then it's LOL LOL TROLLERGAGS TOP KEK. And of course, IRL, they're all "Oh, this is a horrible thing.", false-facing it the entire way. They're like this because they're afraid to be up front about their hate/beliefs.
So there you have it. Call it a personal pet peeve. I don't hide. They do. --Castaigne (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
So Castaigne is your real name, right? ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Not my real name, but you can find me with that name. Feel free to friend me on FB and all. I'm not hard to find. (Also, I've posted my real name and address on this wiki 3-4 times.) --Castaigne (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Where'd you get Totalbiscuit and the BNP? He seems a non-fan - David Gerard (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Just being an ass. ;) --Castaigne (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Why? --Castaigne (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
There are a lot of things wrong with Totalbiscuit. Being in the BNP isn't one of them. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Star of David.png as much fun as requiring a double mastectomy 19:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
And it doesn't hurt to toss darts at him either. Don't worry, I'm not planning on adding something like that to the article or summat.
Also, I never post under any influence --Castaigne (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

They're onto usRyūlóng (琉竜) 02:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Major figures list[edit]

this edit - I concur that it bloats the article avoidably, and evidence of shittiness is abundant inline. OTOH, that stuff would be good starters for or additions to articles on these lovely dudes - David Gerard (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

New article Figures involved in Gamergate? Zero (talk - contributions) 16:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Make articles for the people involved (who're missional anyway), and make a list of just the wikilinked names. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 16:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to have separate articles for people who do not already have them, like Vox Day. It will just increase useless stubs. Cernovich, for example, has no importance outside of Gamergate and therefore there is no reason to create an article for him. So if the edit is no good, then the whole idea should just be kiboshed. --Castaigne (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I dunno. Cernovich is a pretty darn dubious fellow in many respects - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Dubious, but not important. He's no Hovind. A public figure really shouldn't have their own article unless they're running the woo show they're involved in or is a big wheel in general. --Castaigne (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
The way you presented the list is just bad. But Cernovich and Yiannopoulos may be deserving of coverage on the site somehow.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I framed the article together, but left out bios or any sort of relevant details as my knowledge of some of these characters is limited. Zero (talk - contributions) 21:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to shove this into your userspace for now cause your heart is in the right place but I think we should keep it as a sandbox for now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If the way I presented it is bad, then edit it to be good or delete it entirely. Cernovich and Yiannopoulos do NOT need coverage outside of the main Gamergate article. They are neither major figures in woo, nor do they have any importance outside of their Gamergate influence. An article on either of them would only need to be three sentences long and that's it; such stubs are bad wiki-editing. And since Zero has gone ahead and created another useless page that doesn't need to exist, I have to wait another 30 minutes and then begin the Deletion process. We only need the Gamergate article and the timeline article; nothing else is needed for Gamergate coverage, therefore nothing else need exist. --Castaigne (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
These so called 'major figures' don't deserve a separate page. I agree with you, Castaigne. LlamaPastor31 Something else 23:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Cernovich is an MRA who hawks juice cleanses to make money. I'd say that's edging into woo territory.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Is he a woomeister? Undoubtedly. Is he on the level of a Creflo Dollar or a David Talbott? No. On his own, he at best deserves an entry on my list. --Castaigne (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This shitstorm is STILL active!?[edit]

Ah, the horror! I had no idea that this absolutely outrageous "movement" is still active, shouldn't it have died out by now, like Congress's attention to the ISIS "situation".--Palaeonictis (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I fucking wish. --Paul S (talk) 05:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
ISIS is still active too. Bad people don't stop doing bad things just because we shake our heads disapprovingly at them. (talk) 05:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC) (Note: Presently inaccurate as they were ruining a PhD student's thesis as of a few days ago)—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC) Yeah, wanted to leave this here. (talk)
Nice article! I like the summary in the final two paragraphs. Player 03 (talk) 22:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)