Talk:Gamergate/Archive6

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>, <5>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>

, (new)(back)

Deconverting gamergaters?

I should have posted this as a separate section in the first place, but oh well.
Some people get caught up in Gamergate because they hear one side of the story, and legitimately believe they're the good guys. To quote Natalie Zed, "I've had conversations with people who genuinely feel that there's not a place for them and they think that this thing that has always been a place for them is somehow being taken away. It's really gutting to see how much pain there is behind that hostility." Note: she said this despite being targeted by the movement.
RationalWiki has a section aimed at the (relatively) small number of people who fell for Roko's Basilisk. Why not something similar for Gamergate? I'll get started writing that up tomorrow, unless someone can suggest a reason it won't work. Player 03 (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Do try. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:21, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Most people that do "deconvert" are members of marginalized communities already who realize how much Gamergate doesn't care about them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this already the point of the list of Gamergate claims article? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem there is that people don't respond well to open hostility. Looks like a good reference, though. Player 03 (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as a Gamergater - attempts at "deconversion" are pointless. I don't play video games, I'm not particularly interested in video game review sites (which one can reasonably expect to be as biased as any ad-sponsored product review sites.) This may have begun with gamers but non-gamers are now the majority. For most of us it's an issue of (a) opposition to authoritarianism and the suppression of ideas, which, unless you sufficiently refute "On Liberty" has little chance of success - and if you do, please publish. (b) The ideal of a strict meritocracy independent of qualifiers, which the internet and anonymity have brought us. And (c) an understanding of media bias, conscious and unconscious. For that I'd refer you to "Manufacturing Consent" although I wish Chomsky would update it for the digital age. Those fundamental beliefs and the ability to recognize media bias cannot be "undone."

I'm interested in understanding you however. Not your perspective, which I'm familiar with, but what makes you - which I don't believe you can answer. I suspect the same motivations that drove man to embrace religion are still present, but with religion's decline now focused on other equally rigid ideologies. At first I ascribed it to insufficient rationality (ironic in context) but I now believe you're rational within the framework of a different perhaps intrinsic calculus. As to who will win, inevitably it will become a question of numbers and the example of atheism+ doesn't bode well for your side. In the meantime, I'll continue to observe and explore those ideas. Sarah (HH) 02:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

So it's libertarianism vs. whatever isn't libertarianism?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't identify as a libertarian. I'm actively involved in the Sanders campaign for example. If you want to quantify it: months ago we ran a "political compass" test. [1] The results were in line with most Gamergaters I know personally and the views I see represented in our forums. [2] The fight between GG and anti-GG is along the y-axis. This is not a left/right battle. Sarah (HH) 03:08, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the top of that y-axis is termed "libertarian", ya know. What seems odd to me is why people with seemingly valid anti-authoritarian anti-rigid-ideologies views would choose to congregate as a group around a misogynist internet manufactroversy concerning Zoe Quinn. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Particularly one that stifles the free market that is the indie scene.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

That "political compass" test was highly biased to lean left though. It's /pol/ vs. the world at its core.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean, at its core, Gamergate says it's about improving the enthusiast video game press by rooting out undisclosed conflicts of interest. And here you're saying you don't care about video games at all. Then the common deflection is that Gamergate wants an objective video game press, one that doesn't have reviews of story elements as being regressive. Just say if the game plays good (a subjective thing anyway) and list off its features like you're selling a toaster. Don't say if the story is shit or non-existant. It's clear at this point that Gamergate is just a reactionary backlash against video games no longer being niche. It's about people who characterize everyone with progressive views as "SJWs" and unironically define themselves as "anti-SJWs". People who are easily offended by people who they characterize as easily offended. A self-serving shit beast.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:17, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

It's about those who want ethics in video game journalism, those who support those who want ethics in video games journalism, and those who oppose those who oppose those who want ethics in video game journalism. It's not straightforward and has grown into something much greater than what it began as.

For most of us, the details of Ms Quinn's life are uninteresting. If the gossip had been left to die a natural death it would have died quickly. What attracted our attention was the broad and coordinated campaign to suppress discussion. The nature of that discussion was never relevant, just that it be allowed to exist. Sarah (HH)

Yes but no one opposes people who want ethics in video game journalism. People oppose the people who have made Zoe Quinn's life a living hell for nearly a year and that's all it really boils down to. Why else has Eron Gjoni received nearly $20k to fight his restraining order against talking about her online? Why else have reviews of her video game been made unnecessarily negative? The only discussion being "suppressed" was the focus on her personal life, often ad hominem attacks on her. I sincerely doubt that every thread that was shut down on /r/games, 4chan, SA, etc., were actually about ethics in video game journalism and I bet they were instead about spreading the rumors that Zoe had sex for a review that never existed or that she dared to not date Eron anymore. The "gossip" was being devoured by shitlords that give 4chan the reputation it has acquired. I mean the minute someone decides to phone in a death threat to someone I would say that the discussion is over. No one in "anti-Gamergate" is advocating for a corrupt press. They're advocating against a reactionary hate movement that Gamergate was from the start no matter how good you think it can be dressed up and separated from the #BurgersAndFries or #Quinnspiracy origins.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Why has Eron Gjoni received $20K to fight a restraining order against speaking about their relationship? Well, I think because a lot of people find the idea of restraining him from doing so offensive. An important aspect of free speech is we should all have the right to tell our own personal stories if we so choose, including the stories of our past relationships. The idea of a court order taking that right away from him is shocking. Imagine if a woman was involved in an abusive relationship, and wanted to talk publicly about her experience, and her ex-partner got a court order to stop her from stating her viewpoint? Many people would agree that was outrageous, why isn't it also outrageous when the same thing is done to a man? 101.174.185.235 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if he hadn't used 4chan to drive his ex out of house and home and start up a hate mob he wouldn't have been hit with a restraining order. Also you and the rest of the red pillers don't understand what "freedom of speech" entails. It means that you're free to criticize the government without fearing repercussions of being thrown in prison like the Chinese Communist Party likes to do to dissenters. It doesn't carry over to private entities like websites who have terms of service that you the user agree to in order to use their website. Of course, your analogy is skewed here. The abuser here is Eron, not Zoe. They broke up, she left to find a new life without him. He obsessed over her and got back at her for not taking him back.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I perfectly well know what "free speech" means, and it is a much broader right than simply criticising the government, and government actions short of imprisonment can violate it. If there is a law banning mailing information on contraception, that violates free speech rights (there was a US Supreme Court case on this), even though it isn't speech in itself critical of the government. And it is still a violation of free speech even if the penalty is just a fine not imprisonment. And in Eron Gjoni's case, if a court order says he cannot talk about something anywhere - even in a forum more than happy to hear him - on threat of fines or imprisonment - that is a violation of his free speech rights. Finally, there are two sides to every story, you obviously have chosen to believe Zoe Quinn's side, others will make different choices.101.174.185.235 (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

His words were used to incite hate and violence. The government kind of draws a line there. And TheZoePost was Eron's chance to tell his side of the story. He was only brought to court after he wrote everything that spawned Gamergate. And you know, the RO hasn't really stopped him from doing shit on KIA has it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If there is a law banning mailing information on contraception, that violates free speech rights (there was a US Supreme Court case on this), even though it isn't speech in itself critical of the government.- {{{2}}}

You missed the critical point of that court case, though. That law is the government itself taking a position and censoring speech that violates that law. That is a violation of free speech. Were it not a law issued by government or being enacted by a government entity (the Post Office), then you wouldn't have an issue. For instance, if I am head of a corporation and I issue a corporate rule stating the same thing, that no information on contraception can be distributed on corporate property, then that is perfectly legit and within the bounds of free speech.

And in Eron Gjoni's case, if a court order says he cannot talk about something anywhere - even in a forum more than happy to hear him - on threat of fines or imprisonment - that is a violation of his free speech rights.- {{{2}}}

And you're wrong there. That's not a violation of free speech. It is a standard part of a Harassment Restraining Order, which was issued against Gjoni, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the gags issued by a Harassment Restraining Order are not a violation of free speech. And that's why his appeals are going to fail. --Castaigne (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't. The only way gators deconvert is when they're eaten by the toxicity of their own "movement". |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{JESUS CHRIST, THEY'RE MY OWN BUTTOCKS} 03:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Section break

As I understand it, people weren't coordinating to censor discussion, they were coordinating to stop all the doxxing. Certainly, that's why the topic was banned on 4chan. Do you really think that Zoe Quinn had that much influence over that many sites? Seems more reasonable that each site individually saw something wrong with the "discussion," and made the independent decision to ban it. Player 03 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The [insert snarl word of choice] are both a minority that shouldn't be recognized and also control the media.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Censoring dox is fine. The goal was to censor discussion completely. Read the emails and judge for yourself (a) whether that was the case and (b) whether it was coordinated. If you're familiar with games journalism you'll recognize these names: http://imgur.com/iA8SNBJ ^{— Unsigned, by: HuskyHarlot / talk / contribs 00:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)}

Looks like The Escapist's staff went back and forth, educated a newbie mod or two, and ended up leaving the thread up. Adding that link to my anti-GG bookmarks. Player 03 (talk) 00:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Websites can choose to take down whatever they want. It's not censorship. They're exercising their rights as a private entity. Also, the fact that nothing actually happened as a result of the emails should show you GJP didn't mean shit in the long run.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Player 03, Greg Tito is the only member of The Escapist's staff in that email exchange. This apparently took place on the GameJournoPros mailing list that people across several video game websites used to bounce ideas off each other or ask for help on complex situations. Gamergate turned it into a boogeyman of "collusion and corruption" when one supporter who was on the list got booted off and then decided to leak it entirely to feed into the Gamergate's overall persecution complex. The emails, again, show the EIC of The Escapist refusing to acknowledge three other people's opinions on how his website's forums are being used to stir shit on Gamergate through the various MOs we know that the group has used to this day (brand new account, just asking questions, asserting that there's a conspiracy against them, etc.).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The exchange is among (mostly senior) employees of various websites with forums censoring any discussion of Quinn: Polygon, GamePolitics, DailyDot - all except Tito at the Escapist favored it, for which we gave him credit. You questioned whether there was a coordinated effort to censor discussion. I hope I've answered that question. Sarah (HH) 01:48, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Censorship isn't closing forum posts though. Censorship is done by the government and not private entities (people who run websites) which have the say on what goes on their property (their websites). No one on the Internet has freedom of speech considering nearly all of it is privatized.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The dictionary definition of any particular word doesn't really matter. Replace "censor" with "suppress," and your objection goes away while Sarah's point is unchanged. Greg Tito did in fact want to suppress the harassment that he saw going on, even if it meant suppressing the discussion along with it. (I know he didn't end up doing it, but he obviously wanted to.) Player 03 (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I read it as he didn't want to suppress anything even at the behest of the others who thought it was a good idea to stop the harassment.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:46, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I misread it the first time through. Oops!

This does indeed change my view, if only by a small amount. It's still not "a coordinated effort to censor discussion." Coordinated, yes. Censorship, yes, even though they wouldn't want to use that word. But it wasn't about censoring discussion. It was about censoring harassment. They saw it as harassment, and they wanted to get rid of it because of the perceived harassment. (Also, if you've ever asked friends privately for advice, you have no right to criticize them for doing the same.) Player 03 (talk) 04:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

• I appreciate your open mindedness. I promise in return to thoughtfully consider your points before responding.
• Harassment is difficult to define, there is no bright-line test. If someone tweets "Miscegenation is an affront to God!" and thousands reply with pictures of smiling interracial couples, is that harassment? At the very least I would say harassment is something done to you. If I were to follow you around and comment "Player 03 is a jerk" that would be harassment. If I post it on my user talk page, even repeatedly, it would not; you can easily avoid my user talk page. If I post it on a different website entirely it certainly wouldn't be. So I can't believe simply talking about Ms Quinn is harassment. Talking to her may be, depending on the circumstances, but that wasn't the extent of their censorship.
• Regarding my criticism of these journalists or the existence of the mailing list. My argument is not that they committed a fundamental moral violation, rather they committed an ethical violation, specific to their profession. For good reason journalists are obliged to maintain distance between colleagues (inter-publication), and between journalist and subject. These emails and several more show they did not. But even that is not a mortal sin. The mortal sin was rather than acknowledge these (arguably minor) misdeeds, they responded with a disinformation campaign using the power of their positions to deflect criticism. Suddenly the story became not that we were critical of one woman for specific actions, but that we were misogynists who wanted all women out of gaming, that "gamers" were no longer relevant as an audience. That narrative still prevails but neither claim has any relevance to our fundamental complaints: that we be allowed to discuss collusion in the games press in general and in Ms Quinn's case in particular. In this case, as in Ms Quinn's case, it was not the initial incident that earned our condemnation but their response to it. I don't know whether Adam Baldwin recognized this when he coined the term "Gamergate" but the comparison to Watergate in that regard is apt. Sarah (HH) 05:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, all of your talking points are bullshit, HuskyHarlot.

• A mailing list is not an ethical violation.
• It's highly unlikely that every forum thread out there was only to "discuss" Zoe Quinn because frankly her private life is of no importance to the world of video games. There's nothing she did with regards to anything Eron Gjoni wrote about that requires "criticism" because it's just her abusive ex-boyfriend trying to get 4chan to drive her to suicide.
• No one made a "disinformation campaign...to deflect criticism". Gamergate brought the toxic reactionary culture of the "gamer" community to the forefront and that's what all those articles were about. How anyone can insist there's some nefarious reasoning behind them is beyond me. The articles said that the stereotypical "gamer" was no longer a lucrative market for the AAA publishers to keep catering towards. And the reaction for Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian to be threatened with rape and murder by legions of 4chan assholes is what was described as misogynistic. These articles were not painting every single person who plays video games or considers themselves a "gamer" as misogynists. I don't get why Gamergate keeps insisting that fact.
• Gamergate has yet to find any actual major instances of "collusion" or conflicts of interest in any of the websites that they are blacklisting because of the "Gamers are over" articles. At least nothing that meets actual standards of what is considered a conflict of interest. And yet people looking on the outside in see that Gamergate rallies around extremely unethical journalists and unethical journalistic pratices so long as it toes the Gamergate line.

And really, tell me how Zoe Quinn being attacked by her ex-boyfriend with the help of /pol/ and /r9k/ compares to President Nixon's administration breaking into the DNC headquarters and then covering up their involvement? Mind you, Adam Baldwin tweeting #GamerGate came before the "Gamers are over" articles that Gamergate claims spurred them into action. It's hard for the name to precede the alleged coverup.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, HuskyHarlot, it's incredibly disingenuous for you to be ignoring every refutation I've made on your comments and solely respond to Player 03 as if to convert him over to being a supporter of Gamergate. That much is obvious from how you've been intentionally putting threaded replies above my own. I've reordered the comments in this thread to match their timestamps rather than your constant behavior of pushing my comments further down so you can solely talk to Player 03 and ignore me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No offense, but remember what I said about "open hostility"? Yeah... On the other hand, it could just be that it's easiest to place your post right below the one you're responding to. Wiki software is not exactly the easiest way to hold a threaded discussion. Player 03 (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So... they did an ethical violation, but it's not a mortal sin. They committed a mortal sin, but that's not your fundamental complaint. And then there's your fundamental complaint. Which one do I address?

Assuming it's the "fundamental complaint," that complaint strikes me as obviously false. You - Sarah - have been discussing "collusion in the games press" here with us. (With me, at any rate. Not so much with Ryulong.) You - Gamergaters in general - have spent rather a lot of time, on many other websites, discussing collusion. I'm afraid I don't see why that's an issue.

While I'm at it, I may as well address the "mortal sin" bit. I'd like some evidence that the same people responsible for the "ethical violation" were the ones trying to shaping the "story." One of my criticisms of this page is that it tends to assume Gamergate is a smaller group than it really is. The page talks about how Gamergaters did X, and that's ironic because previously they'd done the opposite of X. The obvious example is that not all Gamergaters harassed anyone (understatement, I know). And by the same token, not all journalists would have been in on the conspiracy.

Finally, I've never understood why "gamers are over" was a problem. Proto-Gamergate made a lot of noise, someone got driven from her home, and journalists reported on it. Why is it surprising when multiple journalists report on an event shortly after the event happens? Why is it surprising when they take the side of the (apparent) victim? Player 03 (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is really ridiculous now. You've accused me of refactoring your comments when all I did was put everything in the order that they were originally posted. There's no reason for all of my responses to you and to Player 03 get shunted to the bottom because you refuse to address them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Sarah HH, they did not commit an ethical violation. Ethics are purely personal and any supposedly-promulgated "journalist ethics" are voluntary. There's no equivalent of the American Bar Association for journalists; there's no equivalent of licenses that can be revoked or penalties that may be issued. You're believing in what is generally referred to as "the Murrow myth". --Castaigne (talk) 19:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, the old legality implies morality argument. To the back of the bus with you. Sarah (HH) 15:01, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I should note for interested readers, the order of replies in the above discussion(s) was rearranged by Ryulong in an attempt to hide what's the kids call "getting BTFO." The original version can be found on my talk page. Sarah (HH) 15:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you done with your petty internet fight? Typhoon (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

How was it an attempt to hide anything? You didn't defeat his arguments, you just ignored them. I can understand not wanting to bother, but that doesn't mean you won. Player 03 (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to be "BTFO" when you didn't even bother to respond to me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Sarah, legality does not imply morality. Legality implies only legality. As I said, ethics and morality are purely personal - you ignored that statement. If I commit an action that is perfectly ethical to me and not ethical to you, than I have only committed an ethical violation according to you. That means nothing. As is usual with people who want to claim this or that moral or ethical implication, you act as if there is a universal morality or ethics code that everyone must adhere to - or in the case of journalists, that journalists must adhere to. There is no such thing. There is no universal morality; there is no universal ethical code. --Castaigne (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never heard of "the Murrow myth," but I found this article and a couple similar ones. Skimming through them, it seems like they use the term "Murrow myth" to mean "the false belief that Edward R. Murrow was some sort of paragon." They don't attempt to generalize, but if they did, they'd conclude that journalists can and should be bound by ethics. Player 03 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

The Murrow myth is a belief in how Murrow wanted to portray journalism: a reporter of facts who remains totally objective, uninvolved, and completely neutral. For the whole of his life he pretended to the public that journalism was this ultimate exercise in objectivity. He was dead wrong and he knew it. Journalism has never been objective, is not objective, and never will be objective. --Castaigne (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

So because it's impossible to be completely unbiased, journalists shouldn't be held to any standards at all? Player 03 (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to lodge some polite disagreement with the opening statement of the article:

Here's my breakdown of my disagreements:

This implies everyone who is, was, or ever will be a member of pro-GamerGate hates women and opposes diversity in gaming culture. As someone who recently joined the pro-GG side, I have no hatred of women and believe women deserve the same dignity and respect men are entitled to, and that men and women in the gaming industry should be judged on the merits of the abilities and contributions to that industry, not their genders, though I also believe gender should never be used by either an excuse, moral absolvation, or justification for any act that diminishes their integrity.

As someone who remained neutral at the time of the allegations and still isn't sure what to think, I cannot speak conclusively on this issue one way or the other. However, I can say I have played Zoe Quinn's visual novel "Depression Quest", and while I appreciate it's intention to raise awareness about depression, I don't think very highly of it as a game because it's frankly little more than an interactive choose your own adventure book written in a web page editor.

While I cannot speak for Quinn's actions and don't wish to get involved in that debate, I do believe ethical standards in all fields of journalism should be sovereign above all else, as without truth, all the public can gather from the news is lies.

As an early fan of her videos, I did believe she had something of a point about some games beating the same sexist tropes into the ground, but I believe that is bad storywriting, not an indictment on the writer's genders, at least not uniformly. As for censorship, while I agree she hasn't tried to get all games she considers problematic yanked from circulation, she has tarred them with a brush of disapproval, so while she may not be a direct agent of censorship, she approves of it by proxy, which is a respectable opinion that she is entitled to.

I'm colorblind as a gamer, and I would not begrudge anyone of any race, creed, sexual orientation, belief, ideology, and so on, whether they just be an ordinary gamer or someone in the industry. If anything, I'd just like for everyone to get along.

I'm sorry, I must respectfully disagree here. If Gamergaters are all wrong, why have their been so many efforts to discredit them? If their arguments are all manifestly ignorant and foolish, I would think allowing them to be heard without filtering through any lens would make any fallacy manifest without any need of spin one way or the other.

I do not deny some embarrassing, gold digging losers have latched onto Gamergate for their own gain, and in fact mirror disgust that is so. However, I believe that the anti-GG side is not without some of their own embarrassing hangers on, and I don't believe either side is completely free of guilt in that regard.

In conclusion, my own personal reason for siding with Gamergate would be because, frankly, I believe very little merit exists in the position of the antis. Sarkeesian IMO spends more time complaining than producing solutions (and the few she has produced I have yet to see implemented in any way that shows they could be done successfully), and her complaints seem hollow as a result, not to mention the reported cases of her plagiarizing content for her videos are disturbing, such as Dragon's Lair fanart and several game footage clips. Zoe Quinn produced a frankly middling game and little else, so I don't really see her work as a benchmark of gaming ]prowess that should be emulated aside from the message it had, which I admit was a good idea, and Brianna Wu [redacted] produced a game, that, while it qualifies more as a game than Quinn's effort, is amateurish in design and concept, has poor use of textures and meshes (I have made games and game mods, so I can speak on that with some confidence), and has a source canon whose plot is poorly written. I have no issue with Wu as a transwoman, nor do I have an issue with Wu wanting to be a successful game designer, but I saw when Wu false flagged harassment on Steam under her own name, and I'm not impressed with Wu's claims of harassment when I was witness to Wu faking some of the same.

Of course, I could be in error, and I will happily listen to reasons I'm wrong with courtesy. Arcane (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

First section

I mean, we could change it to "a backlash in the video game community against the increasing diversification of gamer culture, dominated by misogyny and reaction". Does that work? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Some of the more vocal pro-GGers (the embarrassing MRA types especially) seem to want to use GG as a club to bash women over the head with, which I concur is destestable. Arcane (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Changed. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This makes no sense.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not? FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Basically, all of Arcane's criticism is garbage and shouldn't be taken into account. Gamergate is a reactionary and misogynistic backlash when taken as a whole. Just because Arcane here claims that they aren't a misogynist or a reactionary and also in Gamergate does not negate the fact that the group is.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

He clams there are nonreactionary-misogynist GGers, which is likely true; hence the revision. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 01:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

FuzzyCatPotato said it well. Just because there are a bunch of those unfortunate cretins does not mean the entire movement as a monolithic entity is composed of MRA's and assholes. If that were true, I wouldn't be here, at least not in a manner where I'm willing to concede I may be full of shit. Arcane (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

This is literally just the "#NotAllMen" argument when applied to Gamergaters. The movement as a whole meets these definitions. Just because Arcane here claims to be a deviation from that norm is not worth changing the entire first sentence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

[EC] Ryulong, if nothing else, the current statement is more precise, because it's difficult to call Gamergate a movement with a unified ideology. Also -- it's 11 characters. No biggie, no loss. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ruylong is correct. The original wording stays. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

1: Why is he correct? 2: Why does the original wording stay? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I do suggest seeing if I'm just the lone exception to the rule here, or if there are men and/or women who hold similar views to my own yet are rational regardless. If there are multiple people this very cites as "left of reason" and "right of reason", I certainly can't be the only one, in an entire group of supposed MRAs that has a level head. Gamergate is, as the article noted, composed of multiple different groups, and by that definition are not unified in their methodology, goals, and intentions in regards to their end goals for said movement. Arcane (talk) 02:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, there are other people in GG who aren't conservative antifeminists. (The article even says so.) FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 02:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

There were people in the South who weren't slave-owning racists. But that has no bearing on the fact that the South is, without controversy, defined as a slave-owning racist society. Likewise, there may be Gators who, personally, are not sexist and reactionary. Thsat has no bearing on the fact that the movement is what it is. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"There were muslims who weren't jihadist terrorists. But that has no bearing on the fact that muslims are, without controversy, defined as a society of terrorists. Likewise, there may be muslims who, personally, are not violent and reactionary. Thsat has no bearing on the fact that the religion is what it is. Peace." This argument is bad and you should feel bad. 50.171.35.251 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Islam is a religion with a minority of violent extremists that do not represent all of Islam. Gamergate is an amorphous group that has been consistently identified as a hate mob that may or may not include people who claim that they do not meet the definition of the broad strokes used to describe the whole.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't pick and choose which groups are represented by the fringe. Either all of them are, or none of them are. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance 50.171.35.251 (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who made this false analogy to begin with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Second section

The quality of her game is ultimately irrelevant to the harassment she received. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ﹐ Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 01:26, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair point, and that harassment was deplorable. I just mentioned her game because, as a rational pro-GGer, my arguments against her work focus on what she produced, not her as a person, and I believe it should be mentioned that her harassers spent less time arguing against her contributions and more attacking her as a person, which is decidedly irrational and hateful. This clarification should point out that said harassers relied less on facts to tarnish her worth in gaming and more on innuendo about her personal choices and ad hominem, and since this is a wiki that points out the irrational, exposing it would be, IMO, an improvement to that section. Arcane (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The intro is designed to be short; look at the sections below, they say that. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Third section

Nobody is opposed to journalistic ethics. (Calling all news lies is a bit pessimistic.) The problem is that Gamergate isn't about journalistic ethics, and not even video game journalistic ethics, at least not in the actions that Gamergaters spend most of their time on. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 01:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

True, I'm much less into pro-GG for that reason, and to be fair, I am a pessimist by nature. And I agree, Gamergate has expanded far beyond the reason it originally claimed as it's mandate, so I concur that anyone in Gamergate claiming the original motive is their source motivation would be misleading people, as it has become, for better or worse, a culture war about more than just ethics in gaming. Arcane (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

But it never was about ethics in Gaming -- read the Quinnspiracy section, which is what led to #Gamergate. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, but only in part. It's more like ethics on the part of those involved in the gaming industry, which would have been a more accurate way to frame the initial claim of the pro-GG side, but I otherwise concur with your statement. Arcane (talk) 01:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the Quinnspiracy was about ethics in the gaming industry, but (given how quickly it was debunked, and how long the argument has persisted in some GGers) I think it's more likely that proto-GG was really about a woman being "slutty". Hence, FiveGuys. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 01:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

That very well may be the case, as I did notice a lot more press given Quinn's personal choices than the supposed arguments for why it poisoned the gaming industry well. Arcane (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth section

Criticism is censorship? Is criticizing creationist literature the same as censoring it? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:37, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not. I said she approves by proxy, as in, she believes certain works are toxic in their portrayals and should be avoided as a result, but has never actually tried to directly eliminate them from public distribution or sale, at least to my knowledge, merely encouraging that their patronage be discontinued and that game developers quit making such works, which is a passive yet voluntary call for suppression of problematic media, which in effect winds up as censorship, but Sarkeesian herself is not directly responsible, should such acts take place. Arcane (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

RW argues people should "avoid" creationist arguments. Is that supporting censorship by proxy, or pointing out stupid shit?

RW argues people shouldn't take alt meds. Can advocacy for not buying something be justified? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Excellent counterpoint. Avoidance of certain views and encouraging such denies those views an audience, which is certainly lowering the spread of that message, but to call it deliberate censorship would be a bit of a stretch at best. Arcane (talk) 01:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarkeesian, if anything, wants there to be video games that don't rely on the sexist and misogynistic tropes she identifies, as they can sucessfully exist alongside the ones that do feature those problematic storytelling elements so people who don't want to play a game that features murdering sex workers or has a barely relevant female protagonist that's just the male protagonist with breasts have other options.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Male protagonist with breasts"? What's that?--Arisboch (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Ms. Pac-Man.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:36, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

More discussion here, including a reminder that "Tropes Are Not Bad." Player 03 (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate supporters have organized boycotts of their own. How is that different? In fact, they've attempted to shut down companies they didn't like, which seems far closer to being "deliberate censorship." Player 03 (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Overall comments

Hi Arcane. Let me take a look at your various statements as a whole rather than FuzzyCatPotato's attempt to respond to you as he did above.

• Gamergate as a whole is misogynistic and reactionary. Just because you claim you do not meet those criteria does not mean that you suddenly disprove the actions of the movement as a whole. Gamergate has disproportionately focused on women to harass and drive out of their homes and their jobs.
• Congratulations on saying "Depression Quest isn't a real video game". Tell me how it's any different from a visual novel video game that gets praised like 4chan's Katawa Shoujo or Hatoful Boyfriend or that Sakura Spirit one with the tits.
• No one is fucking saying that they're against ethics in video game journalism. They're pointing out that Gamergate has done literally nothing when it comes to that lofty claimed topic.
• Criticism is not censorship.
• Keep patting yourself on the back there.
• There haven't been efforts to discredit Gamergate. There's been efforts to point out how fucking wrong that Gamergate is but supporters persistently ignore the truth in favor of the conspiratorial lie.
• Anti-Gamergate isn't a thing. It's an invention by Gamergate to set up a persecution complex and a ballance fallacy enemy to rally the masses against.

Your final paragraph is just full of the usual ad hominem potshots taken against everyone.

• Sarkeesian is a social scientist. She's not seeking solutions she's simply pointing out what the problems are for others to look at and see if they agree or not. She's not some monolithic entity proclaiming that your fave is problematic forever. And she apologized for that fan art debacle.
• More "I don't like Depression Quest" who gives a shit.
• No one cares what you or anyone else thinks of the quality of Revolution 60. She didn't fucking false flag anything. If anything she made a honey pot for Gamergaters to post in rather than spend every waking moment shitting up the forums on Greenlight. And nice going with the "Brianna Wu is transgender" conspiracy. Now like 30 edits have to be revdelled.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Maybe true. I don't support such actions, but I'm sure some do, and that's regrettable.
• I said I don't think much of it as a game. Visual novels don't have a lot of gameplay to begin with, it's mostly passive reading with choices in most of them.
• I'm not sure that is the case, but you are entitled to your views.
• True, but if said criticism endorses suppression of the views of others, I do believe it plants the seeds for it.
• Beg pardon?
• I stayed neutral for a long time because I'm not driven by the ideology, but I decided to align myself as a pro-GGer because I see the other side as being incredibly deficient in having viable points to offer in terms of contributions to the gaming industry and culture.
• All debates have at least two sides, so I'm afraid I don't agree.
• Very well, I acknowledge that she apologized, but it still strikes me a tarnish to the credibility of her contributions that she had to plagiarize to begin with. However, I disagree she's merely a passive observer.
• Fair enough, but note I said I liked the message, I didn't slam it entirely, and note, I critiqued Quinn's work, not her as a person, just trying to show that not all pro-GGers are into ad hominem.
• I again disagree here. I saw what was redacted, and I'm not reposting it, but if it's to be suppressed as outing someone yet you claim it's a conspiracy theory that Wu is transgender, that suggests it's true, and I see no reason why said "conspiracy theory" is a lie, and I believe Wu would be better served by giving a definitive statement on the matter to satisfy critics like myself. And, if it was a purposeful honeypot, why was it deleted not long after Wu was called on such tactics? I'm sorry, but I don't agree on that

Arcane (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Your claim is basically here "Not All Gamers".
• Your personal opinions, or anyone's personal opinions, on the quality of either Depression Quest or Revolution 60 is irrelevant to the discussion of Gamergate.
• Sarkeesian is not endorsing suppression of anything. She's criticizing something she enjoys in the hopes that it will be better in the future. She is not advocating "Ban GTA and Doom". She's going "Let's make other games that don't feature these problematic storytelling elements". This is the whole "SJWs shouldn't be listened to, but they also control everything" narrative that gets pushed.
• Gamergate is an offshoot of Eron Gjoni using 4chan to drive Zoe Quinn off the Internet by making it too toxic for her to use it anymore. They added their lofty "ethics in video game journalism" after this. It is not a debate between two sides of any equal proportion. It is a hateful mob and the unorganized people opposed to that mob. There is perhaps a debate to be had about video game journalism, particularly how the big companies have too much sway over these websites, but it can't be done within the context of Gamergate because the well has been poisoned beyond repair, and also because Gamergate doesn't have a fucking spine to criticize the AAA publishers and they'd rather point out how indie designers who happen to be women have been involved in perceived conflicts of interest that no ombudsman could give a fuck about.
• Her credibility as a cultural critic is not up for question here. All RationalWiki has ever discussed is how the MRA types have ruined everything with regards to criticizing her. We have a quote from Jim Sterling on Anita Sarkeesian that spells this out in greater detail.
• It's a stupid fucking conspiracy theory that Wu is transgender and she had said why she wouldn't address the claims. That said, it's pretty fucking stupid to think posting what Gamergate claims is her deadname and expect that it's okay to have done so.
• And have you even looked at the so-called false flag? She's literally calling out Gamergate to yell at her there instead of the rest of the forum. I don't know why she decided to delete it later. I don't know her intentions there. But the intentions leading up to that are pretty fucking clear.

Overall, your arguments are poor and rely on the same Gamergate talking points that have been repeated ad infinitum since October.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

As usual, no patience with the nonsense

As someone who recently joined the pro-GG side,- {{{2}}}
Not a wise decision, son.
However, I can say I have played Zoe Quinn's visual novel "Depression Quest", and while I appreciate it's intention to raise awareness about depression, I don't think very highly of it as a game because it's frankly little more than an interactive choose your own adventure book written in a web page editor.- {{{2}}}
Then I'm terribly sorry that you are unable to remember when things like that were marketed in the stores AS games, back in ye halcyon days of DOS. Just because it's retro doesn't make your modernistic opinion worth a shit. I should point out that CYOAs and gamebooks are STILL be sold as games, especially in the apps market.
While I cannot speak for Quinn's actions and don't wish to get involved in that debate, I do believe ethical standards in all fields of journalism should be sovereign above all else, as without truth, all the public can gather from the news is lies.- {{{2}}}
Fantastic sentiment. When you get the equivalent of a bar association and licenses for journalists, then you can enforce whatever your ethical standards are and everyone can rejoice that a univesal ethical standard is enforced under penalty of losing your license and career. Until then, if it's legal, it's legit.
I'm colorblind as a gamer, and I would not begrudge anyone of any race, creed, sexual orientation, belief, ideology, and so on, whether they just be an ordinary gamer or someone in the industry. If anything, I'd just like for everyone to get along.- {{{2}}}
A colorblind approach allows us to deny uncomfortable cultural differences. Further, there are plenty of your Gamergate compatriots - especially over on 8Chan - who disagree with your...egalitarian sympathies. Do try to change their mind before you whine about being mischaracterized.
If their arguments are all manifestly ignorant and foolish, I would think allowing them to be heard without filtering through any lens would make any fallacy manifest without any need of spin one way or the other.- {{{2}}} That, in and of itself, is a balance fallacy and assumes their arguments are worth hearing anyway.
Sarkeesian IMO spends more time complaining than producing solutions (and the few she has produced I have yet to see implemented in any way that shows they could be done successfully), and her complaints seem hollow as a result,- {{{2}}}
She's a cultural critic. You know, like art critics, movie critics, and so on. When did you ever see Siskel and Ebert come up with a solution for a movie they critiqued? That you can't recognize standard cultural criticism AND expect critics to come up with solutions does not say good things about your education.
Zoe Quinn produced a frankly middling game and little else, so I don't really see her work- {{{2}}}
Yeah, you see, you're behind the times. The issue Gamergaters have is not really with their work and is more with slutshaming and acting as Gjoni's personal army.
but I saw when Wu false flagged harassment on Steam under her own name,- {{{2}}} You don't pay a lot of attention, do you? That was a false flag. You need to pay more attention. Also, as per the Gamergaters, Gamergate has nothing to do with the "three Literally Whos" but is focused on more loftier goals, so your statements about those three people are frankly unneeded.
will happily listen to reasons I'm wrong with courtesy- {{{2}}}
It is rather presumptuous of you to think that you have earned it. Frankly, having come back so suddenly after a year of inactivity causes me to label you Nacraycray's replacement. Your bloviation on the subject will be treated with the same contempt I reserved for him. --Castaigne (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, this will be such gold when I check on it tomorrow evening. Dance, KiAers, DANCE, and amuse your master! --Castaigne (talk) 06:28, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

They really have nothing better to do. What a 'movement' this is! Typhoon (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Colorblind = racist?!

Not giving a damn about race and skin color is racist?? What in the actual fuck???--Arisboch (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The article can give a better response than I can on this matter:

"Nonetheless, I have encountered many fellow therapists who ascribe to a colorblind philosophy. They ignore race or pretend its personal, social, and historical effects don't exist. This approach ignores the incredibly salient experience of being stigmatized by society and represents an empathetic failure on the part of the therapist. Colorblindness does not foster equality or respect; it merely relieves the therapist of his or her obligation to address important racial differences and difficulties."

Monnica T Williams does go into a great detail into how "colourblindness" dodges the issues. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So everyone is basically obsessed with this fictional concept called "race" and no-one allows it to be put to rest as one of the great follies of the 18th century and even calls people, who want to attempt it racists? My goodness, if I thought, that net couldn't become more insane, it just did.--Arisboch (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

When white supremacy stops being the basic mode of operation of society, then we can put aside one of the great follies of the 18th century. But as long as people on a daily basis have their outcomes determined by the colour of their skin or other markers of racial identity, then to just pretend that race doesn't matter anymore is not an intellectually, morally, or politically tenable position. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So the problem is this foolishness called "white supremacy" still existing... Which is still no reason to call him racist. He did not deny discrimination, he just said, that he doesn't discriminate.--Arisboch (talk) 15:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Good for him. But also not particularly interesting or relevant. He's writing about a movement that has demonstrated particular dynamics, but then hand-waves those dynamics away because (he claims) that he doesn't participate in them. GG is what it is, and one person's (alleged) disavowal of some of its less-savoury defining characteristics doesn't change that. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

What "less-savoury defining characteristics"? There hasn't been any proof shown with regards to Gamergate's supposed misogyny beyond the rants of people declaring them misogynistic and evil and what-have-you. The sources that claim they harass individuals are undeniably biased, and have had no research into them as a result. And honestly, is there a right way to acknowledge race anymore? Positive discrimination is a thing, you know. Delphage (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome from KotakuInAction and/or 8chan, new user who has zeroed in on this controversial topic with talking points from September that people have debunked since then.

As much as you would like to deny it, Gamergate's actions have been extremely misogynistic, considering that it all started by a stalker trying to ruin the life of a woman he was obsessing over, and has only attacked more and more women since then for spurious reasons supported by paper thin conspiracy theories. And there's no objective way to quantify harassment, but considering that people have had to abandon their homes over a bunch of /pol/ idiots being bored enough to become some asshole's personal army, that's how we got here.

And the only way to talk about race is to acknowledge that privilege is a thing and figure out how to make things equal rather than simply denying race exists. If anything, we now all know from Rachel Dolezal how not to do it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I love how you assume I came here from 8chan or KiA, as if I couldn't just have wandered here of my own volition. The link you bring up is filled with assumptions, generalizations, and just outright destruction of context, written by people who have made up their minds on where to side in this culture war. Therefore, it's incredibly biased.

The creator of the Zoepost was an ex-boyfriend of Zoe Quinn's, claiming her to be an unfaithful and unreliable relationship partner. His post mentioned nothing about her game, her career, or anything she has said or done beyond how he can construe this into her definition of rape. People have put up biographies of their encounters with individuals for years, maybe decades. This was not done to demonize Zoe Quinn, but for her ex to vent his emotions from his relationship with her. And I haven't heard of anyone attacking her for conspiracy theories. What they HAVE done is claim that she and others have used sexual favours and/or other methods of bargaining to slant a media bias for herself and others associated with her. Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian, and others have left their homes of their own volition. No one attacked them, and no one is going to attack them. Their reports have no corroboration from anyone but themselves, regardless of how their collectives praise them for such actions. There has been no proof that anyone from 4chan or any other website has raised their own personal army to attack *insert feminist icon here*, no matter how loudly you claim it. And if there was, we would have seen both results and unshakable evidence by now.

We can acknowledge privilege has existed, that's fine. But I apologize, and I say this not to be searching for conflict, that there is no way to right the wrongs of centuries of apartheid without going some extreme form of "eye for an eye" and deciding all white people in the world are to be slaves for the next 600 years. If we acknoledge race exists, then we should do so in a way that does not harm our society. Regardless of what people go through, giving special treatment to any of them is discrimination, and therefore the only thing that people should have their skin color judge is how long they can handle extreme temperatures for. If people still practice discrimination through "privilege", then those individuals should be dealt with and handles personally, not the entire collective of society. It's things like this that led to the destruction of many a community in the world. Delphage (talk) 11:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Where else do heavily biased Gamergaters come from these days? And I'm sorry if RationalWiki is biased on the side of reality rather than biased in favor of those diagrams and infographics Gamergaters seem to make in MSPaint in 5 minutes.

No one here's mentioned rape. Also, Eron Gjoni, who we will name instead of refusing to acknowledge his existence as if he is an innocent party, has admitted to stalking Zoe Quinn and originally wrote TheZoePost to cater specifically to 4chan's populace. And congratulations on bringing up the first ever Gamergate conspiracy theory that insists she had sex to advance her career. And congratulations on completely denying the fact that Zoe Quinn, Brianna Wu, Anita Sarkeesian, and others, had been sent threatening messages that accompanied their home addresses that had been released in various successful doxxing attempts that gave them enough pause to flee their homes out of their own safety. I bet you wouldn't dare question the validity of such a claim if it came from a Gamergater, as it sometimes does. And really, the evidence is presented to Gamergaters time and time again, but it's just constant denial and accusations of these women performing false flag operations. A bit of projection if I do say so myself.

And you have a mighty extremist and incredibly infeasible view of how to solve the issue of race. If anthing, all this shit needs to be done away with. Somehow.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

They come from all over the place, except they're not called "Gamergaters", they're called "people". Stop using a guilt by association fallacy.

I mentioned "rape" because by Zoe Quinn's definition of "rape", Eron Gjoni can accuse her of raping him. Therefore, he's not just "demonizing" her out of thin air. And from what I've heard, he hasn't stalked Zoe Quinn, they've been dating. Gamergate was not on burning women for practicing witchcraft, like you come across believing. They were built on calling out Western gaming journalism on anything that can be deemed corrupt or disingenuous. They do not care what the gender of the involved parties are; they care about what actions were made and why. And I would never believe anything without being shown reliable evidence from a reliable source with reliable corroboration. If there's evidence to everything you claim has happened to these people, or evidence that "All Gamergaters are pure evil", then instead of calling me wrong, show me your proof!! If you can't show any proof, then I'll be perfectly willing for someone else to show me that proof. But I will not take what you say as fact until given substantial reason to believe it so.

I'm not being extremist, I'm asking why you won't tolerate egalitarianism. And "institutional racism"? Oh, for crying out loud...Let me get this through to you: You can't change the past. You can only shape the future so that these events don't repeat. If people are raised and given mental training to carry out racism, then it is our obligation as a society to get rid of that, not to scream from the tallest mountains that these things happened and do nothing else but shake our fists in every direction. I swear, I'm almost at the point of fulfilling Godwin's Law with this discussion.Delphage (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"If there's evidence to everything you claim has happened to these people, or evidence that "All Gamergaters are pure evil", then instead of calling me wrong, show me your proof!!" Here. Vulpius (talk) 13:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Delphage, you're here to challenge the claims against Gamergate. This makes you an advocate for Gamergate and therefore a Gamergater.

To continue, you're reaching. Gjoni and Quinn broke up after a very brief relationship, and if this interview is anything to go by, he didn't let go. Gamergate was born from TheZoePost which was the act of Gjoni's obsessive stalkerish tendencies after Quinn rebuffed his advances for the last time. Gamergate then became the manufactured "consumer revolt" you claim it is days later in the #BurgersAndFries chat. I'm under no requirement to give you exact proof of all of these statements on this page. As Vulpius points out, that's already been done extensively at Gamergate#References. If you refuse to believe anything on those websites because of "bias", then you've drunk too much of the Kool-Aid for me to bother with any further response.

And finally, "egalitarian" has morphed into a buzz word used by reactionary assholes to falsely claim that they support equality when all they do is rally against attempts to address it, particularly when it comes to feminism but this is the first time I've seen it invoked for racial equality. If you don't like the Wikipedia page on institutional racism, that's your problem and not mine. The system is unfairly stacked in favor of white dudes who happen to run the Western world. Racism isn't over because Obama won two terms. Ferguson, Charleston, etc. all show the disparity.

But this is all an unnecessary tangent from the issue at hand, which is someone else's garbage analysis of this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a Gamergater. I agree with them, but I'm not assisting with their actions. My point is that you treat "Gamergater" as synonymous with "rapist". Like treating "Germans" as "Nazis", "Communists" as "Stalinists", "Sonic fans" with "shrieking retards that can't move their arms or legs or even communicate", et cetera.

That article is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever read. It never addresses Eron Gjoni's points, it idealizes Zoe Quinn's words, and it makes the former out to be a deranged bum who has knifefights with other bums in his spare time. Gamergate was born as a result of the actions of individuals saying that what Zoe Quinn was doing was corrupt, mostly thanks to James o'Shaughnessey's incident reporting. It was not meant to be a coverup/excuse for shitflinging, and those individuals that did so should not be regarded as Gamergaters. At any rate, what was the last time anyone was ever lambasted and NOT bombarded by death threats by incredibly reactionary individuals? No one is unique, so don't act like people wouldn't do the same if the situation was reversed. And the References pages are unreliable. The Gamergate page is literally just one big ball of anti-Gamergate bias made by biased anti-Gamergate individuals. Any reference they make will be from whatever doctored, cherry-picked articles they decided to blog about to this wiki. Confirmation bias, one would say. And yes, you ARE under requirement to give me proof of your statements if you're going to be so absolute about them. And even if I've been drinking GG Kool-Aid, what's to say you haven't drunk anti-GG Kool-Aid?

Egalitarianism has only become a buzzword in response to how much modern feminism has become the same. And really, what is modern feminism? I'll tell you what it isn't: Sane. Coherent. Rational. Fair. For Christ's sake, what are you even saying? You want racism gone, but you won't allow it to go away? You want it addressed, but you don't want it fixed? The glass ceiling will only go away when people IGNORE it. Addressing it will only cause people to resist change. You're not managing to find the practical, you're just settling for demagoguing the ideal.

I guess as long as we're going to be using ad hominem, let me ask you something: What do you want?Delphage (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

"That article is one of the most disingenuous things I've ever read." Yes, it has lots and lots of loaded language, but the facts it presents tell the same story. Gjoni designed The Zoe Post to make people angry at Quinn, he revised it several times for maximum effect, and now he's fighting to be allowed to continue talking about her.

Ok, I admit, an online gag order is weird. But this is only one person out of seven billion that he's restricted from talking about. If he wasn't still out for her metaphorical (and perhaps literal) blood, the gag order would make approximately no difference to him. Player 03 (talk) 19:23, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If you tacitly agree with Gamergate that makes you a Gamergater. How hard is that to comprehend?

The writer of that article specifically went out and got to talk to Eron Gjoni and his point of view is addressed throughout. How deluded can you be at this point if you think Gamergate is about Zoe Quinn's actions. She didn't do anything corrupt. Gjoni set out to destroy her life and he makes that clear. Who the fuck is "James o'Shaughnessey"? This is the first time I've ever heard that name. Gamergate is nothing but shitflinging people. "Ethics in video game journalism" was a ruse from day 1. Chat logs featuring the movers and shakers of Gamergate in its beginnings prove that. And how the hell can you decide that all 250+ citations on the page are cherry-picked anti-GG bias? How can you be so fucking stupid? And those citations are where my statements are proved. That's what they're there for. So I don't have to keep repeating myself to you and every other "neutral" view who is in fact heavily biased in favor of Gamergate.

And at least we're at the heart of the matter that shows you're a reactionary douchebag. Your "solution" doesn't solve the issue of racism. Enslaving white people for 600 years isn't a suitable solution. The only way to fix things is to acknowledge how fucked up they are now and then work to make things equal without going the way of Hammurabi.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now you're acting like you're just looking for an excuse to get me banned. I am not a Gamergater. I said my piece earlier, and I will not repeat myself just to be met with more mocking ad hominem.

So it is completely untrue, completely unsubstantiated, that Zoe Quinn has offered and/or given sexual favors to people in the video games journalism industry, and at one point has sabotaged a jam session so as to promote her own rival jam session that may or may not ever happen that she indirectly claims will be funded out of her own pocket? The whole interview just came off as the interviewer talking about how "creepy" Eron Gjoni was, how he "never blinks", "always stares", and at one point just puts up a mugshot of him in a wool hat stereotypically worn by bums. And would you be willing to show me these chat logs you claim exist showing the people involved with Gamergate to be "evil rapists that eat babies and pilot unmanned drone bombers in third world countries"? Claiming that those citations are biased is incredibly easy; a real stupid person would be someone incapable of seeing the bias this article has the moment you see it describing Gamergate as "a misogynistic and reactionary backlash in the video game community against the increasing diversification of gamer culture".

And for someone who doesn't want to repeat yourself, you seem to be really enjoying yourself in how many ways you can call me an inferior human being. Calm. Down. Just ditch the ad hominem for at least one damned post, would you? I abhor repeating myself, but circumstances just force me time and again in this conversation, so I'll ask you this again: What do you want? Delphage (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

People don't get banned from here for possessing a particular point of view. You're advocating for Gamergate. That makes you a Gamergater. I don't see how that's something so contentious to be honest.

Yes, it's completely false to state that Zoe Quinn had sex to advance her career, that she sabotaged anything (I'm assuming this refers to TFYC), and why bother making that ad hominem attack about Rebel Jam? Gjoni agreed to that interview. He posed for that photo for them. And where are these accusations coming from? #BurgersAndFries dumped their whole chat log, which is linked in this page but it would be an issue to link to it directly because it is entirely unredacted. Also, it's obvious that this page is biased. No one's really claimed it isn't. But the thing is, the world at large and reality are both biased against Gamergate. RationalWiki doesn't exist to provide fair and balanced coverage. It's there to point out how incredibly irrational and full of bullshit things it covers are. Like your balance fallacy. Gamergate isn't a debate to begin with that requires two sides to talk things out. You've proven that tonight with your insistence on the various debunked conspiracy theories that abound in the movement, as well as your focus on Zoe Quinn, who is supposed to be one of the "Literally Whos" that Gamergate totally isn't obsessed with.

In short, your arguments are bad, tone policing is bad, and you should feel bad.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you want to make it so contentious, then? You're the one accusing me of being a Gamergater. I only deny it in retaliation to you calling me so. And considering Arcane's removal of sysop status, I'd say there's plenty of hostility being made in this discussion.

People don't just ask for character assassinations. Maybe he did request the interview, but it is completely disingenuous journalism for the interviewer to take that as an opportunity to call him a drunken homeless psycho. And RationalWiki may not exist for fair coverage, but that's no good reason not to give fair coverage. This whole debate just has too many influential people unfavorable towards Gamergate's efforts that I'm almost wishing for the Fairness Doctrine to come back. And I only addressed Zoe Quinn because it was her actions that started the movement against gaming journalism.

And screw off with your claims of unequal arguments and tone policing. You're relentlessly attacking people for carrying different ideals and defending an article made entirely of ad hominem by yourself using ad hominem. I thought this was called Rational Wiki, not Encyclopaedia Dramatica. Delphage (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you want to make it so contentious, then? You're the one accusing me of being a Gamergater.- Delphage

If you are for Gamergate and you spout Gator talking points, it's pretty safe to call you a Gator. Looks, moves, quacks, so on.

And considering Arcane's removal of sysop status, I'd say there's plenty of hostility being made in this discussion.- Delphage

This is not the first time that Arcane has been a problem.

Maybe he did request the interview, but it is completely disingenuous journalism for the interviewer to take that as an opportunity to call him a drunken homeless psycho.- Delphage

Why not call Gjoni that? It's pretty damn accurate. The Zoepost was fueled on alcohol and a need for revenge. Gjoni admits this. His own mother, who works in Human Resources, told him he shouldn't post it. He did anyway. He kept internet warring so hard that he couldn't function at his job and his employer asked him to resign. Now he's jobless and living off his current girlfriend. I'd certain call him a drunken psycho. Normal people don't act like that.

And RationalWiki may not exist for fair coverage, but that's no good reason not to give fair coverage. This whole debate just has too many influential people unfavorable towards Gamergate's efforts that I'm almost wishing for the Fairness Doctrine to come back.- Delphage

Fuck that noise. Life is not fair and we don't have NPOV. You want a different tone? Make edits to that effect and defend them.

You're relentlessly attacking people for carrying different ideals and defending an article made entirely of ad hominem by yourself using ad hominem. I thought this was called Rational Wiki, not Encyclopaedia Dramatica.- Delphage

And we all take another drink. No, I consider the article to be accurate. If you think it's inaccurate, correct it with edits, don't whine about it here. --Castaigne (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

If you are for Gamergate and you spout Gator talking points, it's pretty safe to call you a Gator. Looks, moves, quacks, so on.- Castaigne

Cause everyone, who isn't with us, is with the terrorists gators, right?--Arisboch (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If it looks and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

QED.--Arisboch (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's another response. I know it mostly focuses on gender and sexuality, but the same argument applies to race. Short version: it will be great when everyone ignores race, but if you try to pretend racism is already gone, you're insulting the people who have to live with it. Player 03 (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Delphage made a good counterpoint. "You want racism gone, but you won't allow it to go away?" It's true: people who never address race, and do their best not to discriminate, are making a step in the right direction. They are strictly better than people who do address race and do it wrong. Even if the "colorblind" group insults others as a side effect.

That said, the insult comes from when someone specifically brings up their race, and you still refuse to address it. Pretty sure there's a way to get the best of both worlds, if you're tactful enough. Player 03 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Delphage's point is essentially "if we ignore racism, it will go away." People who are colorblind might not discriminate, but the flipside is that they can't empathize with people for being victims of racism because they don't bother to consider racial issues. If a black person talks about the problem of marijuana arrests, for example, it would be harder for a colorblind person to consider the racial undertones of the issue. Also being colorblind will not stop other people from being racist. Zennistrad (talk) 21:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

After looking it up, it sounds like "colorblindness" usually means being unwilling to discuss race, even when race is relevant to the topic at hand. Put that way, I could see it stifling useful discussion. Player 03 (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Those events are unfortunate, Zennistrad, but people can learn to recover from them if they never have to think about it again. As stupid as the concept of "triggers" are, they still work in the concept of "If this subject might make you go berserk, you don't have to read it" victim protection. People don't recover through seeking retribution and holding grudges; those only make people get worse. They overcome them by leaving their traumas behind and living their lives. After that, you find the individuals with the biases who cause these incidents and teach them better. Again, this is how we get rid of the glass ceiling. It might be tedious, and will without guarantee have many, many backslides, but it's a much more practical solution than crying for societal collapse.

And just so you know, the most extreme form of racism in the recent years, George Zimmerman? He's not just some kind of "indoctrinated racist perpetuated by an evil racist culture that hunts and kills women and minorities for sport"; he is genuinely crazy. My god, did you hear about all the crap he got involved with afterwards? It's almost like the courts let him free on a lark.

Player03, colorblindness in terms of this discussion is only a state of mind. If it's absolutely necessary, diversity is discussable. Again, workplaces have made countless exceptions for their employees' cultures.Delphage (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The racist dynamics of the Zimmerman case should not be ignored by the label of "craziness," a label which have also been used to ignore the racist motives in the Charleston shootings and the sexist motives in the Isle Vista shootings. "Craziness" can be used as a label to ignore the bigger picture and causes. The "colorblind" approach is not a position affordable for those who face injustices.

Also desire to change the system does not equate "crying for societal collapse." The glass roof will not vanish if people ignore it; such a approach is naive at best. Discrimination has to be addressed; ignoring only promotes apathy towards injustices. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

As I've said, there's no easy way to get rid of racism. It will backslide, and it will probably outright fail in the end. In that sense, protesting racism may just all turn out to be a waste of time, effort and money. But in that sense, it makes Gamergate's efforts to compromise on getting rid of positive discrimination rather appealing, if I may say so. And once again, we should not see individuals as an extension of their society.

Actually, I'm overdue for asking this: What do you mean by "addressing discrimination"? We're talking about discrimination all the damn time in the world. God knows Tumblr and Reddit can't go two seconds without someone committing reputational suicide over the issue. So please, enlighten me on what your definition of "addressing discrimination" is. Delphage (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Effecting actual change on the institutional level, as well as addressing the personal. You know, actual activism, not just whining about it on Reddit or Tumblr? --Castaigne (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Affinity fraud in Gamergate

As usual, right-wingers are reliable suckers for affinity fraud who you can shear repeatedly and they keep coming back for more. I suspect this needs a section. What do we have so far?

• The Fine Young Capitalists - everything about them
• Tropes vs Men - blatantly fraudulent crowdsourced project, founders vanished with the money [3]
• The Sarkeesian Effect - if only they'd made the $15,000/month they could have afforded decent sound recording
• Honey Badger Brigade - (a) taking donations for groundless legal action (b) hiring a lawyer who was disbarred for blatantly fraudulent billing

Any others? - David Gerard (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Eron Gjoni's post-restraining order legal crusade, 8chan's hopping from crowdfunding website to crowdfunding website, the Honey Badger Brigade's crowdfunding to go to Calgary Expo in the first place (but I'm not sure that counts as such).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure 8chan counts - they delivered precisely what they were claiming to, they got kicked off the services for TOS violations. Wondering about Eron's legal crusade. Remember, this is not just "asking for money", but actual scams - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Asked on Ghazi too - David Gerard (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is nearly a textbook case of confirmation bias. You're quite literally going around asking for examples that support a preexisting conclusion. Player 03 (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you're reaching with that first example. As I understand it, TFYC didn't try to manipulate Gamergaters into donating. Rather, Gamergaters donated of their own free will, out of spite for Zoe Quinn. Not a scam, just people supporting the enemy of their enemy.

Also consider this: if Ryulong is right about Gamergate being a very small movement, you shouldn't expect to find many examples. (Unless it's a small movement of very rich people, I guess.) My suggestion is, don't hold yourself to a quota. Player 03 (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The thing with TFYC is that their spokesman went into the lion's den to lie about their previously resolved feud with Zoe Quinn and push their kickstarter thing on them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so I looked up the post in question, and it looks like you're partially right. I don't know if he was intentionally lying, and I couldn't find a source for the "previously resolved" part. He certainly did include a link followed by "if we don't raise enough money [...]," which is dangerously close to soliciting donations. He may have said he personally wasn't making any money off this, but I assume TFYC as a whole was. (The fundraiser proceeds went to TFYC to fund development, right? And the game profits were what went to charity. Probably worth finding a source that clarifies this.)

Even so, this is far from enough evidence to justify words like "fraud." Fraud requires three things: deliberate deception, a victim who was deceived, and harm that happened as a result. I'd assume loss of money counts for the third, but only if the person losing money didn't want to. Do you really think Gamergaters regret donating to TFYC when they found out Rappard's post wasn't entirely true? Player 03 (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think Gamergaters regret donating to TFYC when they found out Rappard's post wasn't entirely true? The reason why the victims of right-wing affinity fraud can be fleeced repeatedly is that they never regret contributing and contributing and contributing. Here's an article on the peculiarly right-wing version. The key point is that you can scam any amount of money out of these people repeatedly if you can convince them they're paying for an ideological end point - David Gerard (talk) 10:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

And in this situtation, the ideological end point is spiting SJWs.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The SEC defines affinity fraud as "investment scams that prey upon members of identifiable groups." They emphasize the "investment" part of that definition, and most of the warnings they give are about promises of monetary returns. TFYC did not advertise themselves as an investment opportunity, and the donors did not expect to make any money as a result of donating.

If you want to say that Gamergaters are a reliable source of income for TFYC for no good reason, then say so. Just don't use the word "fraud." (If you want a word with negative connotations, use "exploit." None of my objections apply to "TFYC are exploiting Gamergaters.") Player 03 (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Big ol' Voat discussion, part 1

Voat getting kicked off their servers for being "politically incorrect" (rather than e.g. the child porn they have up) and therefore YOU SHOULD DONATE NOW TO SAVE FREE SPEECH is a complete /v/thathappened: [4] That's KiA's response detailed - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

In germany, "child pornography" is pornography of anyone under 14, instead of anyone under 18 like in most countries. Is there anything proving that voat hosted or linked to child porn under that definition? Along with that, voat is not an image host, so voat can only link to it or have thumbnails of it. (linking to it is still illegal, but saying that it's hosted there is wrong) 201.209.64.246 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have ourselves a pedo here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that the illegal shit is not illegal in germany, even if it's illegal almost everywhere else. 201.209.64.246 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if there's a technical legal loophole. It's pedo apologism.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

What part of it is a "loophole"? 201.209.64.246 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Trying to point out that it's not technically illegal in Germany cause the child porn laws are different there doesn't change the fact that Americans were using the website.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a german host, why would american laws apply? It would make sense to point out that it's still illegal in Colombia (since it's a .co domain, and the domain could be seized for that reason), but it's a german host and it doesn't have to adhere to american laws even if the 100% of its users are american, so there's no loophole there. 201.209.64.246 (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep digging yourself that pedo apologist hole there. Saying it's legal wherever the hosting is rather than it just being morally wrong regardless.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Morally wrong?! How are our morals worse than yours, yankee??--Arisboch (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I took David's comment as one saying that it was taken down due to illegal content (like people say in his link), not because it was morally wrong. Taking something down because it's morally wrong can be interpreted as taking it down because it was politically incorrect, so they didn't straight up lie.

When did I say that doing it was right? If you're just going to label people instead of saying why they're wrong/you're still right, you just shouldn't reply instead. I asked what part of it was a loophole, you said that american laws mattered even though it's a german host, I said that they didn't, and then you stopped talking about that and went straight to calling me a pedophile apologist. (well, from the first comment, you called me a pedo instead of trying to counter my argument in any way, probably thinking that people that don't share your view are not worthy of your opinion) 201.209.64.246 (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems we have started an unproductive conversation here. Look at the talk page for Gamergate in Wikipedia, or the exceptions page. All the talk there goes around in circles, going nowhere, and it has nothing to do with disagreeing with one another in the academic sense: it's literally insult after insult. Do we want to turn like that? Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's already there.--Arisboch (talk) 05:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, and a lot of edits happened since I typed this up) I'm going to say that pointing out German laws doesn't make someone a "pedo apologist," Ryu; Especially when it doesn't involve any pedophilia (that word specifically refers to prepubescence, and 18-years-old is only considered to be adulthood in the US because of the draft mostly pulling accolade±3). Anyways, if one looks at a screenshot of the front page of Reddit as it was toward the beginning of all this nonsense.... That was illegal under German law. No surprise if that migrated to Voat. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 05:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It's just cries of "it's not technically illegal".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Just tell me again, why an page hosted in Germany has to give a shit about US laws??--Arisboch (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does it matter who hosts the content when it's deplorable and indefensible anyway? Why bother bringing up the legality of pornography?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Go to Conservapedia, they'll love you for your anti-porn-crusade (They're pro-GG... "Oops").--Arisboch (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know being against child pornography was conservative. Like what the fuck is wrong with you? Voat's boards were for fucking child porn and advertised as such. Just because Germany's laws on child porn set the age limit lower doesn't make it any better.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing in favor of hosting child porn in Germany? Are you so against Ryulong and modern feminism that you're pro-pedo?

Because dude, if you're over 18 and horning after 14-year-olds, you've got major fucking problems that need to be addressed. --Castaigne (talk) 13:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

To both of you above: No, I don't and actually, Germany has the same age-limits for child porn as the US. I did not argue for child porn.--Arisboch (talk) 13:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Because the claim is about the site being taken down because it hosted something illegal. Immoral is not the same as illegal. 201.209.64.246 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Arisboch, please stop pretending you think like any other human ever or have useful insights to offer - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

This comment seems to be very insightful. 201.209.64.246 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What makes it "technically illegal" instead of just "illegal somewhere else"? 201.209.64.246 (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryu, stop the ad hom. Talking about CP law =/= supporting CP. If I remember correctly, Voat also had neo-Nazi threads, which ARE illegal. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Big ol' Voat discussion, part 2: New World Order Harder Boogalooo

So, we got an answer to "why would Germans care about American laws?". The answer is, because most of us forgot: Most online trade is regulated by American laws. Voat may be fine with Bitcoin, but their provider needs PayPal. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Afterthought: And Voat isn't happy about its PayPal donations being limited. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:39, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT:(Approaching?) success of gender equality in videogames

Recently an admin in Wikipedia posted these links in the talk page for Gamergate. Perhaps we can use these:

http://time.com/3923651/meet-the-woman-helping-gamergate-victims-come-out-of-the-shadows/

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/61786/20150619/e3-2015-showed-strides-female-representation-gamer-culture.htm

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/play/2015/06/19/brianna-wu-we-are-winning-we-are-changing-the-games-industry

Maybe it signifies the end of Gamergate.

Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible header quote

It originally had to do with games and school shootings, but I thought it fit here:

“”Controversy and the games industry go hand in hand like Ico and Yorda... and like Yorda, the controversy tends to stay focused for an average of about 8 nanoseconds before getting bored and drifting off to do something else. But when it does get focused, it can get very exasperating...

—Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw, Manhunt review, emphasis added

I don't think Yahtzee has made a formal stance on this, but given the whole mess with Gamergate and the tangential drama here that it's precipitated, this pretty much sums up my view on it. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hopefully the controversy doesn't drift to other forms of media. At the same time the longer the controversy goes the more we feminists can push for equality. Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yahtzee skews pro-Gamergate, as does all of The Escapist after a lot of people fled it like rats on a sinking ship.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

He mostly just wants to avoid involvement in any way. I think we should leave him out unless he makes a serious splash beyond the phrase "There are few things the game is bad at explaining, 'cause it hails back to a time of manuals longer than Anita Sarkeesian's list of grievances." [5] Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Rethinking it, actually...

Look at this video from Last Week Tonight about internet harassment (admittedly it is mostly about revenge porn):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuNIwYsz7PI

Apparently, half the viewers disliked this video since it supports gender equality in the internet in general, and because Anita Sarkeesian made it in the video it caused an uproar in the comments section. I've never seen a Youtube video get a near 1:1 ratio of likes and dislikes (it's 2:1 right now). As of now, 32 471 viewers like it and 16 054 hate it. Hypocrisy, anyone?

Anyway, can't this get some mention in the article? I sense a mob of internet misogynists going after John Oliver for giving a "game critic that never played games" (ad homimen attack here from the comments section) credit. You should see the stupidity in the comments: it overwhelmed me. Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

It was added to the timeline. Gamergaters like to brigade and downvote shit that doesn't agree with the group think. Also the video isn't about Gamergate really. It's tangentially used as an example and never named as most of it's about revenge porn and the lack of legal help.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Anita and Brianna show up for...17 seconds and everyone loses their shit. Its amazing stuff. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As other places have pointed out, a feature about internet harassment somehow ends up drawing in criticism from a group that claims it's totally against harassment and never does it. It's beautiful. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I know the video wasn't about Gamergate, but instead internet harassment in general (thought John Oliver specifically attacks revenge porn.

I also sense hatred coming towards this article (three days old, comments disabled):

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/play/2015/06/19/brianna-wu-we-are-winning-we-are-changing-the-games-industry

Notice how a statement like

“”There was more diversity than I’ve ever seen in the history of E3. We had more women on stage. We had less sexualised women on stage … We are changing the industry because we were willing to speak up, we didn’t stay silent. We’ve introduced consequences into this equation.

—Brianna Wu

can get Gamergaters thinking that feminists are finally taking over the gaming industry to ruin their business? From this, either they will push harder to prevent this out of outrage or give up eventually after demoralization. I can put this in the timeline if I find an article discrediting this.

There is also an article three hours old saying how "[e]ven though she pointed out her disappointment with certain E3 discussion panels, she emphasized that the industry is slowly getting better. Women are getting into games ever so slowly, but it’s definitely happening, according to her" [6]. It's the same thing, but it shows her disappointments on how PC Gamer magazine in E3 literally had no women on stage. Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘PC Gamer's presentation had two women at the table. Granted one was the CEO of AMD (Lisa Su, who was there for product placement more than anything) and the other one is an indie developer. It isn't enough really and PC Gamer did acknowledge this in tweets after the show. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

But does any of this excuse PC Gamer for their lack of representation of women? Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, the point is that we still have a lot of work to do, but it doesn't have to be hard anymore, with Gamergate possibly fading away. With articles like this [7] and this [8] showing the massive failure of Gamergate and "hard-core gamers" in general, Gamergate isn't too far from destroying itself. One of these articles says

“”The response [to the lack of female protagonists in games] was invariably something to the effect of, “If you don’t like it, go make your own games,” with some slurs and/or threats thrown in for good measure.

—Alec Kubas-Meyer

.

I know there is a good prediction in the main article for this on how it will eventually end, but with the new information coming in can't we elaborate? Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I never said they were excused. I just wanted to clear the record that there was ONE female developer. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 19:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I know, Zero, and like you said that isn't enough, so PC Gamer acknowledged it. What I was implying was that commenters or Gamergators on these kinds of things bring up large lists of female developers or protagonists (or just video game characters). Either these people know no mathematics or ignore it because these commenters saying that these lists prove there is no lack of representation of females in video games go by quantity but not percentages (as though there is a quota), and these gators might make a similar argument with developers. Anita Sarkesiaan said that only 4% of video games have a female protagonist [9]. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Take This

Worth Mentioning? It was born out of this event and is featured by people who used to work for The Escapist (long before the purge). Speaking of support groups, CON works with IGN now, should that relationship be stated? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 15:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure and sure. FrothyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 16:13, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What is born out of what event? Because that site's certainly not born out of Gamergate. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 07:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

HAHAHA, hilarious, look at this article

http://jezebel.com/gamergate-shits-pants-over-john-oliver-segment-on-onlin-1713058755

In here this article shows how John Oliver discusses internet harassment and involves Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu, but never in the video uses one word: Gamergate.

And guess which people and what did people talk about in the comments section of the video, considering both of those women where in there? You guessed it.

Some person even commented on the article:

“”Who are these women who side with men on every.single.damn.thing? Who are these women who refuse to believe that gender wage gap is real? Who are these women that think they “don’t need feminism” because women in other countries have it worse (so we should just stop trying, I guess)? I simply don’t understand this fucking mindset at all.

—A commenter

Answer to his question: proxy women in Honey Badger Radio.^{— Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs 19:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC)}

Oh, KiA...

So, by complete coincidence, I wasn't even looking for anything related to GG, I found this, and it links to this. So, it seems that, on both of those things, GGers are calling it a "jab at white knights." But... a "frenzy over 'white knights,'" when 'white knights' is in quotes... If it's a jab, it's more a jab at the frenzied - i.e., the people mad at those they consider 'white knights'. Yeah, these guys still have bad reading comprehension. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 20:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean, they supposedly don't even like the game because of its super-bad ethics. Are they that desperate for approval? They can't just get mad at the game more? Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 20:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I see as many people saying that it's a "jab at white knights" as people replying to them that it's a jab at people who go in a "frenzy over white knights" in the thread that you linked. 201.209.64.246 (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a new development. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

...And also only two people. Just multiple messages. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 04:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The real issue here is feminism, not gamers

I know many of the people here are feminists. Do I get in your way when you're reading your Jane Austen novels? Do I get in your way when you want to go shopping for a new purse? Do I tell you what color your purse has to be? Do I tell you what kind of shoes to buy when you go to the mall? No, right?
So when you try to force your vaginally influenced tastes and desires on the gaming community, it's not sexism when there's backlash. It's biology. Men have testosterone, and it fuels our desire for more competitive, action-oriented gameplay, and because it has been scientifically proven that men have more active sex drives than women do, then of course we're going to want to see naked chicks in games.
There's your entire narrative destroyed in just a few sentences. Parogar (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Edited to add that male feminists aren't real men and should be legally classified as women. Parogar (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Worm (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He's right. Gamergate is more about hating feminists than protecting gamers. At least they're being upfront about it now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Parogar took the blue pill, choosing to embrace the illusion of a machismo world. MRAs have the terminology backwards, Parogar is a perfect example of this. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So is this guy.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In this rate We Hunted the Mammoth are going to have a post about Parogar; the figure appears like of the many MRAs that WHtM mocks. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 10:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd welcome that. --Castaigne (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a guy, blood tests show I have a normal amount of testosterone, certainly enough testosterone and sex drive to father two children, and yet I have very little interest in "competitve, action-oriented gameplay". You seem to confuse men in general with men with your particular interests. I have a nuanced view of feminism (it is such a broad movement that to "support" or "oppose" it without qualification seems overly simplistic to me), don't care much about Jane Austen, think purses are impractically bulky (my wife has one, but despite using one has never seemed particularly interested in them), don't care that much about shoes, don't care that much for video games (the software development aspect interests me somewhat though). Are my tastes "vaginally influenced"? Not sure what that means, but to my ear it sounds complimentary rather than insulting. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Simple fact is that Parogar is a bigot, with little-to-no actual insight about gender issues. MRAs originally annoyed the fuck out of me as a man because they're hella quick to discriminate on my (male) gender. A gender rights movement has no business enforcing gender roles. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

But what about gainz |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{I'll take you right into the Danger Zone} 15:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Do I get in your way when you're reading your Jane Austen novels? Do I get in your way when you want to go shopping for a new purse? Do I tell you what color your purse has to be? Do I tell you what kind of shoes to buy when you go to the mall?- {{{2}}}

...Excuse the fuck out of me? Stereotype much? Earth to Parogar - this is not the 1950s or 1960s.

So when you try to force your vaginally influenced tastes and desires on the gaming community- {{{2}}}

And what would these actual tastes and desires be, exactly? I frankly appreciate the addition of some actual PLOT to my games, thank you very much.

Men have testosterone, and it fuels our desire for more competitive, action-oriented gameplay, and because it has been scientifically proven that men have more active sex drives than women do, then of course we're going to want to see naked chicks in games.- {{{2}}}

...Right. No, it fuels those who have taken too many 'roids and like to lift, manbro. I have no need of competition in the form of Call To Action Duty ARMA Unreal 2000+++!!!! because I am successful in my personal life and don't feel the need to win elsewhere. I don't need to see naked chicks in games because I have a REAL LIVE WIFE (and two girlfriends) and when I had NONE of the above I STILL didn't need naked chicks in games because I had a hand and this neat thing called pr0n. Freely available on the internet, as I recall, much more freely than when I used it.

And frankly, I found all that testosterone-fueled MANBRO bullshit in games to be a complete distraction to the actual gaming at hand.

Edited to add that male feminists aren't real men and should be legally classified as women.- {{{2}}}

Well, I don't call myself a male feminist, but you'd probably classify me as one. And frankly, I'm more manly than you are, Parogar. The problem is, you don't have the balls to face the fact that the problem is YOU, not the femjays. Asshat. --Castaigne (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Yee, if he should've said Divergent or The Hunger Games or something |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Yo man, I got a Bust A Nut.} 17:41, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The hatred of effeminate men (possibly homophobia?) is strong with Parogar. Not even I have a purse. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 16:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamergaters say the darndest things. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Well you do have a point. So far those wanting to expose the series of ethical scandals that comprise GG have expressed no problem WHATSOEVER with either https://www.christcenteredgamer.com/ or https://feministgamereviews.wordpress.com/ because each of these sites lists the key moral ideological lens with which they intend to analyze the medium upfront and openly. The sites, with hundreds of well documented instances of unethical behavior, deliberately frame their pseudoscience dribble as if it possess general consensus and without stating the viewpoint under which their reviews are being conducted. It's shady and dishonest. Good points. --72.207.244.46 (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't post out of order.

Gamergate hasn't shown anything that is "unethical behavior" that anyone with half a brain and knowledge of actual journalistic ethics standards considers "unethical". Social critique isn't pseudoscience. You're whining about reviews of a game's story aspects rather than wanting to know FPS and shit. Get a new narrative.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

These RWs do not know how to deal with the people who share SJW ideology and are not aGG. The majority of GGrs really do not in any way see themselves as MRA misogynist right wing neoreactionaries. They are typical millennials: social libertarians with left-wing socio-economic leanings. The majority of them identify as left wing and vote democrat. Calling someone who self-identifies and intellectually takes a viewpoint of exact opposite of what you are saying they are will pretty much perceive you as a chauvinist, largely because most people who would do that pretty much always are. Doesn't seem to stop RW.

Just look at the start of GG, the Zoe post, has been covered in the general media (not to mention the initial censorship that took place, really looks like just friends covering a friend to me but they shouldn't have done that b/c it's an abuse of position but w/e, causing a Streisand effect which anyone can argue, with remarkable plausibility, that it was that and not misogyny that caused it to become of such interest) and not even necessarily the behavior of Zoe itself. Looking objectively at the facts and his post itself as it was at the time of it's publishing it's really quite easy to think it really is just about someone opening up about the remarkable abuse from an intimate partner who is best described as a manipulative, emotionally abusive, pathological liar. Perhaps this is just how evil, manipulative, and deviously ingenious Eron is. That said they will have to explain why several with a very left-wing SJW mindset perceived it as such. They don't other than to repeat the MRA angle.

From the agendered individual who invented trigger warnings, hardly what one would call a MRA misogynist right wing neoreactionary:

A twitlong on the Zoe post:

• On Harassment, Abuse, Apologism

A brief written analysis of the Zoe post:

• Harassment, Abuse, And Apologism: Sanitizing Abuse In Social Justice Spheres

In-depth bit by bit analysis of the extensive catalogue of the abuse Eron suffered:

• Understanding the Zoepost Pt 1 - Shifting Blame & Responsibility
• (TriggerWarning) Understanding the Zoepost Pt 2 - Withholding & Abuse

The testimony of Rachael M, a friend of Eron who was with him throughout the affair as it took place and backs up his side of the story pretty credibly as she watched him type it up in his apartment. Perhaps you are right and she is really aiding and abiding her friend in his relentless quest for vengeance:

• GamerGate Launched in My Apartment, and, Internet, I’m Sorry. (Not that sorry.)

What's important about all of the above isn't that Zoe "deserves" any harassment or that she manipulated the media for her own gain, or even that the "start" of GamerGate was "just". No, it shows, on just one very small issue, that the way in which RW starts out their depiction of events -- that Eron is a hateful ex that sought out to destroy Zoe -- relies on people not being familiar with any of the primary sources or individuals involved but on their knowledge through second hand journalists who often are either friends of Zoe or an acquaintance/friend of someone who is. They can say that his actions were foolish and poorly executed etc but it's hard to see how they were out of malice and with the intention of killing her as RW claims. They will have to provide a serious counter to the rather impressive and overwhelming evidence that Eron was simply opening up on a fucking tumbler post about the abuse he suffered and it's impact on him. If they all believe that it is wrong for people to publicly open up about the emotional, sexual, or physical abuse while giving the pseudonym of the abuser, that's cool.

If they believe that he is a devious and hateful ex who is evil and wishing destruction and ruin on Zoe then they will need to refute the pro-Eron SJW's points meticulously, much in the same fashion as Alexander did with that fringe loony, Moldbug. It's a lot of work but it's what's necessary for them to engage GG and make their version of events plausible and they just haven't done that. While the Zoe Post and the whole affair with Zoe Quinn is actually irrelevant to people who believe the main thrust of their actions is exposing the rather exceptionally well documented unethical behavior of many major games presses, known to them as GGrs, the post IS rather critical in RationalWiki's, and aGGros', understanding of GG and one of the key underpinning lynchpins in their narrative. Bringing GGrs, and anyone else who's read the primary sources for that matter, around on that point would be the first step in getting them to comprehend and accept RWs side of the story but they just haven't done that.

They would also need to address the well researched arguments of the GG neutral Auerbach:

His twitlongs detailing the evolution of his thoughts:

• The Gamergate Moment
• What I Got Wrong About Gamergate: A Political Analysis
• Sour Gripes: E3, the AAAs, and the Journos

They will also need to address the takedowns of the evidence backing the GG harassment theories, the best and most concise so far comes from Sara A Rahman, a woman of color and a staunch left wing Keynesian:

• Biased Cyberhate Researcher: My Response

This is just a tiny fraction of the views that do not come from an ideological MRA, right wing, neoreactionary, woman/minority hating bigots who don't agree with their depiction of events. It doesn't seem to matter to them and they claim anyone who are GGrs are ideological MRA, right wing, neoreactionary, woman/minority hating bigots.

They will have to seriously engage and refute their depiction of events which is rather simplistic and believable: A group of journos tries to cover for a friend rather than having Grason quietly admit he should have disclosed his prior relationship with Zoe Quinn (as friends which they were), post basic ethics codes on their sites, and stop funding the people they are covering without disclosure (Kotaku tried the two latter ones but were accused of aiding terrorists and quickly backed away from that position); instead they colluded in a private email list to resort to attacking/banning/censoring anyone even discussing or asking about the topic they Streisanded as a MRA, transphobic, white male, cisgendered, hatemob and everything pretty much spirals from there. Much simpler and far more plausible and fits the facts far better than this insane RW-GG page which has yet to provide a refutation to that narrative without resorting to mental and logical gymnastics and secondary citogenisis sources. --72.207.244.46 (talk) 02:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop posting this at the top of the section.

Gamergaters' actions tend towards reactionary and conservative despite their individual political compasses.

People deleting shit from websites and banning people isn't censorship. Stop conflating website moderation with government control.

Eron Gjoni is the abusive partner here considering he has specifically mentioned he worked hard into writing The Zoe Post so it would bait the right trolls.

Zoe Quinn did not manipulate the media. How the fuck do you get at this conclusion?

Rachel M is Gjoni's new girlfriend who helped him take out his rage on Zoe Quinn. She is hardly impartial.

David Auerbach is not a "Gamergate neutral".

Rahman's story seems to be "Gamergaters get hate too" and boo hoo.

Gamergate has yet to actually raise any concerns about actual ethical issues and your posts here are going on and on about disclosing friendships for a free (as in free beer) video game.

GameJournoPros did nothing of the like of "attacking/banning/censoring anyone" as you allege.

I think this article successfully counters your narrative that you for whatever reason claims it doesn't. Nothing you've said is remotely based in fact and is all based on conspiracy and conjecture rather than the 300 god damn citations this page uses to support things as minor as KFC being on Harper's autoblocker.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Also are you dismissing everything negative that's been said about Gamergate by referencing a fucking xkcd comic?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

May I toss out a theory?

From what I've seen on comment boards and the like, I have a theory regarding the Gamergate output - the biggest output isn't 'ethics in video game journalism' or even harassment, but forum comments, blog posts and Youtube videos insisting their legitimacy. ^{— Unsigned, by: 108.181.253.116 / talk / contribs}

Heh. So Gamergate is more about claiming Gamergate is about ethics in journalism, than about ethics in journalism. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, that's the whole citogensis fueling the harassment narrative. Nice try buddy. --72.207.244.46 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, he's right and you're wrong. Put down the green and purple kool-aid.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Milo's gonna dox con artist Randi Harper tomorrow

I look forward to you so called rationalists trying to spin doctor Harper's misdeeds as her being an innocent victim, but you'll probably just ignore it, just like you did his exposes on Brianna Wu.

And for the record, Gamergaters don't hate women and transsexuals, we hate liars, hypocrites, and assholes. And most of all, we hate a bunch of disingenuous lying beta cucklords whiteknighting anyone, male or female, who lies like a rug.

For that matter, your proxy blockers are a fucking joke and make you all just as willing to block all opinions that don't suck your dicks as Conservapedia, so don't claim you faggots are any better than them. 91.215.154.59 (talk) 00:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

That statement was so ethical. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought GG was against doxxing. Vulpius (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

And anti-GGers aren't? They tried shame and humiliate anyone who disagrees with them, even their own when they dissent against the hivemind, like when Brianna Wu got turned on by her own when she dared be civil to Brad Wardell. Also, as much as you assholes try to make it look like Gamergate lost, no game made by the liars you all white knight has been worth a fuck because the games objectively suck, not because of soggy knee bullshit. Brianna Wu's fetid garbage was so shit she had to hand the damn thing out for free and has been dragging ass releasing it on Steam because she pissed about the mass refund policy that could result in her not making a fucking dime. Leigh Alexander's brilliant advice caused an entire SJW game studio to tank, and almost all the gaming rags runs by the charlatans you champion have been going under thanks to pissing off actual gamers. Face it, RWians, all you are writing is a glorified puff piece, currently being most actively curated by an asshole so fucking horrible Wikipedia couldn't excuse his bullshit anymore. 91.215.154.59 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What does this have to do with ethics in video game journalism?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

EVERYTHING!!! Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 01:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, "RWians" is so awkward. Surely, there's a better pejorative name for us here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Such long tirades, such little content. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

RatWikians works nicely. 104.5.9.13 (talk) 02:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think we're just all called Goats. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 03:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I thought members of this site were known as goatherds? --Aile Dhoo (talk) 06:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

This is one of the scumbags you lying fucks whiteknight. And before you assholes pull the soggy knee bullshit, we Gamergaters would find this just as pathetic if she were male. Note especially that smug comment about how she is game journalism, that's the kind of shit you assholes unironically defend while saying Gamergaters don't have a case against corrupt assholes in gaming journalism 20:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You are a stupid person and your stupidity should make you feel bad about everything. Hipocrite (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

They feel threatened by the Online Abuse Prevention Initiative. Did not the apologists of GG claimed they were not into the harassing business? --Aile Dhoo (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Dude stop claiming ad hom while slinging it. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 20:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(Hipocrite) So you can't refute anything I say and resort to ad hominem and calling me stupid instead actually being rational and proving why my stance is stupid? Not very rational of you, but I suppose with a username like yours, I should have expected no less.(FuzzyCatPotato) And it's fine when you guys do it instead of trying to use logic to make your points? 5.101.118.128 (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You are a dumb and stupid person - that's just true. You haven't made any points at all. Hipocrite (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure, if trolling or just plain fucking stupid.--Arisboch (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm all too real, Arisboch, I'm just waiting for people on a site dedicated to rationality to use reason to prove me wrong. 5.101.118.128 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Make a falsifiable statement, we'll do it. 1 statement, not a torrent of PRATT ad hom wrong. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

(Link removed specifically because it was claimed to be doxxing material NOT HOSTED HERE) I look forward to the attempts by RW to explain this away. 5.101.118.128 (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I see...and what are we supposed to explain away?

So, Milo's basic contention is that Randi Harper assumes bad intentions, ignores "clarifications" and "apologies", and then engages in public shaming.

I'm...failing to see the problem here. None of this is illegal. So what is Milo's point? She's not allowed to do this or something? And if this is a doxxing, where is her SSN, her credit card numbers, her bank account statements? Where's her physical address? This is a remarkably lame doxxing. Megafail. --Castaigne (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Breitbart.com? You fucking serious?--Arisboch (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Wait, this is a dox? It feels like something's missing here. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

0.66, eh? FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 21:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Our IP friend is strangely quiet. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

To go back to the original post, "we hate liars, hypocrites, and assholes": Ah, so you hate yourself? That'd definitely explain the excessive bitterness and vitriol. You have my pitty. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Identity politics warning: the fact that every gamergate person that comes here happens to be a moron is no reason to reduce yourself to pointing that fact out. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Out of respect for Ikanreed's good advice not to advertise this public article on a public site as something it's not, this isn't dox, it's a news article about Randi Harper, which you all can choose to agree with or not. I was wrong to call it dox when it wasn't, and Ikanreed has my apologies for being a dickhead about it. 21:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Gamergate is totally not a reactionary woman-hating movement. Read this breitbart article that talks about this one woman and promises to "delve deeply into [her] background." 22:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

So it turns out that the second half of this article is going to dox her children.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:17, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I am unsurprised that Milo considers her kids "fair game".

I'm also still unimpressed by the article. Oh noes, Randi Harper publicly shames people. And this is...I dunno, supposed to be shocking or something? --Castaigne (talk) 22:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Where the fuck are you assholes getting the "going after her kids" shit? The article states In Part Two, we delve deeply into Randi Harper’s background. We examine how she arrived at her current methods of attack and critically explore the many gruesome personal allegations made against her. We also reveal a shocking truth about her “work” at the FreeBSD project, the open source software project on which Harper’s reputation as a programmer rests. Finally, we ask the question: how did she get away with it for so long?. Where in all of that statement does it say a damn thing about her kids? 5.101.118.128 (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well it was from Harper's feed. But really, why is he doing an expose like this? What is he trying to prove? What does it do other than get him clicks from Gamergate?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Also why are you bothering hiding behind an Estonian proxy?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Because RW has blocked a shitton of legit IPs with it's crappy filter and I didn't want the hassle. As for why Milo did this, it's called investigative journalism, and the real question is: is he wrong? If not, Randi Harper is indeed guilty of abuse and libel, and she needs to answer for that. If Milo's wrong, then he deserves to be drummed out of his profession for spewing bullshit, but given the sources provided and the fact Harper has basically gone into hiding, I think Milo has no reason to feel shame for his effort. 5.101.118.128 (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you know what IPs are blocked?

K, Harper is mean. Ethics in journalism advances, how? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 01:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The point of any filter is to filter out the crap. Also, Milo's been wrong plenty of times. Gamergate's just blind to his faults because he toes the line.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, here's Milo talking about how part 2 is going to include the bullshit claim by Gamergate that Harper sold her child for drug money.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The point of RW's filters is to filter out dissent against the hivemind is what you intended to say, right? Also, Milo's been wrong before, would be an idiot to deny it, but in this case, he's right. As for how ethics in gaming journalism advances, simple: Harper has spread a massive lie about how she's been the victim in the gaming world, and as we see in the sources provided, she's actually the abuser. The false narrative her allies in the gaming journalism business have spread has been exposed as fraud, and that is what Gamergate is all about, exposing this kind of bullshit, not about soggy knees. As for those allegations, we'll have to see if the evidence he sources in Part 2 bears out those claims about Randi Harper's child, won't we? 5.101.118.128 (talk) 01:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, the SJW hivemind and claims of false flags. Milo's article cherrypicks a handful of personal feuds Harper's had with people, which magically excludes the one that he had with her. Also, Harper's not a journalist. She's a software engineer who made it so people didn't have to listen to Gamergaters yell at them. Much like how RW's edit filters allow the same. So Gamergate's doing a shitty job of exposing fraud in video game journalism by having Milo write hitpieces sourced from ED attacking someone who isn't a video game journalist and as far as I'm aware was never once discussed on any video game news website (maybe some tech news websites but I'm not sure if that crossover is enough to matter).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

To clarify on the edit filter, it's only meant to prevent the worst of the worst from being posted as it's obvious that people are allowed to come here and speak against topics but when it's done from VPNs or VPSs or the content being posted includes links to websites that really have no purpose here then that's what's blocked.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You know what I love about your arguments, Ryulong? The way you interpret the scope of Gamergate to win them. Gamergate is either a culture war or limited strictly to gaming journalism only whenever it helps you win the war, and thing is, Gamergate has, much like the Watergate scandal, ballooned far past it's original origins, and while you're right, a few swallows don't make a spring, let's not try winning arguments with elastic definitions to suit our cause, shall we? This is RationalWiki, where arguments are made with reason, not with elastic cherrypicking. As for the block bot, funny you bring that up, as it has caused Harper a lot of legal grief, especially in the U.K, and has blocked lots of innocent people for reasons that are libelous under U.K law for sure, and potentially elsewhere, and thanks for admitting it was made to silence dissent, as that's what Gamergate has been proving all along. The antis want to silence their detractors, they want censorship over any opinion that dissents against theirs, which is why the RW article on this very subject reads like an anti-GG approved hit piece. As for whether this is relevant, video games are made with tech, so yeah, I'd call that relevant crossover whether you do or not. And yet again, thanks for admitting RW and your own love of censorship with that comment about the edit filter, can't have dissenting opinions intrude on the narrative you want to tell, can we? 5.101.118.128 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm fairly certain I know what Gamergate is about. It's only allegedly about ethics in video game journalism when it really is just conservative assholes trying to cling onto any semblance of relevance they think they have by being loud and obnoxious about it and also spending an inordinate amount of time making ad hominem attacks on women on the Internet. So that's why when Gamergate claims a victory in some theater, the question has to be raised as to what said "victory" has to do with their lofty claimed goals of vidya journo ethics rather than just being a baseless attack on someone who said "I don't like you guys".

That whole "block bot is illegal in the UK" shit is made up; just go ask Grimachu how his case against Harper is going.

You're reaching with the whole "silence dissent" thing. Good persecution complex there.

I'm sorry you don't like our bias in favor of reality instead of the windmills Gamergate's been tilting against for nearly a year.

Also, you're free to provide links to articles about Harper and GGAB (not The Block Bot which is separate) that appeared on the GG blacklist of sites (e.g. Kotaku) because I personally can't think of any that fit that criteria cause all RationalWiki uses is this at Newsweek's Tech & Science section which last I checked was a major newspaper and not some clickbaity garbage that Gamergate likes to categorize Kotaku et al. as.

And one final thought. I've been informed that there's a separate filter just to block open proxies on RationalWiki, rather than an edit filter to say block people from linking to individual websites. So really why do you want to edit from an open proxy/VPN when it's just so much easier to make a garbage account?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm fairly certain I know what Gamergate is about. It's only allegedly about ethics in video game journalism when it really is just conservative assholes trying to cling onto any semblance of relevance they think they have by being loud and obnoxious about it. O RLY? Hate to inform you, but I'm a liberal, I just hate liars. As for "silence dissent", you got your ass kicked off Wikipedia for silencing even the slightest bit of information that might disprove your preferred version of Gamergate, and you still have a massively butthurt parting shot left on your userpage there about how you're the innocent victim, when a look at your Twitter reveals you had an anti-GG agenda and abused power there to force your views, much like you do here, you just have more people tolerating you and unwilling to cast you out to deny your enemies a victory (you're still here out of spite, more or less), and sad part is, the only difference between here and Wikipedia is that you have more allies and less objective people to answer to. Also I'm sorry you don't like our bias in favor of reality instead of the windmills Gamergate's been tilting against for nearly a year. Coming from a guy whose Twitter revealed what side you stood on and you blatantly pushed that on a place with a NPOV perspective, that's just hypocrisy in it's most vile form. As for that link you provided, very good Ryulong, you're finally learning to argue with reason and reliable sources. Finally, So really why do you want to edit from an open proxy/VPN when it's just so much easier to make a garbage account? - I already explained why above. 88.198.219.77 (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reactionaries gonna react.

Nice gaslighting. I wasn't blocked for "silencing dissent". What does my Twitter have to do with anything? I'm allowed to have opinions. I'm also allowed to not be duped by red pill garbage like its clear you have.

That link I posted was an example of what I want you to provide for proof that Harper's so-called lies were perpetuated.

And the filter's not blocking legit IPs. It's only blocking proxies. If you make an account you're not affected by it at all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

YOUR PROXY BLOCKERS ARE FUCKING MEANINGLESS, GET THAT THROUGH YOUR SO CALLED RATIONAL SKULLS! 88.198.219.77 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

So what you're saying is someone needs to update the filter. Particularly because your latest proxy VPN did fuck up everything on the page when you tried to post.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Bitch, plz. I'm not an idiot when it comes to MediaWiki, all you'll do by changing the filters is to piss off more innocent users, but please, go ahead and try, the more innocent people you fuck over will be funny, but that's all for today, arguing with the kind of zealot this very wiki shits on in countless articles for being closeminded sheeple is getting fucking old. 03:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, leave as soon as your arguments are called out for the utter shit they are and you've no longer got any way to adequately respond to them. And unless someone's editing from behind some sort of nationally imposed firewall, there's not really any legitimate reason to use open proxies and VPNs to access a website like this one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Of course this is all going off topic. Milo's article is only an example of all this. It's an attempt to legitimize what Gamergate's done to Randi Harper by digging up shit against her. Is she abrasive? Yeah, probably. But there's nothing really in that that exposes her as a fraud as you had brought up earlier, BoN. It only shows the fights she's gotten into with people. So let me spend some time tearing it apart:

• She switched names of her Twitter accounts OMG. Yet all of her tweets as @freebsdgirl are now available as @randileeharper as Twitter automatically redirects based on the status ID rather than the user ID.
• Oh no Roberto Rosario got blocked by GGAB which identified that he was following more than 2 people on the code's source list. Everything else about him on the page is based on conjecture and conspiracies.
• Chris von Csefalvay and Randi Harper fought over statistics! Oh noes. Why the fuck does Milo mention von Csefalvay's disability right off the bat? What does it have to do with the rest of the article?
• Claire Schumann!!! was a mystery to everyone to this day. Gamergate claims she was an innocent SJW attacked by anti-Gamergate when everyone else can't figure out if she was a legitimate account.
• Vivek Wadhwa! He's hated by women in tech for talking over their experiences. Harper's part in that feud (of which she's not the only person) is simply the most public particularly due to Gamergate's microscope on her behavior. Gamergate allies "Stop the Goodreads Bullies" and Anne Rice didn't help.

The first part of this is all based in conspiracies and lies so what does it matter? The only thing she's known for at this point is making the autoblocker and being one of Gamergate's favorite women they say they're not set out to silence (IIRC she was "Literally Blue"). So how do you want to address these claims?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not like you really have to try to expose Randi Harper as a fraud. You only have to look at what OAPI has produced in its 4 or so months of life so far. A handful of lines of astonishingly poor quality code. You say about that you believe she's a software engineer, but she's not. Nobody with any experience writing professional quality software could turn out something as bad as this. Anyone donating to OAPI is getting scammed, there's no way in hell it's ever going to turn out anything useful. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 08:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What? I don't even think there's a donation link. And apparently it's barely out of beta.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're a Gamergater who's got a longer history on this site than others. Glad to know I can disregard your opinions on this matter as they're clearly not based in any fact.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Welp, you're certainly welcome to believe that. Doesn't mean I'm wrong though. That code is garbage. Saying "oh, it's beta" doesn't excuse that. Beta is what happens when you're testing a well structured piece of software prior to release. What you have there is a completely unstructured lump of incredibly fragile code that does more or less nothing, and does it in an extraordinarily stupid way. I'll happily go in to it in excruciating detail if you like. I do find it amusing though that a couple of sections up there's a thing on affinity fraud, but when exactly the same thing is happening with Harper, your response is "I DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO THIS!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I just don't see what one shoddy code makes her a fraud. She worked for a software developer. She writes code. It's not like Gamergate doesn't know everything about her at this point, considering someone showed up at her old place of work to intimidate her. I don't know why you decided to go the route you did, other than going back in your history here and seeing you parot Gamergate talking points before I ever joined. The most Milo's article does is point out she's abrasive to people online who happen to be part of a hate mob (and also one of them has a history that predates Gamergate).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

She worked for a software engineering company, but not as a software engineer. She's taking money on the pretence that she's going to develop open source tools to prevent harassment, but what little she's actually produced is of such poor quality in both design and implementation that it has no earthly use whatsoever. The fact that someone who is supposed to be employed preventing abuse is actually abusive online is almost beside the point. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you know more about her than I do, so what job was she doing at a software engineering company if not working as a software engineer? She's clearly been able to code things that work in some capacity. And is she abusive or is she the target of a hate mob because she's a woman?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

IT support/sysadmin. Hell, I could code things that worked when I was 10 years old, it didn't mean anyone could or should pay me for what I made. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No one paid her for GGAB and it seems to be effective. Just because you believe that particular code is shit doesn't mean much.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, she's being paid to produce code now. In the four months or so since that's happened, she's produced something like 1000 lines of abysmal PHP and Ruby, plus a lot of empty words about what she plans to do. That's probably about an afternoon's work. I mean, everyone has to start somewhere learning how to produce software, but I don't think it's right to get people to pay you as you experiment. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

She should be doing tech research and design architecture work first. I mean, going straight into writing lots of code really would be indicative of a bad developer. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not like the code's going to brick a computer. It's only reading data from Twitter's API for fucks sake.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there's a very obvious denial of service attack there, though I think ruby uses green threads rather than native so I don't think you can actually crash the box it runs on, fortunately. Looking at, I wouldn't be surprised if you could also find an SQL injection attack. Certainly, never validating input on the daemon side is a serious mistake. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We're getting wildly off topic and you just seem to be looking for things to justify hating her. Which is what Milo did for his articles.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, please. "Hating her." If criticising people were hating them, you might as well rename this haterwiki. If you want to see what hate looks like, search through my history here for when I'm talking about Scott Lively. That's hate. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The pastor being tried for crimes against humanity? And you dove into this calling her a fraud because of her coding which she doesn't charge for. Also, I've been informed that Gamergaters tend to downplay her chops in her employment so I doubt your claim she was only support staff.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What? Do you think Gamergate wrote her linkedin or something? Rather than constantly saying "I've heard...", why not just check for yourself? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Jeeves is a gentleman and a scholar, not a GGer as far as I am aware; it must be a lonely, paranoid world you live on Ryulong where everyone with criticism is an enemy. It is my impression that both sides of this argument are as bad as each other. Jeeves, remember how arguing with idiots is likely to end up (God knows I thought you had your fill at CP). Tielec01 (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ryu, stop calling ppl GGers just for disagreeing. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 13:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, he's on point here. Jeeves MkII posted a screed that's in the archives about the poor abused victim Eron Gjoni. You can assume his judgement on any GG-related matters is entirely skewed - David Gerard (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you point me in the direction DG? Tielec01 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

His views regarding Brianna Wu's trans activism are also a bit sketchy. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Burn the witch! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Man, if you got some dumb views, that's okay with me. I can't stand the single-purpose editors whose only goal is to whitewash their precious movement, but if being wrong sometimes were a crime, lock me the fuck up. People need to lighten up on the zero tolerance policy. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Your contributions are quite interesting. They seem to includecalling Ryulong mentally ill. and declaring how Quinn is a cheating and lying sociopath and that Gjoni was right in bringing 4/8Chan down on her. Quite an ethical little chap, you are.

I'll repeat what I said to you in November: Eron Gjoni is only going through hell because he decided he wanted vengeance against his ex and successfully stirred up 4Chan and Reddit to be his personal army. He has even - drunkenly - admitted that it's only about vengeance and that it wasn't about ethics at all. And we only have HIS word that Zoe is "crazy"; other actual game developers - like those at the recent SIEGE conference say that Gjoni is full of shit. So I don't know why we should accept Eron Gjoni as being the Absolute Arbiter of Truth in regards to Ms. Quinn. You say "Just because people at 4chan took that information and ran with it, what exactly has that got to do with Eron?" It has a lot to do with it. 4chan didn't just "take that information"; they were goaded by Gjoni to harrass and dox and threaten her. And this is no lie; there are chat logs to that effect, sourced in this very article. So just from the start, you're not checking the actual information and just going off your opinion. I don't find it convincing.- Castaigne

I still don't find you convincing. --Castaigne (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Christ almighty. I'm not trying to convince you, I didn't even bring it up, then or now. You people can't help yourselves. Instead of castigating me, why don't you go away and look at yourself as to why you must insist on bringing it up whenever other people are trying to have a discussion. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

"Christ almighty"? *raises eyebrow* Are you one of them fundies, Mr. Jeeves? ;) (This is me trying to direct the discussion into more light-hearted territory btw.) 142․124․55․236 (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hang him high your honour. He's worried about Ryulong's mental health. It can't be because he is a human being who gets concerned by obsessive editing patterns. It just might be because Jeeves Is aware of the hypocrisy of making fun of user:conservative while simultaneously allowing the same behaviour here. However the most likely reason is that he is a gator. Tielec01 (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course he's a gator; he proved that months ago and his reappearance after months of silence solely on a GamerGate issue is pretty damn damning. And the only reason gators care about Ryulong is because he is the enemy; Ryulong delenda est and all that. The whole "mental health" thing is just a gaslighting technique. As for user:conservative, we do need to edit out those real names. --Castaigne (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you know. All those times we were talking about Ken and his obsessive editing and we'd get to pitying him, and saying amongst ourselves "if that were us, we'd say something..." None of use meant that. That was just a thing we'd say. Totally just gaslighting him, the fuckstick. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:37, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Dude, you were the one to create that section back in November 2014, were one of the ones stanning for Gjoni, and then comes wanging into a discussion after months of silence to promote that Randi Harper is a fraud. So don't even try to play the innocent martyr with me, sonny jim. --Castaigne (talk) 22:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Watch out guys the village idiot is here!!Tielec01 (talk) 22:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Alleged GG-affiliations aside, I'm sorry to observe that Tielec is apparently a gratuitous drama instigator. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

About that Breitbart link

Look, I'd hate to come out on the wrong side on this (I hated trudging through that Breitbart article and need to shower now), but what about that link which was rev. deleted constituted doxxing? John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a thing. It's the exact same Breitbart link posted just slightly above this topic, it was just panic deleted because I called it "dox" when it wasn't, and Ikanreed busted my chops for doing something so stupid, so I reposted it, clarified it was a public article on a public website, and apologized for being an asshole about it. 5.101.118.128 (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

When something's described as "dox" hours before its posted by the same person who called it dox, it does tend to make things negative.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

To recap

Previously, on RationalWiki...

A BoN behind a proxy storms onto the talk page claiming a devastating article will appear 'doxxing' Randi Harper. Debate proves that they're all mouth and no trousers. Eventually, the supposed bombshell turns out to be yet another weaksauce hit piece by Milo, struggling to keep himself relevant. A nation yawns. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 09:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not impressed, huh? Then try white knighting this shit away Reddit r/koptakuinaction archive.is and Twitter archive.is. That's right, Randi Harper threatened a bill collector's privacy and livelihood, the very shit Gamergaters get accused of all the time. 91.215.154.59 (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Fuck bill collectors. Fuck them. No justice, no peace. Hipocrite (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

(EC) You realise that contacting family members is actually against the US fair debt collection practices act? Reporting on a crime you are a victim of is not harassment. Even consumerist.com has reported on the real names behind shady collections agencies in the past. A collector behaving in the way that wound her up (even if the debt was genuine) is going to get smacked down hard by the Feds if their attention is turned in that direction. What's really on display in that cap is a barrage of people who don't understand how the world works in the orgiastic throes of a reality-averse circlejerk. It's a big fuss about nothing. That you think this is some kind of gotcha says more about you than it does about Randi. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 13:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the blockbot hasn't caused Harper any legal grief at all, because the UK can't do shit to an American citizen about something that's legal in the USA. As for libelous under UK law, saying something like "He said the sun rises in the east." is libelous under UK law. They have some of the loosest standards in the world, which is why everyone ignores them outside of the UK. There's no case against Harper that can succeed, because as soon as it reaches US jurisdiction it fails. And the UK can't extend jurisdiction on the subject, nor would they be able to extradite.

Although why anyone has a beef with a Twitter killfile program, I still can't understand. Killfiles have been standard usage for nigh on fuckin 30 years.

Also, making a fucking account already. We need a new Chrimony or Nacraycray.

As for the debt collectors, so fucking what? I've done worse to them. Shit, when they've been local, I've gone to their place of business and done the full vandal bit. Debt collectors have no ethics or souls, so I don't see why I should either.

(It probably doesn't help that I don't give a shit about doxxing as a tactic. Gators should use it more often! Shit, back in the day, we did DDOSes, actually shut down internet access for people and prevented them from having it, did stink bombs in the mail - you know, good shit. Gators are weak that way.) --Castaigne (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate sure knows how to dig up perceived misdeeds in order to justify their hatred of the week doesn't it?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is there not a article on Milo Yiannopoulous yet?

Seriously he is a silver mine of reactionary sentiment.

He had previously expressed "little but sneering contempt" for video games and gamers until GamerGate, is one of the problems for those who want to pretend GamerGate is not a reactionary movement and provides material to mock for We Hunted the Mammoth.

We need to consider the potential benefit of conducting a article on Mr Yiannopoulous. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well he's already covered on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We should also include his humiliation on the BBC, too. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 09:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't recall what this is referring to. Is it when he came out against gay marriage or in favor of homophobic bullying? Or was that on Sky or ITV?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I was misremembering two things - first his STEMlord act on Sky http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/06/23/the-hopeless-arrogance-of-milo-yiannopoulos/ but there was also his embarrassment when he debated the pay gap on the BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02vgrl7 . It's kind of unkind to keep inviting him back onto TV to humiliate himself more. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well he's local and they know he's a nutjob. Also I've been told Sky is British Fox News.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not, not really. It might be owned eventually by Murdoch but it's actually not that bad. He doesn't exercise the editorial control over it (perhaps he can't) that he does over his newspapers. The Sun is the closest approximation of Fox News we have over here. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 10:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well then: we have some starting materials to develop a page on Mr Yiannopoulous. I think we will need a quote section especially.. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There's plenty of non-GG material on Milo. With his idea of how to pay journalistic staff (not until the judge orders you to), he's definitely the posterboy for ethics in journalism - David Gerard (talk) 19:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure even considering publishing on breitbart.com is an instant disqualification for journalistic ethics. The site intentionally published falsified video to destroy a charity with motives driven out of an unsubstantiated far-right conspiracy theory. That's not an ethical reputation you should be able to just bounce back from. And it's not like they've really improved since the founder's death. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

A breakdown of the Zoe Post

We do a lot of side-by-side debunking, how does the idea sound against the Zoe post? Might make it crumble. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 17:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Bad. This page is overbloated & convoluted enough already without 10,000 words of annotated drivel added to it. Plus when we've discussed this before, the general feeling has been that these people's relationship is really none of our business. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

What about some specific excerpts? And I should have clarified that it should be its own page, not on here. Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 21:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Give an example. I really can't see any way this can go other than he-said-she-said stuff about Eron & Zoe's personal relationship, & if we get far into that we're basically participating in Gjoni's doxxing. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's anything explicitly in the post that needs debunking because all of the allegations in it are just "Zoe Quinn was having sex with people other than me, Eron Gjoni". The whole "sex for reviews" thing was manufactured by readers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Every so often I try to read this article...

As a person who knows nothing about this subject (and admittedly has little interest) I occasionally attempt to read the article and stop when I find the first statement I find incomprehensible. So I'm in paragraph two and I find: "They also somehow turned a sockpuppet-driven astroturfing campaign to falsely claim internal diversity into a legitimate culture jamming token sub-movement of useful idiots." Perhaps this is as clear as day to those who are familiar with the topic but I'mm afraid it leaves my head spinning. I know some of those words are blue-linked but that doesn't help me a lot.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 20:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand you are clearly a gator who has laid dormant here since before GG was even a thing. Plus DG tells me you haven't even made any specific criticisms of the article so your comment is worthless. You are a bad person who deserves to be tortured with the fleas of a thousand camels in your under pants. How does it feel to be oppressing woman you Nazi loving scum. Tielec01 (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The lede is just a summary of the rest of the page. That sentence describes the information under the "#NotYourShield [fuck if I remember the rest of the title]" header. I don't see why the whole fucking paragraph had to be nuked because of one wonky sentence at the end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I see. And what words do you find incomprehensible? Is sockpuppet beyond your vocabulary, or is it the term "culture jamming", or what? --Castaigne (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I deleted that paragraph because it was an incoherent description which makes very little sense if you're not already familiar with the events & people it obliquely alludes to & which is an effort to follow even if you are. It's a bad way to start an article if you want anybody to bother reading any further. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

How does the whole of the paragraph meet that description when at best the sentence trying to describe #NotYourShield was clearly the worst offender?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The whole paragraph is terrible. You've got sentences that start "The first exists" and "The second is". I had to jump back and reread the preceding sentence a couple of times to figure out what first & second are being referred to. So then "The first [presumably, perceived corruption in video game journalism] exists because of the false accusation that Quinn slept with a video game critic". Is this saying perceived corruption exists? Or only the perception it?

Given that Gamergate is a subject often mired in jargon, insider memes & obscure references, open to misinterpretation & misrepresentation, the best RW should aim for is a beginner-level article with a lede which is relatively engaging & coherent for people not already familiar with the subject. Instead of which we have an article which talks in riddles from the outset with a lede section which only makes sense if you're already up to speed on the subject or if you come back to it later after reading the rest of the page. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The lead should point out its hypocrisy and such in a minimal way and that's what the second paragraph is supposed to impart.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Unbelievable

Section 1

A woman tries to use personal relationships to influence what games are promoted or what journalists write about gaming, deliberately tries to silence criticism of her games which many people (as monty python would say of both sexes and hermaphrodites) did not like, lies about other people to win support, and has the gall to talk about equality and fairness when people said hateful, nasty things about her on the internet that she didn't like? Oh well, all we need to remember about this is sad creepy little nerds and their evil misogynist shooter games are evil. And Phil Fish is a shining example of manhood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6wcXJRjQU4 Burkean (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you travelled in a time machine to post this shit from August 2014?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah because actually remembering who she was, what she tried to do, how she manipulated people and attacked fellow women who were trying to promote women in gaming, silenced criticism, flat out made things up, etc....remembering all of that would confuse the issue because sexism. Burkean (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]}—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Plenty of actual showcasing of her lies and obnoxious controlling behavior in the video. Don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Especially when you consider citing journalists she agrees with and people who are either her friends or confidants as reliable sources. Hypocrite. Burkean (talk) 04:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not watching a video made by some holier than though jackoff (is it MundaneMatt? Internet Aristocrat?) to capitalize off of a manufactroversy over someone's sex life. Why is it you guys insist that she controls the media?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, pride in ignorance, the hallmark of somebody who thinks they're winning a debate. The video makes pretty clear that he could give two shits who she does and doesn't fuck (the only person here obsessed with Zoe Quinn's sex life is...you guessed it...Zoe Quinn. However, when you use connections and your sexuality to try a claim there is some conspiracy to stop the video games you love by evil men, deliberately silence criticism of video games, and then attack other women trying to help you as a woman in the video game industry, and then when people react to you with vitriol (which as I conceded was in very poor taste) then you don't have much of a leg to stand on. I would never be paranoid enough to give Quinn credit for taking over the media surrounding this. She just desperately tried to make herself out to be a victim when in truth this is all about her being pissed off because so many people like video games that she doesn't (INCLUDING WOMEN). If a conservative tried to be this butthurt about violent video games, you'd see it for the rank bullshit that it is. And if you're concerned about people prying into others sexual lives, you might consider the illustrious Phil Fish's comments on male breast tissue and flaccid male genitalia. Burkean (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it's because anything said by Gamergaters in August 2014 to legitimize their actions is irrelevant. News flash, she never used her connections or sexuality to do fucking anything. Her ex-boyfriend sicced the Internet Hate Machine on her and they obliged. At no point did anything you're saying happen. This has nothing to do with her video games and whether or not people like them.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, feel free to point out what was said in the video that was untrue. Alas, you won't. Burkean (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything int he video is fucking untrue. Everything IA said in August was based on bullshit only Gamergaters believed. Listen to yourself. You're demanding that we watch some fucking 20 minute long video on when this shit was still being called "The Quinnspiracy". It's July 2015 Burkean. Even Gamergate's moved on from that. We don't have to address anything in the video because the video isn't worth watching. We have known this since IA first posted it last year. How fucking stupid do you take us for?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If the task is so easy, you could easily tell me one thing. You still haven't. Burkean (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to do it because it's been done long before you posted it again here. I'm not sitting down and digesting 20 minutes of Internet Aristocrat being a douchebag.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

See, your dishonesty abounds here because you wouldn't have to do that, you could just name me one thing said that wasn't true. It would take you much less effort than what you're doing now. Which tells me you don't have anything. Burkean (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Burkean, I've explained this fact to you several times. Internet Aristocrat's videos on "The Quinnspiracy" are irrelevant because it's Internet Aristocrat and it was still called "The Quinnspiracy" back then. You are demanding that we watch a 20 minute long video of some nobody on the Internet going on and on about how something happened. Give us a summary of it. Give us exact points he brings up. You already watched it. You know what he says. Therefore the rest of us who don't want to watch the video don't have to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

okay, so I'll just try and give a timeline of what's happened and then talk briefly about the video. Some dude with a weird name who got romantically burned by Quinn decides to be a childish asshole and start dishing out personal information which may or may not be accurate but that's beside the point. Much as I dislike Quinn, it is primarily Eron's fault that so many people have been attacked with bullshit about libertarianism=Nazism and so forth. All the most hateful people on both sides have come out of the woodwork, including people of the same mindset as anita s claiming the libertarian tech movement is a secret neo-Nazi revival.

From here, the Streisand effect really kicks in. All sorts of people weigh in with stupid gossip and heresay, prompting 4chan and reddit to go full on control freak and just start deleting posts. This leads to matt, DMCA and all that. Whether or not Quinn was involved, who the fuck knows. Bain issues his warning. Quinn expresses disapproval of tfyc because some people are volunteers, and because they expected people to report whether they're male or female (which means they hate transgendered people).

Meanwhile, before this going on, Quinn claimed hurt feelings because in 2013 people were rude to her because they thought a videogame about a depressed young adult female (mostly with text) was boring. Totalbiscuit weighs in on the DMCA thing, and Phil Fish tears him a new one. Then he does the same to Wozniak. Quinn doesn't distance herself from it. Biscuit goes along with prying into Quinn's personal life, and is criticized.

ggs over-react to all of this, start trying to hack fish and Quinn. Then, TFYC are hacked. Then, anita s. decides it's a great time to start talking about how nerds who like violent video games like to stare at women with big boobs while they kill things. hard hitting journalism, to be sure. Many ggs keep acting like dicks. Anita decides that the best way to diffuse the situation and not give harasses any more legitimacy is to contact the FBI (???). Then anita, in what is either an example of weapons grade paranoia or despite grab for publicity, decides that she should leave her home because some people on the internet said they were going to get her. leigh then announces that gamers are over, whatever that might mean.

jenn frank, an associate of anita and maya Kramer decide to jump on the bandwagon, along with a bunch of other people from silversting. It is acknowledge that the guardian writer supported Quinn, then that retarded not your shield thing happened, followed by an even more retarded claim by the gg side that everyone who didn't agree with Quinn was gender/race traitor. wikiprojectfemthing decides to go in for a thermonuclear edit war on gamergate, which they kind of brought on themselves.

Quinn claims people are out to get her, some guy names greg does some retarded and rather unfeminist thing by challenging someone to a duel, which I guess was a joke. Meanwhile, reddit is clicky, and gaming journalism doesn't really matter anymore anyway. GGs put out a lot of crap about how relevant they are and how everyone else isn't. Yawn. Meanwhile, if gamers of different identities just respected each other's personal space, this wouldn't happen

A few brief comments about the video. Plus points, the video rightly points out that it is ridiculous to try and control what video games people like or what their sexual fantasies are or how the two intersect. Negative points, the video overstates the importance of Zoe's association with gaming journalism by giving gaming journalism in general more credit and legitimacy than it deserves. Too much is made of Zoe's personal life and there is no acknowledgement of how much Eron is in the wrong. Instead of trying to change what other people like, people who feel (To my mind wrongly) that because lots of male gamers like shooting things with female sex objects in them want to actively harm women because of this stupid controversy with stupid ggs, they should then associate with like minded people and gamers who wish to develop games that explore different themes more in line with their beliefs and interests. They can't really blame people for not liking what they do. Even if almost half of gamers are women, many of those women don't agree with zoe, seem to enjoy those sexist games, and more to the point it has been documented that even though almost half of gamers are women, they traditionally play for a much smaller space of time per week or per month etc.

Misogynists like Richard Dawkins concur with what many in the gaming world (even people who didn't like ggs) say, that SOME feminists want to control what people like for free expression because they find it offensive and watching women in a way they don't like or spending time in a world that is male centered to them constitutes actual harm even though no one is hurting women physically and they can't even prove that it leads to women being mistreated physically just like anti-porn advocates can't seem to find any evidence that porn leads to rape or female mistreatment. In this vision, video games should comport with their (certain feminists) standards of how women should be presented and that men playing games where they shoot things and look at boobs is an injustice to be corrected. It isn't enough to control what people think or say or do in the real world, the virtual world must also not offend them. The perceived threat from ggs saying hateful stupid racist shit (WHICH THEY DID) is supplanted by actual violence like syringes and bomb threats. Anita S portrays herself as a hero and savior of Zoe (debatable) who doesn't really need anita so much as she need to actually try and hook up with guys who will respect her and not treat her like shit. At some point, in what is blatant vengeance for the actions of ggs, opponents attempt to discover just how many of them have ties to neo-Nazi organizations. The number is higher than one would expect. The end. Burkean (talk) 23:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, now I can address your concerns:

• At least we can agree on what Gjoni did.
• No one's making the claims you are concerning libertarians and neo-Nazis. These are just two sets of people pushing Gamergate for their own separate ends.
• Quinn's disapproval of TFYC pre-dates Gamergate by several months and there are emails between the two of them that show they had mended ways and Quinn was going to serve as a consultant until Rappard went to /r/TumblrInAction to complain. Also, her complaint about the policy was that it previously said "you have to be publically identifying as a woman to enter" which was exclusionary towards transwomen who still have to be in the closet.
• People were threatening her life because they didn't like the video game she made. How are you going "her feelings were hurt". There's evidence of the shit she was sent over it.
• Everyone knows Phil Fish is an asshole on social media. Quinn didn't distance herself from it because he was telling people off for prying into her private life.
• What does Sarkeesian's decision to release a new video in her series (when at this point Gamergate is still just about Quinn) have to do with it?
• Someone threatened her life. That's why she contacted the FBI. People generally call the cops when their lives are threatened.
• Jenn Frank wrote a disclosure she did patreon shit and The Guardian decided it wasn't worth it. She disclosed the tenuous connection but a major newspaper decided it wasn't worth mentioning. That's when Gamergate should realize that they don't know shit about conflicts of interest.
• There was no relation between the gender gap task force and Gamergate on Wikipedia.
• Where is this "personal space" thing coming from?
• NO ONE IS TRYING TO CONTROL WHAT GOES INTO VIDEO GAMES. How the fuck does it keep coming down to this? THE "SJWS" ARE NOT TRYING TO TAKE OVER THE MEDIUM. The basis of Anita Sarkeesian's video series is "These tropes are kinda misogynistic and representative of how society sees women". At no point does she say "Let's ban video games where you can kill women" or "Let's ban violent video games". She may have a disdain for these topics but she's not in control of the ESRB.
• The only thing Zoe Quinn did was make a video game that was different. At no point that I am aware has she ever said anything about banning video games or expressing a view that shit like GTA is bad.
• And IA basically said in the video "Women aren't real gamers" so good on that.
• I can't think of any feminists (other than straw ones) that say that they want to censor and control the media. No one is saying that video games can't feature tits and murder. It's just that this is all the major publishers think the public wants because they've been catering to one group of people for 30 years.
• Milo's syringe and the DC bar bomb threat happened but there's no proof of either of these having any ties to an "anti-GG". Unlike how every threat of violence hurled at Quinn, Sarkeesian, Wu, Frank, et al., have ties to GG. And going "They weren't actually hurt" is fucked up.
• Anita doesn't portray herself as anything.
• All of Zoe's relationships that weren't with Eron seem to be healthy.
• NO ONE IS TRYING TO CONTROL THE FUCKING MEDIA.

I hope that covers it all.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you say that you understand that there are different groups at work here but because someone doesn't have a problem with neo-nazis expressing their views doesn't mean they agree with them. That's the point.

Either my world wall was too much to fuck with or you're ignoring what I said. I already said that Quinn's dispute predates what's going on. It goes back to 2013. And if the contest was open to everyone, no one would've given a shit about transwhatever. The fact that a trans person can claim status both as a woman and a transwoman basically means that any group of women who just want to discuss the issues of whatever kind with non transwomen is therefore a transphobic organization. Bull...shit. TFYC were not trying to trick Quinn into looking like a picky rigid asshole, she did that herself by claiming that a group who reached out to her had some insidious agenda because this wasn't a forum for transgendered awareness is bull. Quinn has every right to decide that she then doesn't want to participate (and no one should harass her for it) but it's still bull. And clearly transwomen don't have to still be in the closet considering the amount of political pressure that's mounting to make sure that they feel welcome in any and all areas (their own bathrooms) whether other people feel comfortable with that or not.

If you think the threat/s against Anita was/were/are credible then you must not know much about the internet. If I had a dollar for every time somebody tells somebody else on the internet they're going to kill them, I certainly wouldn't be here talking to you. It was Anita's attempt to prove that those who disagree with her are a violent dangerous cabal. It was a cynical combination of paranoia and self promotion.

The idea that what goes on in a fantasy world of video games has anything to do with where women stand in society now, or how they're advancing, or what options are available to them. If a woman fantasizes about controlling men, that does not mean she hates them. If men fantasize about women in a submissive role, that doesn't make them women haters and it certainly isn't a larger statement about society. The fact that people go to slayer concerts is not proof that America is going satanic. When a religious person says that because people go for this form of expression of that that this means society is decaying, that's bullshit. Same thing here.

So if someone else is an asshole, you don't have to distance yourself from them if they're defending you. That's the same logic some of the ggs use. Well, these guys are Nazis but they agree with us about the pc agenda, so it's okay.

I like your logic. Leave it up to the guardian whether or not there's a conflict of interest. Kind of like when the gamer journals said they couldn't (or wouldn't) do anything about the people who worked for them who treated Zoe like shit.

Anita and Zoe are more of less of one mind when it comes to these issues. I don't really know if Quinn does or doesn't like GTA (it doesn't really matter, she can hate whatever she wants), but if women in scantily clad outfits being either stared at or killed by teenage boys offends her, my guess is that the raping, pimping, killing, beating, and frequenting of strip points in many GTA games would likely give both of them a stroke. But that's neither here nor there. Other than being friends of friends, no, there was no direct connection with gender gap task force (and I thought captain planet sounded ridiculous). I meant personal space for everyone, including Zoe. Her personal space was violated. The reaction was ridiculous, but for anita to play sociologist to the gaming world and claim that boys fantasies about women in video games is indicative of actual real world sexism in society brings her judgment into question. Do you think that the world is more sexist now because of aggressive violent porn than in say, the 1900s, when people had rather pathetic notions of chivalry, while women were chattel slaves? That was my point about the one douchebag rushing in to "defend their honor" and all of that crap. If they were actual feminists in the real sense of that term, they would've said "we can take care of ourselves, thanks."

Feminists who are not sex positive (of which there are, tragically, quite a few) have been calling for the criminalization and censorship of porn FOR YEARS, as the religious right has for entirely different reasons. Not to mention all of the different forms of speech on campus that are discontinued (with new codes every week), even words that offend or imply, to them sexism, having to be changed. This is the definition of micro-totalitarianism. I never said that that applied specifically to this, just that the claims of Zoe and Anita concerning games vs. society was bull.

You can try and wriggle your way out of it all you want, but a syringe and a car bomb are way more serious than "somebody threatened me on the internet". LOL, who do you think was behind it then? The muslims? Perhaps Vladimir Putin? No way it could've been the work of people who've been in the midst of this so-called "culture war". Heaven's no. Only ggs would do something like that. You probably think it was an inside job just to make Zoe/Quinn's side look bad. Good God.

Zoe can fuck whoever she wants.

No one controls the media. The fact that most of the people in this media agree with Zoe kind of poisons the well. Burkean (talk) 04:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why I'm arguing these things with you because it's not like there's any point in "deconverting you" or you "converting" me.

The contest was open to women but the way the rules said anything about transwomen was what Quinn had issue with. They didn't reach out to her. She found it on her own and then had pause. This rule was changed prior to Gamergate happening apparently so that it was open to people who couldn't publically say they were transgender.

"It's not real it's over the Internet." As John Oliver said, congratulations on having a white penis. I'm sure the shoe would be on the other foot if some amorphous leaderless mob had your address and they said they were going to go to your house and feed you your own balls.

No one's saying that people can't discern fantasy from reality. But fantasy reflects reality. That's why tropes persist.

Phil Fish is an asshole. That's just how he acted on the Internet. Everyone knew that. He spoke his mind. It doesn't mean Zoe Quinn deserved anything that happened to her because he was defending her in the way he usually composes himself on the Internet.

Jenn Frank included the disclosure. The Guardian, a major newspaper, decided the disclosure was trivial and cut it out. It was only added back because Gamergate doesn't see any external conflict of interest as trivial. I don't know what the fuck you mean by "Kind of like when the gamer journals said they couldn't (or wouldn't) do anything about the people who worked for them who treated Zoe like shit."

^{[citation needed]} on Quinn's beliefs on female characters in video games. And AFAIK feminism doesn't have anything to do with "Hey, I can handle this on my own" as much as "We should work together to ensure institutional gender equality".

I don't know why you're bringing up sex positivity/negativity.

I'm not saying that the syringe or the bomb threat is less important. I was just saying that there's no way to tie them to being from "the other side". However, it is fucked up for you to go "These people were threatened more and tangibly than these whiny bitches getting Internet hate".

And finally, maybe more people recognize how fucking bullshit it is that one woman's personal life has been microanalyzed by a troll army led by her abusive ex-boyfriend than believe it has anything to do with ethics in video game journalism. That's a fucking poisoned well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it's borderline racist to claim that dismissal of internet hate is a purely white phenomenon. I went out of my way to say that what Zoe went through was bullshit. And I deplore people using someone's personal address, just as I did when Spike Lee tried that with George Zimmerman. But that is what is significant. What was said isn't. Credible threats should be taken seriously and I in no way implied that Zoe got what she deserved. I can't believe a liberal is telling me journalistic publications should police themselves. No doubt a similar rule would never apply to corporations.

What I was referring to was the fact that many who contributed to gaming journals who spread hate about Zoe were not held accountable by those publications. I thought women being independent and not needing to rely on a man to earn money, or own property for her, or take care of her, keeping her both dependent and obedient, saddling her with children, I thought getting away from that was a really important part of feminism. I guess what's more important is making sure everyone has exactly the same amount of everything in every way until absolute equality (whatever that might look like) is achieved. Only then will the revolution be complete. But that doesn't seem to have anything to do with an independent woman living her own life and not being told what to do by men, which is what I thought was important.

I already said Quinn has a right to abstain from all events which either don't involve transgendered individuals, or those which specifically prohibit their involvement. Institutional gender equality has nothing to do with respecting the rights of women. It is a protest against people's tastes, preferences, modes of speech, which don't actually harm anyone else physically, or with threats, or even harassment, but which do not reflect the mosaic of society which they would like to see. People not doing what you want is not exploitation or inequality. And I thought genuine feminists took objection to that whole chivalric "you're a dainty flower who needs me to fight for and defend your honor". But I guess now that's in line with institutional gender equality. Someone revealing someone's address is every bit as serious as bomb threats. Everything else, not so much.

I brought up sex positive feminism versus 2nd wave and so forth because sex positive feminists seem much less interested in controlling people's preferences and desires and choices in the name of perfecting the gender equation or consciousness raising or whatever. They seemed more interested with women not being forcibly blocked from power and having the right to pursue their own interests and not being held back by men or society. That I can respect. "People like this, we need to change that." "People want to live like this, we need to change that." "Some people want to do this and this on campus. It doesn't violate anyone's rights but we're offended by it, so let's protest it and force them to stop." This, it seems, isn't what the sex positive feminist is after. And they also seem a little bit more skeptical of the rape culture panic. But I suppose Camile Paglia is just an MRA sellout like Christina Hoff Sommers Burkean (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ How the fuck is it "borderline racist" to point out that women and people of color are disproportionately affected by harassment on the Internet when compared to white men? And I would say that people did receive credible threats when those threats are accompanied by their address. Being told "I know where you live, I'm going to go there and murder you and your family" is just as credible a threat as "I have planted a bomb at this bar".

All I'm pointing out is that an actual corporation that has an actual person hired to determine conflicts of interest and lapses of ethics decided Frank's midling $5 a month or whatever to Zoe Quinn's Patreon was trivial.

You seemed to be going out of your way to say that Fish's involvement somehow negated feminism.

I don't have to fucking describe third wave feminism to you. I'm not qualified to anyway.

I don't think anyone being attacked by Gamergate is being attacked because they're a "sex negative feminist". They're being attacked because they're feminists and they said things about video games. So that's why I'm still confused as to why it's an issue to be brought up. And are you really bringing up rape culture?

Burkean, the video was shit and I tore it apart as you wanted me to. Your arguments are weak and based on things I've never brought up and aren't even covered on this page. Is your issue still that "white supremacist" is on the page in association with Gamergate because you aren't a white supremacist despite your support of the movement?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that liberals were actually claiming that white people are attacked less on the internet.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html

I guess if white people are on the internet more (specifically, or so I'm guessing, young white men), then they'll be the ones doing most of the flaming. Considering all the "cracker, check your privilege, sexist pig, this and that phobic" and so forth, it seems highly unlikely. I'd love to know the meticulously scientific way you've calculated this. Probably the same people who claim that whites have a larger criminal element, even though blacks commit crime at a rate well above their 12 percent share of the population. Burkean (talk) 09:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Do I get to link a video now? Most of the video deals with the lack of laws on file for cyberstalking, threats on the Internet, and revenge porn, as well as society's reaction to such threats, but it does cover basic details. Women receive a disproportionate amount of harassment online, like the one quoted in the video who says she was told "I'm going to stick an egg in your vaginal canal and punch it" just for playing a video game. Of course, your arguments are just getting more fucked up by the second. I can see why you're so upset that "white supremacist" is on this page.

And fucking LOL you're linking a god damn Cathy Young piece. She's feMRA #2 after Christina Sommers.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, and John Oliver, heir apparent to Stewart the wise, is impartial, yes? And I already conceded that the basic theory of lonely young white males attracted to the internet, so perhaps dominate it, so perhaps doing the most flaming, and so that flaming is more young white males than anyone else. I think that might tell us what's happening on the internet (though a john oliver video is far from definitive), it doesn't really tell us what's happening in society writ large and is therefore hardly a "reflection" of anything else other than the ease with which one can be an asshole on the internet. Crime is a young man's game, no question about that. But I doubt you will ever acknowledge that Blacks, given being only 12 percent of the population, commit a disproportionate amount of the crime. That however, is a separate issue. It's quite frightening to think what measures would have to be taken to criminalize cyberbullying and revenge porn (not that I am against such an idea in principle). And what kinds of sentences would be metered out? Would we incarcerate these people and then put them in jail with stalkers, burglars, drunk drivers, etc?

Taken from Andre Berry in his response to Wesley Shark:

"Some reasons why a national law hasn't been put in place yet:

1) It is not an easy crime to witness. Often the victims may not even be aware of it.

2) It is an easy crime to commit without explicit evidence of your involvement. Even if the person responsible was in the video and was said to be the only other person with the material, it's still not proven at that point that he/she distributed it out.

3) Laws are still being tested at the state level. If evidence of effectiveness of a particular state law on the issue is showing results, then it is more likely that a national law will be adopted.

There are more but it should be evident why the "absurdness" of the law's absence exists."

In any case, I accept the possibility that what you say might be true, but am doubtful. Since that author I cited doesn't count, owing to the fact that she's a woman traitor, maybe this will help:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/10/22/men-experience-slightly-more-online-harassment-but-young-women-are-hit-with-the-most-severe-forms/

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/01/the-darkest-side-of-online-harassment-menacing-behavior/

Burkean (talk) 10:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep bringing up racial crime statistics? At least John Oliver's segment on this was more entertaining than 50 Internet Aristocrat videos. I will concede that your articles do show how men receive numerically more harassment than women, but they do point out that the harassment directed at women is of a different variety.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, what people do physically in the real world does matter more even though people shouldn't be shitty online just like we shouldn't treat robbery the same a serial murder. Numerically more understates what I'm saying. Most guys put up with more shit from most girls, and then a handful of sick fucks make life really hard for some girls, thereby negating what the situation is with the vast majority of people. So, yeah, some guys are hateful assholes. Doesn't change the fact that most of the time, in relationships or online, women treat men like shit more and it's okay because my 10x great grandfather beat his wife. And if you're talking about actually trying to police the internet to prevent people's hurt feelings (be they male or female), be prepared for a lot of this:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/04/15/tweeter-harassed-and-prosecuted-for-swearing/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/375086/radical-lefts-high-stakes-gamble-intolerance-david-french

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:22cOVPFl_MUJ:www.nationalreview.com/article/392994/university-bans-word-freshman-because-its-sexist-and-promotes-rape-katherine-timpf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420689/tat-calling-harrassment-women-tattoos-everyday-feminism

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/415653/student-banned-class-pointing-out-false-rape-statistic-was-false-katherine-timpf

http://www.attn.com/stories/864/online-harassment-free-speech

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/apr/01/how-police-internet

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/220946/free-speech-not-peripheral-bridget-johnson

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419489/obama-administration-supports-free-internet-except-when-it-comes-gun-enthusiasts

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/373578/handing-over-keys-internet-charles-c-w-cooke

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/381335/senate-democrats-free-speech-problem-michael-barone

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/387434/well-take-free-speech-thank-you-editors

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/369907/european-values-hold-free-speech-andrew-stuttaford

Let's hope you don't actually want to bring criminal charges against people on the internet for calling a woman a cunt or a whore or saying you hope she's raped or saying you're going to kill and rape her unless that threat can somehow be proven to be credible, which is very difficult to do. By the way, while we're on the subject of libel, don't call me a white supremacist unless you can prove it. But I'm not going to try to use the law to stop you. That's just the kind of guy I am. Burkean (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Uh, I don't think those articles you originally posted suggest that women harass men more than men harass women. They say men are harassed more period. Yes, that whole "credible threat thing". I'm sure that sending a threat via the Internet that says you will murder and/or rape someone and then post that same person's address counts as a credible threat. Also the provenance of all these links you've dumped seem to be bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, now you're just redundant. We already agreed that when your revealing someone's address and exposing them in that way, that counts as a credible threat. No disagreement there. Some of the articles were about controlling free speech, and some with particular regard to policing the internet, how difficult it is even when what's going on could be construed as a genuine violation of rights, and the consequences that might flow from that, since the great sage John Oliver seemed to imply that this both should be done and could be done. And yes, women harass, intimidate and take advantage of men more. The statistic being higher is not a result of male on male harassment and that point is addressed in one of the articles. But that doesn't change the fact that men are more prone to violence than women. Some people use that fact to misrepresent who treats who in what wayBurkean (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No one opposed to Gamergate wants to control free speech. No. Women don't harass men more. Men just get harassed more period. The harassment women receive is of a different caliber than what men do. But I tire of this so I'll leave you with this.

—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

What about all the harassment women and teenage girls get online from their peer groups? And the taunting and the humiliation. Many of these suicides are linked to that. You have provided no evidence that men harass women more other than a video showcasing some of John Oliver's "comedy". Many of the studies that apparently show that women don't harass men more count harassment that women receive from their own gender and peer group as involving men. Therefore, it ends up counted as men harassing women. That's the problem.

You make think Christina Hoff Sommers is some sort of woman traitor, but you didn't actually disprove what she said. Feminist author Camile Paglia agrees, and she has been highly critical of MRAs. Generally speaking, many studies all across the board on this subject are found to be erroneous either due to the sample group or both genders claiming harassment, or what is defined as harassment and so on. Credible threats are one thing, but it is impractical to think that someone typing something which you then read which hurts your feelings can somehow be policed. The consequences of doing so in many cases would not be desirable. And I wasn't saying that women on men harassment was some societal evil. It is just a fact that as women have taken on less and less of a suppressed and subordinate role, those of them who are assholes will feel more comfortable doing that.

Women do harass men more, but at the same time, men are more prone to violence, so there will probably always be more of that against women than men. Much of the harassment women receive online comes from other women as well. You also fail to acknowledge that only some of the harassment women receive from men online is of the so-called different caliber. It isn't as if all the harassment women receive from men online is of this extreme variety. But you're doing the plug your ears routine "don't care about the faults in studies, don't care about other factors or peer groups or how the harassment is calculated statistically. Men are worse online, the end. Anyone who denies it is a racist fascist transphobe. I have all the information I need". Basically the opposite of what intelligent people who care about the truth actually do. Burkean (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You know, you can go on and on about statistics this and "you didn't debunk" that (Christina Hoff Sommers has her own page on RationalWiki which goes into detail on why her studies are misleading, and Camille Paglia seems to be included as one of her supporters because they're both anti-feminists) but it's all just pointless whinging and whining because you don't like how the movement you support is described on this page. Gamergate is a movement originated from harassment. It harasses women much more than men, both in severity and quantity. When the perpetrators can only be identified as a trend because of the massive anonymous mob that is harboring and supporting these people, there's not much that can be said beyond what we already do. So stop trying to deflect already. I'm tired of it. You're not going to prove anything.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It's also extremely misleading to claim that women in today's world are held down by men but that doesn't stop you. There's nothing misleading about saying that women are attempting to redefine men in their own image, as men did with women since time began. It is also extremely misleading to say that the rationalwiki page on Sommers disproves some study or other when all it does is act as though women not being forced into a particular role and being able to do what they want isn't enough. AAUW acknowledges that they seek to transform society. Maybe we can just leave women alone, let them have rights, and not have to change people so that they suit what the AAUW wants or doesn't want. There's some boogeyman language about her associations with MRAs. I'd also like to know your evidence that Camile Paglia, abortion activist and 3rd wave feminist, who supported the green party, is some kind of right wing anti-feminist.

Demanding equality of outcome instead of just equality of opportunity often times involves denigrating huge swaths of western history, or just not teaching it at all, shaming men for their sexuality or what turns them on, gender quotas, using women's testimony in criminal cases with very little evidence besides, and lowering evidentiary standards in conviction. And it's quite rich for you to act like there isn't something totalitarian going on here, when many feminists have advocated and pushed for entire chunks of literary and other history to be eliminated because it was a man's world then. As has been documented, many feminist advocated the elimination of words which they think offensive.

Greer and company used to teach that any form of sex was a violent act and Greer recently told a man that if he kissed his daughter goodnight it was somehow pedophilia. So, yeah a lot of them are fucking nuts. Sorry you don't think statistics or how accurate they are matter anymore. They seemed to when you were trying to make your point. When exactly, John Oliver, a comedy news broadcaster, became an expert in such things I know not. And guess what? Many forms of rough play have been eliminated at schools because they have been deemed to encourage male aggression, kind of lake Marilyn manson made that one kid shoot people. These are the same tactics we saw from the religious right when they tried to institute ratings and censoring for rock albums in the 80s. Frank Zappa took care of them. Of course, by today's standards Frank would me a misogynist. Telling women that they deserve the use of the state to grant them this position or that because men's fathers and grandfathers did this or that also doesn't seem helpful or have anything to do with reaching their full potential. You don't speak for all feminists either. Many of them find the Susan Sontag, Kate Millet Germaine Greer brand very puritanical, talking about women who want to be promiscuous as tricked into it by men or letting down the team and women who do not fit their definition of what a woman should be as either subjugated by men, or a traitor to the gender. In your mind, this video probably constitutes rape. Burkean (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying words but they don't really have any relevance here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWP3vt_NhAQ Burkean (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So wait, how exactly do women harrass men more often? Could you please elaborate on that? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It starts young

http://www.crisisprevention.com/Blog/June-2010/Boys-Don-t-Tell-on-Sugar-and-Spice-but-not-so-Nice

http://nobullying.com/is-cyber-bullying-more-common-with-girls/

http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/advice/a1523/women-harassing-men-1/

One thing that confuses it all from multiple angles is that same gender bullying if often lumped together. A huge amount of the harassment women and girls experience comes from their own gender. So women in general do it more. Boys are more violent, and since violence is usually (thankfully) quickly curtailed, women and girls are able to get away with it much more and men are also less likely to report being bullied, especially by a girl (there's that evil sexism again). This is also a problem when looking at online harassment. Women are much more likely to complain about it. And although there are a minority of men who genuinely harass women, the threshold has gotten rather low. Wishing harm on someone, or calling her a degrading name now counts as genuine harassment. To say that it is happening more to women, when women, by their own admission have a much broader definition of what is harassment, then to assume is basically misandry.

Much of what is considered stalking behavior by men, is not considered to be the same when it is done to men by women. It is assumed that when men do this, it is a greater threat, which is also sexist. In other words, the threshold for what is severe harassment is much lower for woman on man, rather than man on woman. This not only distorts the amount of actual harassment, but the actual amount of severe harassment. Again, women who were surveyed acknowledge that they defined things as harassment against themselves that men would not if done to them. Again, different things are lumped together which ought not to be. In many of these studies, the difference between men and women for severe harassment, is within the margin of error. This is true for studies done that were the primary source for articles in salon, cnn, and the daily guardian. So, women consider things harassment, that men don't, women report it more, it gets lumped in with actual sustained harassment and you have your result. Not to mention that many of the publications which highlight these studies don't mention the discrepancy, and tend to either be center left or further to the left. And of course all of this ignores the real world reality that what is considered permissible for a man to say and do in public has diminished greatly in modern times. Some of it justified, some of it less so. And anyone who has had any experience with the divorce laws would find this whole campaign to be laughable. Conclusion, when we include the fact that men report harassment less, the fact that severe harassment is within the margin of error on such studies, and that women often call men hateful names or insult their sexuality and they're told to man up, or I don't have to stop because sexism, men in the everyday sense are harassed more, and who knows, given the under-reporting maybe even more often severely harassed. Like Mark Twain said. Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Burkean (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

How is Gamergate related to any of this? Are you going a roundabout way of saying Gamergate doesn't harass because the definition of harassment between men and women is different? Some fucking idiot Gamergater came here and trolled me for over a week by repeatedly referencing a translation I wrote at Wikipedia. My real name is on all these fuckers' walled gardens in association with my screen name. I'm a man. I consider this shit harassing. Who gives a fuck if you or some other person doesn't agree with me? I'm the only person who gets to decide how I feel about shit that happens to me. Why should you or anyone else get to decide how I should feel about something?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

No more than you should about me. I disagree with much of what feminism says, but I don't support the behavior of gg. And gamergate definitely fits the definition of harassment. I'm talking about men and women outside this little subculture. GG is hardly representative of most harassment that's out there, just as Germaine Greer is hardly representative of most women (and no, I'm not making a direct comparison between Greer and gamergate). And so no, gamergate is not related to my criticisms of feminism in the wider world. I'm just trying to defend myself and say one can be a critic of feminism and still not support the behavior of gg. Is that so hard to understand? Burkean (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And you know what else? Feminism should and does focus on how men are treated as a result of how society views masculinity. Feminists care that men aren't allowed to show emotion. Feminists care that there is institutionalized mistreatment of men in the legal system with regards to divorce and such. Feminists care about how stereotypes can be harmful to men. The men's rights movement's only apparent goal is to take down feminism rather than advocate for any of these issues.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Feminist want to redefine men in their own image. So, as far as it advocates their position, I'm sure they do care. MRAs may say a lot of BS, but that doesn't mean they're all the equivalent of gamergate. Feminist want men to show emotion, just not any emotion that would be what they consider part of the evil patriarchy. If men show feminine emotions, then it's okay. Burkean (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

They do?^{[citation needed]}--Arisboch (talk) 11:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop being an ass. It's already at MRM.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about MRAs, I'm talking baout what you claim about feminists.--Arisboch (talk) 14:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

He seems to think none of the feminists today believe the disgusting prejudicial things about men that Sontag and Greer did. But we only have to look at the contempt they show for men's feelings, urges, desires, to know that isn't true. Burkean (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck does it have to do with Gamergate anyway? Stop picking out fucking stupid things to say to just waste time. And Arisboch everything I say about feminism's stance on issues concerning masculinity is described on the MRM page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have anything to do with gamergate, it's just why I feel the way I do about feminism. The discrepancy in the studies, banning words on campus, claiming there is a culture of rape when the wider culture has become less and less hostile to women, with more rights, options, employment opportunities. So no, gamergate is fucked and so is throwing away western history, banning words, banning certain activities, divorce laws, and claiming anything is sexism when it's really just unappealing to some women. But no, it is separate from gamergate. Burkean (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Why the fuck are you bringing this up? If it has nothing to do with Gamergate then you're just wasting our time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Section 2

Seems "listen and believe" tactics are at their most powerful when they demand you sit in front of a video for twenty minutes, let your brain shift into neutral, and watch a longwinded conspiracy theory that requires you believe every single bit of it for the next bit to be possible. Is this why so much of GG relies on YouTube videos and, often, blank images or video game playthroughs over which they voice their points? Does watching a pseudo-documentary make us more suceptible to being manipulated? (spoiler: yes) --Tfp (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to point out what's inaccurate in the link I offered. Otherwise shutup and stop acting like someone must be delusional or misinformed because they don't subscribe to your tunnel vision perspective on this issue. And quite ironic of you to criticize me for linking to youtube videos that actually discuss what's going on, rather than taking whatever Zoe Quinn said this five minutes as the latest gospel. Burkean (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You really are 11 months too late here. I guess the red pill prescription was just filled out?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I may take red pills but unlike tfp, I don't watch cartoon dinosaurs. Burkean (talk) 09:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you like Yee?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It was a joke, cheeseball. See, that's a problem with this whole mess. You are way too sensitive and think you get to claim hurt feelings just because someone disagrees with you. As rationalwikians are so fond of saying to me in one form or another, this isn't fucking day care. Burkean (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Idk, someone's feelings seem to be hurt here and it isn't his. --Akira (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

So in your universe, disagree=hurt feelings. I need a translation book. Burkean (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really, but raging at everyone doesn't exactly so how much your feelings totally aren't hurt™. --Akira (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Show me the rage instead of just saying it. Burkean (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried reading any of your comments here out loud? --Akira (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That tells us nothing because I have a soft reading voice. Burkean (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

In like three minutes of InternetAristocrat blather I could pick out this was about attacking Zoe Quinn. No, scratch that, five seconds. Actually, I think I've already given you sufficient food for thought and I bet you didn't even click on the source link I offered that disproves the goodness of your all-encompassing medium.

...but if you need a tl;dr on why I don't trust YOUR video, check MY video. --Tfp (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The video also explained why she was completely in the wrong even if the response to her was in poor taste. You caricature the argument, deny her culpability, then wonder why people reacted negatively to her. Oh, wait, you didn't because your a clairvoyant and you already knew that anyone who doesn't like her hates women. Including...the women. Burkean (talk) 09:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Completely in the wrong about what? Burkean do you have any idea what this shit is about that's not based on year old videos made to legitimize what happened? Gamergate happened because Gjoni baited 4chan into attacking Quinn. At no point was Gamergate ever really about her video game other than Gamergaters' early insistence (that you seem to be parroting a year later) that she had sex for a good review. A review for her free (as in free beer) video game. A review that was never written by the person she was said to be in a relationship with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The argument that this was just about persecuting Zoe for her sex life was addressed when the rest of what she did and said (with the help of her friends) was addressed. You have yet to actually critique what's in the video and instead just declare "this is what it's about". If you think Zoe didn't silence or misrepresent anyone over this whole games are for icky mean pervy boys tirade, and if you think phil fish had a right to treat people the way he did, then fine. Welcome to fantasyland. Burkean (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Phil Fish was an asshole. Everyone fucking knows that. But Gamergate was started to persecute Zoe Quinn for her sex life. Whatever else she may have done was simply used as justification to keep going after her because that's how becoming a lolcow works.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Zoe and Phil were in close association. The video demonstrates that beyond question. Zoe created controversy by attacking people for not liking what she deemed to be female appropriate video games before anything else. No one would have cared about her friends, sex life or whatever, if the writers and bloggers who were same weren't pushing her agenda and she wasn't silencing criticism of this and her games. If it's all about evil men shaming her, why did she go after a group of women trying to help her in the name of promoting women in gaming? Your answer to all this is "forget it, it was a year ago" Burkean (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

OH MY GOD PEOLE ARE FRIENDS. Zoe didn't fucking create any controversy. No one was silencing criticism of Zoe Quinn's opinions. She's not the ringmaster of some sort of fucking SJW media circus. She made a FREE video game. A bunch of websites reported about it. They made OPINION pieces as to whether or not they liked it. Then when it was released in full her ex-boyfriend decided to tear her down for breaking up with him because by all accounts he was a fucking creep. And do you really still believe that TFYC is just women? Their spokesperson is a man. They are half of a company that is staffed by men and women. They lied about their dispute with Zoe Quinn to get money from Gamergate after it started. That much is known by everyone. Have you lived under a rock for the past 11 months and ignored all of that and instead just repeat the bullshit that you first heard in August 2014 without acknowledging any actual investigations that happened after that?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ringmaster, no. Backslapping with people who are friends/lovers/ex-lovers/whothefuck knows in order to shame a culture which she considers misogynist and evil in shameless act of blatant self promotion while drowning out criticism from others and even attacking fellow women...yes. What you say could indeed be true. It wouldn't change the fact that Zoe lied, attacked people, as part of some convoluted way to gain exposure for herself and apparently prompt the long overdue feminist revolution which needs to happen in gaming. This is like a bad monty python sketch that just won't end. Even if her boyfriend was the biggest asshole on the planet, it wouldn't make her any less of a self important asshole. I don't know, even if she did two time him, why they would ever break up. They're made for each other. Burkean (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} for everything you're proving that isn't pulled from Internet Aristocrat's video. Because most of what you're saying is the same hackneyed Gamergate 'splaining that is debunked in depth at List of Gamergate claims. Like how The Fine Young Capitalists are somehow "fellow women".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What a double standard. You don't have to listen to anything he says or agree with the coarse language (tone troll) just look at the articles, look at the posts. It's all there. You have yet to prove a word of it wrong and think you have an argument with "citation needed". Nevermind that rationalwiki's idea of citation often involves linking to blogs where the blogger agrees with them and merely offers an opinion. Of course when anyone tries to criticize that all you get it "we aren't NPOV" or the ever popular "this isn't Wikipedia". Well, it sure as fuck isn't. Burkean (talk) 08:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to listen to what he said because you already did. Tell me exact things he says so I can debunk them. Otherwise you're no better than every other fucking Gamergater who waltzed into the middle of a discussion and dumped a link to this very video without any context to it. That's dishonesty. That's a double standard.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

See above where I address an abbreviated timeline of what happened, where I do and don't agree with the ggs and what I do and don't agree with in the video. Burkean (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"Otherwise shutup and stop acting like someone must be delusional or misinformed because they don't subscribe to your tunnel vision perspective on this issue". Ah, wouldn't it be nice if GamerGaters decided to take their own advice from time to time. --Akira (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting you would say that, because the narrative line on this taken by rationalwiki is hardly nuanced. It is a misogynist witch hunt. To suggest anything else represents bad faith, according to them and apparently you. Burkean (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Unless that's a John Oliver video, I'm gonna go ahead and question its reliability. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, what is inaccurate? And it seems complacent to say "he's liberal and on tv, so I know I can trust John Oliver"

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-john-oliver-gets-net-neutrality-wrong-20140604-story.html

"No one who speaks German could be an evil man"-The Simpsons Burkean (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This is an Internet Aristocrat video. There are only two people you should watch on YouTube: John Oliver and hbomberguy. Everyone else is not fun and rotting your brain. --Tfp (talk) 04:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate's Political attitudes survey. No bias here!

Someone recently created a rather horrible political attitudes survey for GamerGate members. Most responses were filled between December 18 and 20, 2014. It's been almost untouched since then. All 70,000 9,000 2,500 1,500 GamerGate members popped in to take it. The current survey has been modified only to remove labels and add colors (and a lone graphing error, as far as I can tell, in the "more likely to trust conservatives than feminists" section).

See the survey here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1rRMK0Jz-p_7PN7SBvQwcv-QDMChdjumssNzLZVmQLy0/viewanalytics

There are several issues on the survey. When I posted it, people caught a few.

• 68.5% of respondents are pro mens-rights-movement. (Because GG doesn't have enough Honeybadgers in their life.)
• 66.4% disagree campus assault is an epidemic, despite it being statistically hazardous
• There are no gender or ethnic demographics to go on here
• AFAIK there's nothing in Google forms to prevent socks from voting more than once either.
• 47% are "libertarian" and yet only 7.5% think social problems could be solved without govt intervention
• 70% are supportive of grey (liberal) libertarianism, but 82.7% have become convinced left-leaning media is a lie.
• 28.4% still say they're liberal, despite everything else you see in this graph.

More fun statistics so you don't have to trudge through a uselessly colored rainbow diagram set

• 85% believe anyone telling you what's socially right or wrong are authoritarians (and they cannot be trusted.)
• 96% believe men, women, and minorities should be held up to the same "standards."
• Out of the 592 (38%) that began to question their political affiliation, 87% of them questioned their liberal one.
• 82.7% believe left-leaning media is a lie, to a greater degree than they once did. (yes this is the same stat, but it still bothers me a lot.)
• 93% believe the words "sexism", "racism", and "homophobia" have lost their meaning. (By contrast, I believe only "ethics" and "neutral" have lost such.)

--Tfp (talk) 04:38, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Kyle, just stop playing games and hand over your jew gold.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi1eJSyfHyo Burkean (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Who the fuck is Kyle?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Kyle Broflovski from South Park.--Arisboch (talk) 11:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What an oblique reference.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

So I guess Burkean just openly admitted to be channeling the spirit of Cartman. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I express an opinion, and am then told I'm taking it too seriously. I try to lighten the mood, and whothefuckever then chimes in with "ah, so you admit you are a merchant of hate?". And the people on this side of the fence are the paranoid ones? Burkean (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

The essential problem is that you're a babbling idiot whose idea of backing up his claims is argumentum ad YouTube. Nobody is going to watch a shitty video. Use actual readable words - David Gerard (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Specific claims are made in the video as to why Zoe Quinn is much more at fault in this mess. Either the claims are true, or they are not. Feel free to point out why the articles and posts shown do not represent what happen and evidence to corroborate what did. Otherwise, you are merely saying "this can't be true because it is a youtube video." Interesting that you call me a babbling idiot while you invoke non phrases like argumentum ad youtube. Can't you think up some actual latin to dismiss me in vaguely superior tones?Burkean (talk) 19:03, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Hanlon's Razor. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

He offers evidence. You claim he doesn't, when there is no evidence for such a claim. I think Hanlon's Razor should not be invoked by a man who clearly doesn't live in an emerald city, but rather a glass house. I'll go with Occam's razor instead. Burkean (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't watch fucking Youtube videos. If you want to point somewhere literate where I can READ whatever conspiracy theory Internet Aristocrat is advocating, that'll do fine, thanks much. --Castaigne (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Paraphrasing Cartman isn't necessarily a good way to lighten the mood here, given that RW is oftentimes visited by genuine racism promoters. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, all I can say to that is that if you are actually taking cartman seriously you know that you have officially become an absolutely humorless left wing troll. Of course, I have actually read pieces by left wing bloggers who genuinely claim that cartman has inspired violent racism out there in the real world. Paranoid delusional assholes. I'm sure Roof was a big south park fan. He also liked drugs. So that means if you get high, you're a racist! And these are the people who love science? Burkean (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me? "Jew gold"? You can cut that shit right the fuck out while you're here, son. We have no patience for the anti-Semitic here.

And yes, I know it's from South Park. No, I don't watch it; I have better things to watch that don't involve cunt-nigger-whore-kike every other minute. --Castaigne (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I really do believe in jew gold. I'm glad you have better things to do than watch south park, like come on here and tell me how I should speak and what I should say. South Park has been celebrated as hilarious by people across the political spectrum. But if you believe it's just a right wing thing, or perhaps part of the vast right wing conspiracy, that's fine. I didn't realize south park was on rationalwiki's shitlist. Burkean (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, they don't get, that South Park does make fun of EVERYONE.--Arisboch (talk) 08:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, getting back on track here, your're right, Tfp, this is a horrible survey and is by no means scientific or reliable. But suppose it where true, then a lot of ideology-over-fact takes place here, for who says that campus assault is not hazardous when the facts are right there in front of you? "'82.7% believe left-leaning media is a lie'" is disturbing, for the truth, according to these wingnuts, is liberally biased, a lot like Colbert says. I'm afraid Gamers, with their mostly-socially liberal ideology, will turn conservative once games and misogyny become their lives! Good thing only the remnants of Gamergate exist today, for that complicates things a lot for them.

This definitively should have its spot in the article. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Who denies the campus assault epidemic? Well, MRAs do . Perhaps people MRAs have lead astray. --Tfp (talk) 04:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Right, so if a group of people who are sometimes assholes denies something, that automatically makes it true. Portrait of the logically challenged. Burkean (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Next up, "the KKK is only about white supremacy sometimes, and if you want to prove they're really bad you need to have a thorough dissertation of each of their members"... No thanks. The sheer number of men's rights movements who picked up the Tom Ball suicide manifesto and ran with it are self evident. A Voice For Men considers him a role model still. Do a little googling, maybe you'll be surprised.

I like how you think you're showing what a fool I am when you then make a comparison between ggs and the kkk. I could just as easily begin a sentence with "the sheer number of progressives who..." insert awful thing here. You would rightly recognize that as bullshit. I really don't have to apologize for things I didn't take part in. GGs (even if they are all what you claim) hardly speak for all young libertarian leaning men who feel the whole pc agenda has gone too far, or who take a libertarian approach to economic or social issues. That was my only point. Burkean (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The leaders of GamerGate are horrid people. The goals of GamerGate are horrid at best (attacking women, flooding social networks with harassment and dogpiles) and totally disingenuous at worst (lying to charities and lying to companies they want to "boycott").

Address your points to someone who has actually done those things. Burkean (talk) 09:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate's Renaissance Man Oliver Campbell has appeared on the Honey Badger Brigade radio many times now, and one issue it discussed... surprise surprise... how campus rape was fabricated. It's pretty sick, honestly. Want to find a rape issues denier? Find an MRA! --Tfp (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, to live in the parallel universe where women never lie about being raped. Incidentally, it isn't just people involved with gamergate who have talked about the rather gross misuse of statistics when people basically claim that more women on campus are being raped than ever before, as if the world hasn't changed at all since the times when women were chattel slaves. And again, as usual, anyone who disagrees with you is a denier (godwin's law, anyone?) Burkean (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You are incredibly transparent when you echo Men's Rights Activist lies about rape reports, when false reports are between 2% and 6%. --Tfp (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Lets be clear, one rape is too many. But what the rape culture people aren't telling you is that as society has become more educated, and as women have gained and fought for the right to vote, to chose, to not be forced into marriage or circumstances they don't want, fought for the right to be allowed into educational institutions so that they might be educated, independent, reap the benefits of the job market and generally not have to be as reliant on men as they were before, rape has continued to go down and down. From the folks screaming rape culture, you'd think that it has kept going on up. So this indicates a society that is becoming more humane, not one that is secretly hiding massive amounts of rape which need to be exposed. The idea that rape is as culturally acceptable as it ever was, and that this has remained hidden and needs to be shown in the light of day is quite inaccurate. Burkean (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You know I never understand that argument. I mean even if false rape reports made up 65% of rape reports there would still be another 45% of actually rape being reported. And even when false rape reporting puts an innocent person in jail, that person usually being black, people putting this forth never ask why the defendant lost the case in the first and insist that it is because the term rape has been expanded too broadly. Which is even more confusing when these individuals argue that male rape (forced to penetrate) should be considered rape and not just sexual assault.--Owlman (talk) 06:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If the people screaming rape culture were honest about the numbers, the amount of rape in this country continues to go down as women have gained more rights and the law takes it more seriously, as they should. Although unjust, it would make sense that the victim is usually black, as blacks commit on average a higher number of rapes than do whites, as they do with a number of crimes. Whether that's societies fault or not is another question. Burkean (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Lets be clear, one rape is too many.- Burkean

Roosh V disagrees with you. So do the people over at Philosophy of Rape and the current Twitter hashtags. Your views are very much out of line with the leadership. Might want to clear your doctrine with the bosses.

So this indicates a society that is becoming more humane, not one that is secretly hiding massive amounts of rape which need to be exposed.- Burkean

So you are absolutely, positively sure that Steubenville is not the order of the day in the USA. So noted. --Castaigne (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Steubenville isn't the order of the day anymore than the rape case that Rolling Stone all but made up. If you believe rapes are on the increase. Feel free to prove it. Only you don't, implying that Steubenville is part of an epidemic which I am in denial of. There are people out there glorifying rape, and you'll have to take it up with them, unless you're claiming that something I said here glorifies it. As for Steubenville proving rape culture...

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/10/24/statistics-dont-back-up-claims-about-rape-culture Burkean (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The number 1 goal of gamegate still appears unchanged here

And that goal continues to be "defend the reputation of gamergate". I mean just look at what the people coming here sink their time into. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 13:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

But what's really surprising is how far back they're going to try to prove themselves right.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, only what's happening now matters! Who controls the past controls the present! Who said that? Who the fuck cares! Quit digging into the past, malcontent! Burkean (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You do realize you're proving ikanreed right, right?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

He is trying to claim that I am part of gg, when as you can see above, I am merely a libertarian who agrees with some of them on some things. He's trying to claim it's a neo-Nazi project, as are you. I don't think I've given any indication that I agree with such things, even if a disturbingly large number of ggs do. Burkean (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no gray area here. If you agree with Gamergate you're a Gamergater. And we're not claiming it's a neo-Nazi project. We're saying it attracts neo-Nazis just as much as it attracts MRAs, libertarians, conservatives.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No, see that implies I agree with them on everything. I don't. If you agree with Hitler that bankers manipulate the economy, that doesn't make you a Nazi. Some people can see some of the points of ggs while rejecting their tactics and many of their conclusions.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/04/gamergate-bomb-threat-militant-anti-femi ^{— Unsigned, by: Burkean / talk / contribs}

It doesn't matter if you don't agree with all of their points. You're here advocating on their behalf. And that bomb threat is still under investigation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Translation: "If you agree with someone on one thing, you have to agree with them on everything. And quite whining about bomb threats. No big deal." Burkean (talk) 04:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There isn't really a gray area when it comes to Gamergate.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't really want to hear about grey area from someone who is appalled at someone's address being revealed and then when discussing a bomb threat says "well, it's under investigation". Burkean (talk) 09:20, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I've at no point said one thing was less important than another. I've only repeatedly pointed out that there's no proof anyone in "anti-Gamergate" made that bomb threat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What, pray tell, would you consider to be a more plausible explanation? Burkean (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well for one thing, "anti-Gamergate" is something Gamergate came up with to fuel a group persecution complex. So that's how I know that "Anti-Gamergate" cannot be responsible. For all we know it's some asshole who likes to post on /b/ or /baphomet/ who felt like causing trouble, as they are wont to do. What is that called again? A "third party troll"? I know that's the go-to for when someone points out a Gamergater did something intractibly wrong and blame is cast elsewhere. Like when someone threatened to shoot up Utah State if Anita Sarkeesian would go through with her seminar and then namedropped Gamergate in the threats. Gamergate seemed to pin the blame on some "Brazilian clickbait blogger" in that situation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It seems quite clear, however, from your tone that you believe in both cases a gg was responsible. Someone threatens ggs, it's an inside job. Somebody threatens Anita, that's ggs too. Burkean (talk) 10:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not what I said at all. However in one case, the threats explicitly mentioned Gamergate but Gamergate denied involvement entirely and cast blame elsewhere. As soon as something negative happens to a Gamergater, blame is automatically cast on "anti-Gamergate". This is all the information myself or anyone outside of the FBI and the DC MPD knows. It's a threat against Gamergate but certainly not screaming "I'm an anti-Gamergater".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No doubt you and I would agree that gamergate's behavior has been so utterly reprehensible that even someone who isn't anti gamergate could be responsible, owing to the animosity which has been generated. And I agree with you that the hypocrisy of gamergate on that count is ridiculous. I'm more pro-giving people the right to be as absolutely hateful as they want so long as they are not directly and credibly threatening anyone than I am specifically pro gamergate. Burkean (talk) 11:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Whoever is responsible for that threat should be prosecuted. But the issue is still "anti-Gamergate" is a bogeyman made up by Gamergate to lump all their critics and victims in. I doubt that anyone who came out in support of Quinn, Sarkeesian, etc. and decried how fucking awful Gamergate is as a reactionary hate mob sent in that threat.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, like your post above, redundant. I already said there's a good chance somebody specifically from the anti-gg side WASN'T INVOLVED. In fact, I acknowledged that so many of the ggs had been so hateful, somebody who's just on the sidelines who disliked what they were doing could've been the culprit. Somebody with no connection to you guys at all. Both should be taken equally seriously. Seems we agree on this. Burkean (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hatred

Only tangentially relevant -- possible to understand GG w/o knowing about it. It should entirely go into the List, not here. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It became semi-relevant after its release but arguably yeah I can see where you're going with it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Stand back everyone, Fat Aardvark is here ready to wade int to this juicey batch to to notch banter.--Fat Aardvark (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently children's author Judy Blume would totally support Gamergate

Gamergate, as of right now, is trying to endorse author Judy Blume (author of Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing, remember?) simply because she is skeptic about "trigger warnings," which basically wears down to the argument of censoring (here's the link:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/josephbernstein/gamergate-is-trying-to-recruit-beloved-childrens-author-judy#.yoXVwBqBE

Stupid how these ironic anti-social-justice warriors think they can get a feminist author to support them, even after they deliberately misinterpreted her views on censoring. Looks like Gamergate is shielding itself again. It's humorous enough to be worth mentioning here in Gamergate because this misogynistic thing tries to shield itself against anything, and it is running out of options! Dandtiks69 (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Some ggs read judy blume=all ggs read judy blume=some ggs are using her work to support their cause without her permission=all ggs are her work to support their cause without her permission. You really need to go back and read Aristotle. Burkean (talk) 19:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(EC, oh look, Burkean doing exactly what I describe below)Their problem is that if they see a feminist who's not a tumblr caricature straw-feminist, they're not really equipped to recognize those views. They think feminism is trigger warnings, scientifically insane variations of fat acceptance, and "male tears" mugs because their only actual exposure to the ideas are through /r/tumblrinaction nutpicking.

Before some gator comes accusing me of a double standard with their movement, I can still look at the top monthly posts on KiA(e.g.) and see the piles of vile hatred and shallow reasoning being the dominant thought in your communities. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess I can't really speak to that, since I don't belong to a community and I speak for myself. I would be quite happy to say that feminism engulfs so many different viewpoints, many of them not very compatible with one another, that it would be impossible to categorize it as all this or all that. The above description certainly describes some feminists. But there are many feminists (as rationalwiki points out) who are sex positive, who don't have a problem with men so long as they don't force themselves upon women, who don't believe we need to censor and control speech for politically correct reasons, or psychoanalyze video game culture for catering to adolescent males, as if that is somehow indicative of wrongdoing. These are feminists who want the right to vote, to chose, and an understanding that no means no. I am not really part of gaming culture. I have a lot of respect for third wave feminism. First and Second, less so. Even so, without first wave feminists, women probably couldn't vote, and voting rights for women is something I support. Many feminists (Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Isabelle Patterson, Zora Neale Hurston) in fact were libertarians. Burkean (talk) 20:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You two are mostly correct: different types of feminists advocate different things, but all try to bring equality in gender. And yes, these Gamergators are not in fact equipped with the knowledge needed to understand a feminist point of view, and this could be due to the fact that they have their own wingnut website misinterpreting feminism or have not gone to school (correct me if I'm wrong (and I think I am) but many of these "hard-core gamers" have dropped out of college or high school to play games for a living or still live in the basement).

Radical feminism can sometimes come in conflict with regular feminism just like extremist Republicans come in conflict with center-right Republicans. From my personal experience my government teacher taught me that many Republicans don't want Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin representing them due to their extremism (or stupidity). With this in mind the article also says that it is unlikely that Judy Blume will support the stupidity of Gamergate, since she is a feminist. Anyway, I think this is more of a Gamergate timeline insertion. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Martin's Law: "If during an online argument anyone accuses their interlocutor of living in their parents' basement, the argument is over and the accuser has lost."

Oooops?--Arisboch (talk) 10:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought you guys called the whole "you're a basement nerd who lives with mommy" an argumentum ad cellarum or something. Next you'll be saying that people in the dark enlightenment with an extensive background in tech aren't really educated. Burkean (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't clear, Burkean and Arisboch, what I meant to say was that these people don't have enough education to know what feminism is or what it implies, and it is apparent gators know nothing about it because of this. Maybe it implies they're stupid altogether. So no, there's no fallacy here. A real fallacy of this type would be me saying "They went to no school so they deserve no attention." Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Aren't trigger warnings meant for people with post-traumatic stress disorder though and not some invention by "Tumblrinas" (some Tumblr users did take the concept too far and people with PTSD on Tumblr have rightfully calledth em out on that).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:55, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Theoretically yes, but some people turned it into a tumbler-version of the Tipper Sticker (if it wasn't one from the beginning, since the justifications for both are strikingly similar).--Arisboch (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware. "Scopophobia" and "trypophobia" tags abound.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

True. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The (now third) paragraph

What the hell is the problem with it? What is so dense and impossible to read in this paragraph that it apparently requires a deeper knowledge of the subject? Give me some explicit pointers on what makes this paragraph such shit that it requires deletion 2 days back to back even with a rewrite?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing to complain about in this paragraph; it is as simple as it gets. Must be the trolls at work. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's Weaseloid and Arisboch consistently removing it for those reasons.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure they'll be along shortly to explain themselves, in more helpful detail than LOL WURDZ R HARD - David Gerard (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

From this we learn we must keep some sort of professionalism in our communication. But terse. Like this. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

OK, seriously, these two editors have to improve on the whole fucking paragraph rather than delete it altogether. If a policy works in some parts why obliterate it if one can just reform it? Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Shakespeare himself could not improve that sentence, Weaseloid just can't read and is probably a gator (possibly a Nazi) anyway. I vote we go through the article and replace half the full stops with commas and a third with semi colons. ^{— Unsigned, by: Tielec01 / talk / contribs}

Ah, the great Tielec chimes in, clearly not trying to derail the discussion into a dramafest. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion IS a dramafest already, it's Gamergate, after all.--Arisboch (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to put the cart before the horse. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

in my defense valiant BoN, I have the dreaded lurgy from some Spanish street vendor (possibly the wine from last night) and I'm having to endure a 120kg Russian who, quite literally, wears nothing but Versace, smash faces with his girlfriends next to the pool. I would make a joke but the guy is all upper body and has a face tattoo, so I'm taking it out on easier targets. Also, while GG may once have been serious business, it's not anymore and this page doubly so. Tielec01 (talk) 11:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So what's your argument? We should get rid of this article because it's all in the past now? Or just the few sections near the end detailing some of the more recent stuff? 142․124․55․236 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Any page that attracts a steady stream of crazies trying to (poorly) refute it can't be completely irrelevant. Vulpius (talk) 11:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point and unfortunately also true for the steady stream of supporters, perhaps I overstated its irrelevance. Tielec01 (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd say this article is responsible for converting at least ten thousand gators, all of which now see the error of their ways. It should be printed in book form with annotations from prominent contributors. It is a great example of how group think and confirmation bias lead to awesome writing and powerful arguments. Tielec01 (talk) 11:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Hear hear; great show. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 11:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I've fixed the para now. With luck we'll be spared more of Tielec01's stream of consciousness comments as a result. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You will, and although your rewrite was actually rather good don't feel you can claim all the credit as I am also out of beer and need to wander out of Wi-Fi range to secure some more. To the BoN, stick around for a few years and perhaps you will find yourself remembering a time when you were naive enough to think that RW was 'better than that'. Tielec01 (talk) 11:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(Have you not picked up that the BoN is actually a long-standing contributor?) Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 11:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know the BoN, I've urged him to get an account a few times. Long standing is a relative term I guess, I'd use it more selectively than you. Tielec01 (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm aware some of the regulars are prone to being, let's say, excessively argumentative. Doesn't mean I can't be snarky about it, though. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Queex, I've attempted to add content concerning how #NotYourShield led to real people being recruited and how it's now a shield. I also think something concerning all of the entirely unethical behavior in some form (eg. Milo).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Pretty much Gator logic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCsfXkbzRI4

These aren't the arguments Gators would make per se, but the logic is the same.^{— Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs 00:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}

Char42 made a good rebuttal to one of MrRepzion's videos, but does anyone know any other good rebuttals to this twit?^{— Unsigned, by: 68.146.50.218 / talk / contribs 02:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)}

I don't know...Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This sounds like a fucking conspiracy theory lol

"In broader terms, Gamergate is part of the "culture war" between progressivism and conservatism, a description only strengthened by its status as a crank magnet for the opportunistic right-wingers, MRAs, and white supremacists that courted the group with solidarity in order to exploit it financially and politically. This ultimately harmed it, as those who saw how Gamergate was never about "ethics in video game journalism" and was instead a witch hunt for "social justice warriors" fled the movement like rats on a sinking ship, leaving the reactionary core and some disgraced video game developers to manipulate the mob into their own personal revenge army. For those that remain blinded by the movement's true nature, their participation is seen as a reaction to the maturation of video games into a medium worthy of academic study and subjective criticism as a result of the diversification of the "gamer" identity and the independent games scene."

White supremacists? Right-wingers? Where the fuck do people come up with this shit. "Disgraced video game developers to manipulate the mod into their own personal revenge army." LOL @ Rational Wiki's retarded writers who dream up this Tom Clancy-esque bullshit. At least the Wikipedia article has improved. This one just keeps getting worse. I think the problem is that Ryulong was allowed to write it. You can't expect this article to be useful to anyone when it reads like the paranoid delusions of a schizophrenic mathematician. Parogar (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I mean seriously. I'm pretty vocal about my support of GG and I can't even understand this shit. And I asked quite a few others in some of the FB groups and we were scratching our heads over it. It really goes to show you the kind of people that are writing this when the group you're accusing of being something can't even fucking understand what we're being accused of. I don't even know if I want to ask for evidence of this. But okay, I'll bite. Any chance you can prove even a word of that above mess? It really does read like someone having a bad dream, waking up, and jotting it down, and then posting it as a prophetic vision.

You wanna know the truth? GGers, many of us, can be kinda dicks. Not evil, mind you, but yeah, if you called us insensitive assholes, I can kind of see where you're coming from. But this is just some far-out conspiracy shit. I imagine the person who wrote it has a little green room with photos covering the walls on all four corners and arrows pointing to politicians, the media, and it's just all one big conspiracy. Parogar (talk) 05:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Parogar, let me break things down for you:

• A Voice for Men supports Gamergate
• Christina Hoff Sommers supports Gamergate
• Milo Yiannopoulos supports Gamergate
• Theodore Beale supports Gamergate
• thunderf00t supports Gamergate
• Davis Aurini supports Gamergate
• Mark Kern supports Gamergate
• You support Gamergate

All of these people are reactionaries (Beale, Aurini), right-wingers (Sommers, Yiannopoulos, Mason), MRAs (AVFM, Sommers, Mason, Aurini) people looking to make political allies (Yiannopoulos, Sommers, AVFM) with or a quick buck off of Gamergate (Aurini, others), or just plain old idiots (Kern, you).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So? Like, yeah? And? Are you stupid? I don't care if George Bush supports GG, it means nothing. What you wrote is ridiculous and insane. And confusing. I'm a liberal, for starters, I've never voted republican. I can't even see many GGers voting for republicans. I think in one of the FB groups of like 1,800 members, there's maybe 3 or 4 who're even Christian. Right wingers can publicly write that they support GG. But that still fails to establish a causal relationship between the bullshit you're writing and their support of the movement. Ultimately, try as they might, there is zero evidence to support the conclusion that they've been able to influence its direction if even slightly. Parogar (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

And Christina Hoff Sommers is a registered Democrat. That doesn't change how your actions look. And read the fucking paragraph. These people who fall into all these groups supported the movement. It does not say that these other movements all support Gamergate. And no where does it say that these movements influenced Gamergate. Gamergate already met these definitions long before the dyed in the wool representatives came and leapt on it for their own purposes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the paragraph makes no fucking sense. Let's pull this apart line by line and see if we can at least make some sense of what you're claiming, because as far as I can see, that's the first obstacle in this: even understanding what you're trying to say. It reads like a mess.

"In broader terms, Gamergate is part of the "culture war" between progressivism and conservatism," -- Patently false. Again, pointing to a conservative or two that says, "I support what they're doing" does not at all make this a war of cons vs. libs. Actually, GG is very much libs vs. libs. You've got authoritarian libs vs. libertarian libs. That's the entire culture war spelled out for you.

"a description only strengthened by its status as a crank magnet for the opportunistic right-wingers, MRAs, and white supremacists " HUH?? Where do you get right-wingers and white supremacists? So if TWO from each group support GG that makes it a crank magnet for them? And what white supremacists? That's what I really want to know about, because there's a lot of Hispanics and black people in the movement who also would likely want to know what this is about. Parogar (talk) 05:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to rationalwiki logic, parogar. "I saw some homeless guy who pees on children and drowns puppies who told me he likes you. So you're evil". Every single one of their arguments are basically bullshit on stilts. Burkean (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The paragraph makes plenty of fucking sense. Gamergate has been described as part of the "culture war" in various opinion pieces since it came out. And it is a fucking crank magnet. That's why AVFM/HBB, Sommers, Yiannopoulos, Kern, Vox Day, Mason, Aurini, the fucking Hatred dev team (although this is questionable at best), all pandered to these assholes and turned them into a personal army. And #NotYourShield is a fucking dictionary definition of tokenism. Both of you are fucking idiots.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

congrats on finding opinion pieces about the culture war that agree with you. That's definitive airtight argumentation there. Burkean (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You know, when one of the actors in Gamergate defines it as the "Culture War" I think that seals the deal regardless of "anti-Gamergate" opinions addressing the same thing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Accept, that I didn't say it was any less stupid when they called it the culture war, or treated it as though it were of epic importance. Stupidity, in this case, as in so many others, is bi-partisan. Burkean (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If both sides describe it as such in some form, then at least there's some semblance of agreement on that.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Because both sides of this whole shitfest want to be heroes of the net and how can you be a hero without a big, big and actually relevant villain?--Arisboch (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"The paragraph makes plenty of fucking sense. Gamergate has been described as part of the "culture war" in various opinion pieces since it came out." -- lol. "Opinion pieces." By whom? This is literally the stupidest fucking argument I've ever seen on Rational Wiki, and that includes all the shit about otherkin cookie monsters. So let me get this straight. Here's your argument. Here's an argument that's actually being made on *RATIONAL WIKI*

"GamerGate is a culture war because bloggers wrote opinions saying it is and if it wasn't then why would these 6 individuals support it?" I feel like I'm arguing with shmucks. Parogar (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Read the whole god damn page. I don't have to defend shit written in the god damn intro when it's described throughout the rest of the fucking page. The intro is a summary. And it's not made for Gamergaters like you and Burkean.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:06, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You could be right. I don't know about parogar, but I'm not particularly fluent in retard. (This is the part where you come back with the obligatory comeback of "I thought it was you first language"). I saved you the trouble Burkean (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

"I don't have to defend shit" <-- Oh, good, then I win. Thank you. My edit stays. Parogar (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to defend content in the introduction when it's defended in the rest of the god damn page you fuckwit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:09, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You've certainly proven your enlightened superiority now. Fuckwit. Almost swiftian in its rapier like subtlety. No doubt you claim it is much more sophisticated than retard. Hypocrite. Burkean (talk) 06:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

At least I'm not delving into unPC slurs, cockbag.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

^^ Screenshotted and archived. Thank you for that. Parogar (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Good for you. Post about it on 8chan or KIA. Get those e-dollars.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

LOL, I love how you think it's an insult to say "well, at least I'm not a PC defiling loser like you". What's next, gonna borrow from some early 90s after school special and tell me that at least you're not a pot smoking loser? And apparently you do borrow insults from Harold and Kumar/Van Wilder films (cockbag?). You don't have to carry them around in a bag (hopefully you do not take them from the living or corpses). Instead just buy a couple of artificial ones from romantix (youngsters call them dildos) the next time you need a little anal stimulation when these pesky racists/sexists/Nazis/transphobes/whiteprivileged bastards try to ruin your progressive sexy good time. I'm laughing at the superior intellect, Khan. Burkean (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

At least I'm creative in my insults instead of stooping to your level. I wasn't even aware it was a reference to any film. I assume it's just an epithet that makes use of the male genitalia. But good on you for continuing being one with your colorful metaphors.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if cockbag, could be considered creative, even by your standards. Burkean (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't care if George Bush supports GG, it means nothing.- Parogar

Who your allies are definitely means something. You lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. And GamerGate doesn't even have the wherewithal to police their allies.

I can't even see many GGers voting for republicans.- Parogar

They should. Their political goals are aligned with the Republicans. Voting for Democrats really would be voting for their enemies, as Democrats by party platform are aligned with the Social Justice Warriors.

Now, if GGers are so stupid as to vote against their own interests, well, more power to them.

Ultimately, try as they might, there is zero evidence to support the conclusion that they've been able to influence its direction if even slightly.- Parogar

Are you blind? So all this talk about Gamergate's Based Mom and Gamergate's Based Lawyer and Gamergate's Based Journalist and how anyone who disagrees with the prior-named influential people over in KiA are just downvoted completely...that's not influence. You've got Vox Day calling the shots, headlining GGinParis as the representative of European GG, and that's not influence. Oh, OK.

"In broader terms, Gamergate is part of the "culture war" between progressivism and conservatism," -- Patently false- Parogar

Really? You forget that Progressivism = SJW and that GameGate is entirely opposed to the SJW Cabal - see KiA for further details - and thus GamerGate is in opposition to Progressivism. Which puts it on the side of Conservatism, as there is no neutrality to be had in the culture war. I further refer to ClarkHat's supreme essay explaining this: Gamer Gate: Three Stages to Obit You are incredibly ignorant of the Culture War if you do not know this stuff. You need to read up on your neo-reactionary doctrine.

Actually, GG is very much libs vs. libs. You've got authoritarian libs vs. libertarian libs.- Parogar

Libertarians aren't liberal. There's your problem right there. Your issue would be "liberals versus libertarians", which is a normal thing, as libertarianism's natural allies are conservatives/Republicans. --Castaigne (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I defended my fucking arguments Parogar, despite every single time you've added that god damn essay to this page saying "lol this isn't really what Gamergate is about it's just Ryulong's essay on it". You've just chosen to ignore all of those arguments in favor of your own asinine interpretation of what Gamergate is really about because you, a liberal athiest Jew who votes Democrat, supports Gamergate and therefore can't be a reactionary right-winger MRA. We're not talking about you as the individual. We're not talking about anyone as an individual when defining Gamergate as a reactionary hatemob hell bent on silencing feminists. We're talking about the whole. The whole was courted by MRAs like Paul Elam, Christina Hoff Sommers, Davis Aurini, thunderf00t, etc. The whole was courted by right-wingers like Milo Yiannopoulos. All of this shit was borne from the Internet cesspit that was /pol/ that revels in being neo-Nazi racist MRAs. That's why Gamergate attracted these people. That's what defines it. There. I've defended my arguments. Now either refute them or fuck off.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong's right, but not for the reasons that he says he is. GamerGate is not conservative in the same sense that the Republican party is. But the thing is, the popular meaning of conservatism is quite fluid, as like every other political ideology it has constantly evolved over the years. As political theorist Corey Robin explained in his book, The Reactionary Mind: From Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, all forms of conservatism have a common thread:

"A consideration of this deeper strain of conservatism gives us a clearer sense of what conservatism is about. While conservatism is an ideology of reaction—originally against the French Revolution, more recently against the liberation movements of the sixties and seventies—that reaction has not been well understood. Far from yielding a knee-jerk defense of an unchanging old regime or a thoughtful traditionalism, the reactionary imperative presses conservatism in two rather different directions: first, to a critique and reconfiguration of the old regime; and second, to an absorption of the ideas and tactics of the very revolution or reform it opposes. What conservatism seeks to accomplish through that reconfiguration of the old and absorption of the new is to make privilege popular, to transform a tottering old regime into a dynamic, ideologically coherent movement of the masses. A new old regime, one could say, which brings the energy and dynamism of the street to the antique inequalities of a dilapidated estate."

These tactics describe exactly what GamerGate is. They are very harshly critical of the "old regime" of gaming journalists and seek to reconfigure them into something more in line with their interests, but in doing so don't really bother challenging the spirit of gaming journalism. I've lost track of the number of times I've seen GamerGate promote the same sort of crass commercialism and reviews-as-consumer-reports attitude that's driven games journalism since Nintendo Power. And they have repeatedly adopted the same tactics that they criticize in the "SJWs" they oppose: using #NotYourShield to accuse people of racism, sexism, and erasing minorities, setting up Patreons so that people can pay them to talk about how all of those feminists are victimizing them, making "25 benefits of being female while gaming" as a counterpoint to a Feminist Frequency video about male privileges, etc. It's just like the Tea Party conservatives who turn rights-based claims for LGBT individuals on their head into rights-based "religious freedom" claims. GamerGate forms nearly all of their criticism of the establishment as a reaction to the criticisms of progressives: and that is what conservatism really is. GamerGate is what you would call the Redpill Right: superficially progressive on the surface, but look a bit deeper and you'll see it for the reactionary garbage it is. Zennistrad (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Anybody trying to draw a straight line between Edmund Burke and Palin has their work cut out for them. Even if you are completely right about most ggs (the right to offend is not the same as the right to oppress) and Robin is completely right about Sarah Palin, Burke supported several emancipation movements. He merely believe that if change was too quick, not gradual, threw out those aspects of established institutions which were a check against corruption, anarchy, authoritarianism, or ruin, then the change would be all for not. The everyday person would do much better in a Burkean world, then in a Jacobean one. That's the point of distinguishing between good change and bad. Distinguishing between a woman who wants the right to vote or control her body, and someone who seeks to control the speech and actions of others because she is hurt or offended by it. Incidentally, Robin praises conservatives in his book as intellectually valid and says it's a mistake to claim that they are stupid or that their goal is harm. You assume that those seeking to transform society have right on their side. Robin never makes that assumption. Burkean (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Zen, I thank you and accept your argument. Very well. Conservatively speaking with respect to gaming and gaming culture, I accept and hold no further issues regarding that one point of his paranoid rant. The rest of it, however, I still take issue with, specifically when he does reference white supremacists, and it goes off on a tangent from there. Parogar (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Does "Neo-Nazi" suit things better?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I don't think I like you calling most of my friends nazis. Unless they've made a special Jewception on my behalf, I really think you're reaching here. I think that part that I edited is pure bullshit, and while Zenn makes an excellent argument to keep some of it, it goes off into the deep end rather quickly. Parogar (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You're putting words in my mouth. And you're off the fucking deep end.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Truth is not a democracy, and facts are not based on hope, emotion, or perspective. If tomorrow all the world should assume the earth is flat, it would still be no less round than it is today. What you have essentially done, Ryulong, is you made an interpretation. You have looked at something, thought about it, and said, "You know what? This makes sense. This seems like it could be the case." What you've written amounts to little more than a guess: and it is wrong. You have guessed that based on people whom YOU PERSONALLY perceive as being "white supremacists," that GG is a "crank magnet" for white supremacists. This is an opinion. An extremely fucking shitty opinion, but still an opinion. It is not rooted in fact. There is nothing inherently rational about it. And so, because of the hugbox, echo-chamber, ideologically driven shithole this wiki has turned into, something that is so out of left field as to be instantly dismissible is now being considered fact. It's really pathetic Parogar (talk) 07:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

GG is a crank magnet. Neo-Nazis white supremacists, MRAs, conservatives, etc. like the cut of GG's jib at times and nudge them along. We are talking about people who used to populate 4chan's /pol/ after all. People who now sincerely pass around A. Wyatt Mann's artwork to scare the weak willed masses. People who sincerely believe Jews control the world. These are the core Gamergaters. The ones that don't give a shit about video games and want to piss off the world. The rest are the #NotYourShield shields. Hell, that shit that went down at TechRaptor a couple of weeks ago made one of their writers realize what Gamergate was really about. It was never about ethics in video game journalism. It's about stopping the progressive movements of the world through intimidation, and choosing video games as a back drop for it. Your only problem here is that you're still deluded to that fact.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That's about as consistent as a Nixon press conference. GGs are supposedly just a bunch of nerd losers who live in mommy's basement, yet they're also an unstoppable horde of Nazi storm troopers who are working in tandem across the world to stop the glorious progressive onslaught they fear so greatly. You really have an inflated sense of your own self worth don't you? Not to mention a view of GGs that sounds like some old nutbag conspiracy drivel about the freemasons and the catholics. Tell us how many chapters of the GGs are there? How many bombings are they behind? Should we utilize drones? Off the deep end indeed. Burkean (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you and Parogar sure do like putting words in my mouth. Gamergate's a bunch of assholes from /pol/ who organized under the false banner of "ethics in video game journalism" to attack feminists as they usually do. Everyone I've listed above by name (except Parogar for all I know) joined in because they saw through the "ethics" lie. And yet that hasn't been brought up by either you or Parogar. Ikanreed's hypothesis that Gamergate's primary activity is defending Gamergate's name is being supported as you keep posting bullshit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really putting words in your mouth. You claim that what is an incredibly myopic dispute between different people in a tech subculture is an organized effort to sabotage and destroy progressivism throughout the world. GGs primary activity is of no concern to me. Even if they have been much to willing to allow in people who believe such things, that hardly proves its an organization genuinely threatening to spread Nazism throughout the world. Nevermind all the lefties who deny mass atrocities or apologize for despicable ideologies laden with violence for their political purposes. It's always bad. Burkean (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This myopic dispute is organized by people who want to sabotage and destroy progessivism throughout the world "for the lulz". And I am not saying it's threatening to spread Nazism. I'm saying there's Nazis in their midst and they don't give a fuck about it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I met a guy on the internet the other day who said he's going to take over the country with his magic smurfs. If they are self important losers living in the basement (as has been argued), how close do you think they are to their ultimate goal of world domination and extermination of all progressive forces of light?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_DaMKUP3Og Burkean (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never said anything about basements. I'm saying theyr'e a reactionary shit storm and that attracted other people like moths to the flame.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying they are dedicated to overthrowing the progressive cause or whatever makes it sound as though they actually have a chance of doing that. Burkean (talk) 09:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Strawmanning is the favorite argumentative tactic of Gators and Gator apologetics. Sometimes you have to wonder if they're even consciously aware that they're doing it.141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not strawmanning, and if you read my latest response above, I am very critical of gg. It's not really fair to declare that I have surrendered when I just had to sleep. I have a life beyond proving to you people that I don't want to kill six million more jews (heck, I didn't want to first six million to die. Alas, I wasn't born yet to try and stop it). Burkean (talk) 23:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you are strawmanning. We're not saying Gamergate is neo-Nazis. We're saying Neo-Nazis like what they see in Gamergate and join in.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and Hitler was a vegetarian which doesn't undermine vegetarianism, and hitler was anti-communist which doesn't change the fact that many anti-communist movements had nothing to do with hitler, etc. I'm sure the Nazi folks liked the idea of shouting over your opponents like many ggs did, but I don't think that means being a libertarian techy white boy who is skeptical of the pc agenda about why white people should think of themselves as this or why men should be ashamed. I don't think to reject that is to embrace Nazism. And from what I've read about what they think of individual rights, privacy, being entitled to that which is your own, neo-Nazis wouldn't really like libertarianism. Burkean (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You're still strawmanning. Gamergate's base membership is 4chan's /pol/, which is a haven for white supremacists, neo-Nazis, right-wingers, anti-feminists, MRAs, etc. And those people who weren't part of /pol/ are seeing the /pol/ aspects and liking what they see.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's the oldest falsehood that associated with humans. Thinking that the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Not unique to ggs but stupid I agree. Kind of like when liberals make excuses for Islam even though they would be the first to go if they got their way. Burkean (talk) 05:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Tacking on Islamophobia to your list of grievances? How lovely.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I was trying to point out how ridiculous it is for ggs for libertarians to stand side by side with neo-nazis who would, if in power, destroy the very freedom that many libertarians cherish. Just as liberals who make excuses for radical Islam would not fare well in a society where such people had control. That was the point. It wasn't about bashing Islam. Better clean your ears. Burkean (talk) 09:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that radical Islam doesn't represent all of Islam because Islamic faith leaders can come together and condemn jihadists' actions. No one in Gamergate can speak up about anything anyone in Gamergate has done because there's no leadership. No central Gamergate committee is coming together to say, "We denounce the actions of the [insert reactionary group] our movement seems to have attracted." Instead they do what you're doing. Going out of your way to go No True Scotsman over and over and then make shitty analogies against the other side.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Another difference would be that radical Islam has quite a lot more blood on its hands than ggs, if that counts for anything. And you seem to be quite ignorant of the religion. As with the ggs, there is a lack of central leadership in Islam. It is notoriously fractured, and there is less central authority than in other religions. And people of all political stripes have pointed out that many moderates in the religion have not done enough to speak out (I don't blame them, it could mean their life). Many have talked about how so much of the time, Islam is a closed system, like other inflexible ideologies. I was saying something I thought you would agree with. That it's dumb for libertarian ggs to excuse and minize the neo Nazi presence because such people would likely do away with libertarians. Can we at least agree on that? Burkean (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe you're conflating Islamophobia with criticism of Gamergate. Radical Islam isn't the majority of Islam. Reactionaries however are the majority of Gamergate. I can understand that libertarianism and neo-Nazism aren't compatible. But that doesn't really stop the libertarians, anti-semites, and racists from mingling within the Gamergate mob.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:52, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think radical Islam might be a bigger deal than gamergate. Just sayin. Some libertarians are assholes. I guess a lot of them are part of gg. I don't really see anything in libertarianism that lends itself to what you dislike about this whole controversy. The final point is this. I shouldn't have to be responsible for what gg assholes said, anymore than moderate muslims should have to be blamed for the extremists. Islam's extremists might be a smaller percentage of muslims than in the case of gg, but the number of muslims is so very much larger than the number of ggs as to make that observation null and void Burkean (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

As I do some basic research I see "radical Islam" is a snarl word used by Islamophobes to conflate Muslim terrorists' actions with some sort of basis in Islamic faith. Muslim terrorists are definitely more dangerous than Gamergate for sure. And sure, if some libertarian leader said "Gamergate isn't us, we don't agree with that shit", then that's fine and dandy. Or if Gamergaters came together and denounced the actions of those in their ranks that would be fine as well. We're still waiting on that to happen.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What phrase would you prefer? Fundamentalist Islam? Extreme Islam? Islamism? I don't think it makes me paranoid, prejudiced or fearful of muslims to say that Islam which promotes suicide bombing, genital mutilation, death for apostates, condones terrorist attacks, is indeed radicalized. We rightfully call those who bomb abortion clinics part of a radicalized form of Christianity. Duh. There are texts within the Islamic faith which promote such actions. If you call that Islamophobia, you're as crazy as any gg. People who are brought up in a Muslim society are not by default any more terror loving than anyone else. People inculcated in extremist ideas are. Burkean (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I did use "Muslim terrorists". Also the Judeo-Christian Bible says we're not allowed to wear leather and cotton at the same time and women who have premarital sex are to be executed by stoning (or is that just homosexuals? I can't remember my Brick Testament). Are you really going full on right wing fundie or is this just atheism talking?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

No one is denying that there is Christian terrorism, at least I am not. There is a reason there is so much less of it, and why, when it does exist, it is usually less pervasive throughout and less malevolent. Is this because Christianity as an ideology is somehow superior to Islam? Not in the slightest. Go far enough back and the Christians are just as bad or indeed at certain points in history (middle ages, for example) a great deal worse. Christianity, however, was at least somewhat forced to relinquish its authoritarian power by a system that stressed rule of law and a series of written laws and constitutions which stated that religion and the religious did not have the right to dictate law. That hasn't stopped them from trying, and sometimes succeeding, but it did restrict their ability to do so. In much, but not all of the Islamic world, this is not the case. I didn't think I really had to explain this to anyone.

I am neither a Christian nor an atheist. It is strange that you would think only a Christian fundamentalist or an atheist would say these rather obvious things about Islam (are you Chris Hedges?). I'm a deist actually. My God doesn't care if you're gay or transgendered or who wins the war or if you love it, or if you had sex before marriage, etc. To assume that because I used the phrase radical that I'm afraid of Muslims is ridiculous. Especially when I prefaced my statement with saying that the Islamic groups which support such things are a subset not the whole even if I and many others wish that subset had less influence than it did. Burkean (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think people that use the phrase "radical Islam" are typically Islamophobes. It's a pretty popular inoffensive phrase to refer to Islamic extremism in my native language, though maybe it's different in English. Now, if you look at the etymology for "radical", it means "root", so I can see how it could be interpreted as implying something like "Islam at its root is a violent, extremist ideology", which is something Islamophobes like to claim. But that's not what radical/radicalized means these days; it's basically become a synonym of extremist/fanatical. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

For fuck's sake, thank you. Someone reasonable at last. While it's quite clear most muslims aren't violent and don't condone such things, Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, clearly did. So I don't see how one could draw any other conclusion from that other than to say Islam was, at root a violent ideology. Christianity is only different in the sense that Jesus, at least not until the afterlife, did not condone violence. But Christianity soon became a violent ideology anyway, so that's a bit of a distinction without a difference. And even if someone does state that Islam's prophet was indeed a violent man, that would not imply fear or dislike of Islam. Anymore than one acknowledging that the crusades happen would mean they had a paranoid fear or dislike of Christianity. I think I'm on fairly solid ground there. Burkean (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Eh, there's plenty legitimate criticisms to make regarding Muhammad, but calling him 'violent' seems excessively vague and kind of snarl-word-y. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, allow me to be more specific. Like many other religions, Muhammad condoned the taking of child brides, also known as pedophilia. This would also in most cases likely involve rape, since very few nine year olds out there are begging for it. Muhammad advocated the murder of those who did not submit to living in an Islamic society. Muhammad condoned the murder of apostates, stoning of adulterers, domestic rape, genital mutilation etc. Therefore, I conclude that Muhammad, like many Christians and jews, was violent. Burkean (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Where do you get the thing about genital mutilation? That's an African cultural practice, not something Islamic. As to the rest, that these things were condoned by him doesn't really say much when most of society condoned these things back then. In some cases, Muhammad is known to have condoned some problematic practices of his time considerably less than was common. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It is practiced in many parts of the Islamic world, but I never said it originated with Islam. Many pre-Islamic arab societies did not condone such things. It seems like cherry picking to talk about how Muhammad might have been less brutal in some respects when he was more brutal than many others. This is part of why conquest was intrinsic to the faith. Many people did not want to live under such a system. And it's a bit of a cheat to say that just because other people were doing it, Muhammad gets a free pass. In that case, America shouldn't be criticized for slavery because the slavery in the Arab and African world was far more brutal and lasted much longer. Burkean (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, FGM is a case of tribal practices ridding piggy-back on the religion Islam, just like, say, the so-called "honor"-killings.--Arisboch (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

But he is still referring to terrorist organizations that are made up of Muslims rather than a branch of the Islamic faith.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, because I don't blame one particular branch of Islam for muslim extremism. There are merely some interpretations which lend themselves to such behavior more. Christian example: A Montana militiaman with ties to the Christian identity movement is much more likely to carry out violent acts against the US government than, say, the amish. Burkean (talk) 21:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Burkean is a true Gator at heart, i.e. he's typing random words that sound like responses at that moment, and utterly ignoring consistency on any timescale that stretches as far as the previous response. Like a particularly sweary drunk Eliza bot. The purpose appears to be to come up with something so GG can call you an "Islamophobe" (like they aren't). I suggest patting on the head - David Gerard (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You're anything but clairvoyant. It was only a few weeks ago that I became aware of the whole story. I do not participate in any of these channels which genuinely appear to be a hot bed of anti woman activity, and sometimes more than tacitly sympathetic to white supremacy. I merely said that just as some people try to generalize and say "all muslims think this", so in turn there are many (presumably yourself) who say "anyone who thinks ggs might have been right about something therefore condones everything they are doing". Arisboch makes the same point on this page, and no one is accusing him of being a gg. If you try and pat my head, expect to find your hand somewhere you would not usually place it (unless of course, you embrace an alternate lifestyle). Burkean (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Today in "GamerGate needs to be compared to a religion" ... unless it's some cargo cult that's trying to redefine the words "ethics", "journalism", and "games" I see no reason to compare your apple to an orange. (Inb4 "agg is ISIS IRL" --Tfp (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah but see I didn't do any of those things and I don't excuse it. One simple comparison was made. Much or most of religion is ridiculous and their behavior is inexcusable, ditto gg. Because I agree with gg on a few things does not therefore mean that I am responsible for all that bullshit they did. Just as many religious people who don't hurt anyone and obey the law are not responsible for all the horrible stuff in religion. And religions have been trying to redefine the meaning of reality for quite some time. Burkean (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the phrase is meant to imply that it's a proper 'branch', it just refers to a collection of particular Islamic ideologies used to justify terrorist acts. "Fundamentalist Christianity" doesn't denote a proper branch of Christianity either, right? Though it's worth noting that having a 'radicalized' faith isn't a requirement for committing violent/murderous acts. The reasons behind terrorism are often political. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Terrorism, and certainly violence are not exclusively the purview of the religious. However, just by virtue of the fact that it has been around so long, organized religion of some form (as opposed to just a belief in a higher being) is responsible for most of the violence throughout history. And Communism and Fascism are both eerily similar to organized religions. I think you create a false distinction with your observation about political because the violence (whether Islam or Christian) represents religions which are being politicized. So just because an action is political does not therefore mean that it becomes any less religious. I completely agree with Michael Schauer, that were it not for out reckless foreign policy, there would be less terrorism and those who form terrorist organizations would have less of an impetus to draw people to their cause. Burkean (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say religion can't still play a significant role when terrorism is largely politically-motivated. But it's also possible that it sometimes doesn't play a significant role. If you live in occupied territory or under an authoritarian regime, it's perfectly possible to dislike the nation/government that's doing the occupying/oppressing for completely non-ideological reasons. What's troubling is that these non-ideological terrorists often end up being subsumed into militant religious movements due to religion's powerful unifying and motivating components and its wider reach. When you organize under the banner of a world religion, there's simply a lot more people available for recruition to your cause than if you focused on nationality alone. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Possible, but not very likely. It would've been easier to say that, as has been the case with other extreme ideologies, that impressionable young men who are looking for purpose in life are brainwashed into thinking that by killing innocents and thwarting whatever the perceived wrongdoer is (the occupiers, the infidels, etc.) they will please Allah and receive their reward (virgins) in the afterlife. I'm not sure that even this is satisfactory, because many who end up as extremists are upper class educated people who have already accomplished a great deal in life. That's what's so frightening. Therefore, many of them are motivated purely by religious devotion. And to your other point, as the recent history of the middle east has taught us, often times the insurgent movement fighting against the occupier often advocates for a form of government even more brutal and dictatorial than that which they are fighting against. Kind of like in Greece in the 70s when the junta was overthrown, but only from the extreme right, and so things got worse after rather than better. Burkean (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, for Western Muslims, I think the reasons for joining an organization like ISIS are basically:

1. "I consider it a religious duty."
2. "Fuck America/the West."
3. "Western society bores/annoys/discriminates the shit out of me and I think waging war sounds like a blast." (Puns for the wins.)

And going by what CorruptUser's been saying about this, a significant amount are doing it specifically to score some hot chicks (or very young girls, if they're into that) as slave wives.

For the local Muslim population, there's the additional reason of "I don't like this regime." Though as you say; that they're opposing a bad government doesn't mean what they plan for their society is any better. Well, some insurgents probably want nice/progressive things, but they generally don't end up being the ones calling the shots. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

GG may (or may not) want to disclaim the neo-Nazis, but the neo-Nazis explicitly claim Gamergate - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC

Well, there is that whole massive amounts of torture and beheading on the part of many members of ISIS. I'm sure there are some insurgents that want their own independent government, but that has nothing to do with progressive. And most muslims of the extremist variety are the ones who have joined ISIS. Most moderate muslims, to their credit, has disavowed the organization. I am very much against the violation of civil liberties which was stepped up in the aftermath of 9/11, but when one looks at how universities, especially in Britain, cater to extremist speakers and extremist in many countries setting up parallel legal systems so as to try and bypass authorities to hold women captive, and wed underage bribes, I'd say their is more positive than negative discrimination going on. And a government mistreating you because you're a muslim wouldn't justify joining ISIS anyway. To compound matters, many muslims, who aren't even British citizens, are, after joining ISIS, and quite possibly participating in atrocities, now are asking to be let back in. All of this aside, ultimately, if Muslims are willing to live under rule of law rather than Sharia law, it doesn't really matter if one day every British citizen is a Muslim or an arab or whatever. That would be a wonderful and intriguing thing. But we're a long way from that happening. Burkean (talk) 04:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ AFAIK some countries have laws, that when you join a mercenary organization and/or another countries army, you forfeit your citizenship. The same laws could be made for FTOs.--Arisboch (talk) 11:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I know, but just imagine the uproar. Burkean (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is all this talk about Islam relevant to GG? It seems like a massive sidetrack. SolPyre (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

So whom do we listen to, to the GG people, who denounce the Neo-Nazis or to the Neo-Nazis, who claim to be GG? Don't all leaderless movements attract people of the less pleasant kind (not that GG was or is really pleasant to begin with)?--Arisboch (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the GG people who tacitly approve of the Neo-Nazis are the tie-breaker. And this is kind of the reason why leaderless movements are nice in theory but buckets of sick in practice. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 15:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As you see, there are some among GG, who denounce the Neo-Nazis, but how many? How many do not know? How many do not care? Is silence always the poof for "tacit approval" and when it does become it? Isn't that very similar to what Islamophobes say about Muslims (that they purportedly do not speak up enough against terror)? Where is the line? How many and how would have to speak out to absolve GG in your eyes? Don't forget, it is a leaderless movement.--Arisboch (talk) 15:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Tacit does not mean silent, just quiet. There are plenty who raise no objection to Neo-Nazi involvement, or quietly upvote/share/express approval of Neo-Nazi or neoreactionary material. If they want to to clean themselves up, they need to either take steps to chuck out the problem people or at least fight to reclaim the term (the moderate Muslim approach, if you will), or abandon it in favour of a different banner (the Atheism+ approach, as it were). Neither works if they insist on trying to remain leaderless, as there's no-one with the authority to throw them out or disclaim their actions and any new banner will simply attract the same crowd. They don't get to claim the moral high ground while using Neo-Nazis and MRAs to pad out their supporter numbers. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

But when GG is that anarchic, shouldn't it go both ways? You shouldn't blame GG as a whole for the less savory elements among them just because they either choose to remain a leaderless movement or because there's no-one with enough authority to become the leader. And even if there would be one to try that, many GGs would not participate out of the feeling, that it is caving in to outside pressure even when they disagree with said less savory elements (and I suspect, that the usual suspects here, e.g., would call that a meaningless internal fight inside GG and continue to paint all of them with the same brush).--Arisboch (talk) 16:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If you find Neo-Nazis attaching themselves to your movement and you don't either a) Kick them square in the britches to get them out or b) Drop that group like a ticking parcel and find another, then you deserve blame. It's not a neutral position being taken. By tolerating that situation you are sending the public message that you consider the group's goal to be more important than combating fascism, that you are happy to make common cause with them. If, more than that, the Neo-Nazi message gets rebroadcast within that group without censure, then only an idiot would try to claim no significant cross-over. If that's an expected result in an anarchic movement, then clearly that's a defect with anarchic movements in general, and you don't get to wriggle out of blame that way. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 16:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there really not enough censure against such elements in GG? What would be enough censure? By whom to not be considered either token, irrelevant or anything like that?--Arisboch (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You should spend some time reading /r/KiA - that might put you right on the general tenor of conversation within GG. Probably set private at the moment, alas. As it stands, racist (not just Neo-Nazi) comments get upvoted, along with MRA sentiments, and a contrary opinion, even from a KiA regular, generally gets downvoted to oblivion. Prominent members of GG publicly taking Neo-Nazis to task would be a good start, assuming that the sentiment was backed up by the majority, making them unwelcome in GG hang-outs. Queex_{chthonic murmurings} 17:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope, they'd do, or else GG'll become an even bigger shitpile than it already is.--Arisboch (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: /r/KotakuInAction/ doesn't seem to have gone private.--Arisboch (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I have seen lots of GG going along with neo-Nazi talking points, echoing them "ironically" or unironically (seriously - the pic of Anita as the Happy Merchant? THEY STILL USE IT) and just about zero objection; even when directly called on it, they mumble around the point rather than disclaiming. I don't know what the fuck GG you've been following, but it isn't one in the same consensus reality as the rest of us - David Gerard (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

But when GG is that anarchic, shouldn't it go both ways?- Arisboch

No.

This goes back to the anarchist punks. Long time back, before you were born, the anarchist punks claimed to be a leaderless movement. They refused to police their own, just like GG did.

And lo, the skins showed up. Did the anarchist punks throw them out? Nope. They remained quiet about it. Oh, lots of "Those guys aren't with us." "We're not like that." "They don't represent us." and so on. Just like the GGers now.

And what has happened to the anarchist punk scene? Well...when you think of them, you think of one thing - anarchist skinhead oiboys. Hammerskins. Resistance Records. Anarchist punk as a leaderless movement has been permanently tainted by the people who they refused to police.

Same thing with GG. Too bad, so sad - you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. --Castaigne (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That's double case of association fallacy. Not joining your crusade doesn't mean, that they're agree.--Arisboch (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh come the fuck on. gamergate, collectively, has a shit ton of people who are really awful, they freely accept and embrace as part of their movement, until the exact moment the PR unacceptability of those people becomes apparent, then it's NTS all the way to the bank. Calling it an association fallacy is bullshit because, once again, the association is about the only identifying characteristic of the ideology. Please stop with these lukewarm "gamergate isn't so bad because I'm personally turning a blind eye" speeches Arisboch. We get what you're saying and it's wrong in spite of being your kinda bullshit "neutral" opinion. Go take your grievances with censors up with the censors and stop letting it excuse shitheads. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 21:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not turning a "blind eye" on anything (look at my userpage, especially the "sure as hell not pro-GG" part) and just because someone's opponents are cunts, which many or most of GG are, doesn't mean, that this someone is right. And you are also using the bad part of GG (which may or may not be the majority, but how'd you know that with a leaderless and anarchic bunch?) to tar any GG or anyone not joining your crusade as evel "pro-GG" or, at the very least, "bullshit neutral" ("Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists Gators.", right?).--Arisboch (talk) 21:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Since Gamergate is a leaderless and anarchistic movement, I have no way of knowing that this "bad part" ISN'T greatly supported by GG. I haven't seen a lot of people in GG disavow the MRAs, the neo-reactionaries, or the white supremacists. I should further point out that I read 8Chan, The Ralph Retort, KiA, and the Twitter hashtags daily, and it certainly seems there is great support or tacit support via silence. People who disagree with the MRAs, the Nrxs, or the white supremacists get either downvoted or blocked, depending on the medium.

So all I have to go on is the assertion of you and a few others that GG isn't all-in with those three groups, despite receiving heavy support and pro-posts for those three groups. And apparently, I'm supposed to - how does it get put? ah yes - "trust and believe" you and Parogar and Burkean on this subject.

Well, this doesn't meet either a) my cynical viewpoint towards everyone in the world or b) the evidence I've personally gone over in reference to this subject. So, convince me. --Castaigne (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Parogar, recently LANCBed from this parish, is an AVFM contributor. Actual MRA came to RW and spent six months trying to enlighten us! - David Gerard (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's one for size: there's a direct link between GamerGate on Reddit and supporting 8chan. There's also a direct link between GamerGate on 8chan and /pol/, which is a white supremacist politics board. Its owner Fredrick Brennan even traded an article on the neonazi Daily Stormer for a chance to shill for 8chan.

NO REALLY. --Tfp (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

What does this mean?

In the third paragraph of Actual ethics in video game journalism ("If a close relationship between game journalists..."), I had trouble understanding what the whole thing was trying to say. What is it? I think this has to be clarified a bit, if I'm not stupid. Maybe it's too dense? I don't know, I need to know what it means.^{— Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs}

It does seem to be two thoughts merged together.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Then what? Should we fix that? Or is it fine as it is, just me misunderstanding? What I can tell from this is that a larger game journalist publication (which can include the developers themselves) wouldn't publish social issues in their magazine or games, but a smaller magazine would. So smaller magazines would publish these issues and become targets for Gators. Somehow from this it follows that that is hypocrisy. I don't get it. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Someone edited this already, I have to see if it remains true, Ryūlóng. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's take in "cultural implications"

I think Wikipedia is pretty good at presenting this part, for example the "gamer identity" (how it was already starting to disintegrate with the arrival of phone games and the Nintendo Wii) and Anita Sarkeesian (how she was already getting harassed but even more so during today's times). Why not borrow some sources from Wikipedia so we can further strengthen our arguments? Wikipedia is so neutral it gives too much credit to the aggressors. ^{— Unsigned, by: Dandtiks69 / talk / contribs}

First, please sign your posts(~~~~). Wikipedia is pretty prone to the balance fallacy, because of the nature of their rules. Pseudo-scientific edge cases, and extraordinary fringe movements tend to be minimized by the verifiability rules, but as long as Very Serious People have published positive coverage of X, X will have neutral coverage. Gamergate thrives in that kind of faux neutrality. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Saying anything about how mobile apps and how Nintendo doesn't release gritty war shooters is kind of playing into the whole "not real games" shit. And Anita Sarkeesian has a page all to herself to discuss how fucking idiotic the hate against her is. It doesn't help that she doesn't like the new DOOM either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Nintendo? I'm still pissed at these fuckers for not releasing Splatoon for the PC. Such an awesome game.--Arisboch (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.wired.com/2015/06/splatoon-minecraft/ —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

This is nothing compared to the real deal T_T --Arisboch (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐

Then get a Wii U.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wii U sucks, seriously. Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I had one of those rare days where I forget to use four tildes. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Still, I wanted to use some of the cultural implications in Wikipedia so we can mock Gators much more efficiently, and also so a deeper background history can take place, like the ones I put up.

Yes, the balance fallacy often takes place in Wikipedia, frequently giving anti-vaxxers and climate-change denialists the same credit as the experts, but using just the history isn't going to give them credit. Hell, we shouldn't even rephrase Wikipedia's words verbatim, it's just the facts that we will use. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

IGN or Gamespot video, I can't remember

One one of these sites about two months ago a video came up with a discussion on whether video games should include current issues. The comments section were polarized, with one half saying no ("that its ridiculous to have Pac-man advocate against the Cuban Missile Crisis!") and the other half saying yes ("The story, the story, the story!!!"), though both groups agreed that it shouldn't get in the way of the fun fun fun gameplay. Our obvious answer is yes, considering video games are maturing and becoming artistic, and considering the current Gamergate crisis, but what was that video? What was the name of the video. It was in either Gamespot or IGN. I think I can use that video to my advantage when editing this article. Dandtiks69 (talk) 06:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Our reputation

Considering the important issues like the one we have right now with Gamergate, politics, and stupidity in general, how do we get ourselves to become more popular, or mainstream (for example, how do we get ourselves higher up into the Google search page?)? If we are to become more active and keep ourselves going, and to spread our original research, we must get popular. Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What the fuck are you going on about?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

SEO? Zero ^{(talk - contributions)} 05:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Ehh, I think we're doing okay. #9 for "gamergate" on DuckDuckGo. On a not-logged-in UK connection, I see us at #8 on Google. GG appears to be linking themselves as much as possible, but I think we're not doing badly organically - David Gerard (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just saying, isn't there a way we can get ourselves at the very top of a search? Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Magic. Seriously, we're not the world's top resource on Gamergate related bullshit. And honestly, it's not that appealing. We're actually lower ranked for homeopathy than what people have described above for grammergate. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In Google it has something to do with the number of reliable links we have. I thought that if we were to become more popular we could spread our ideology. I personally felt that. You can't garner support without being well known. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Google ranking is complicated these days. Traditional pagerank has long since fallen to the wayside as the sole measure of a page's ranking. Front page ranking is now a synthesis of like 18 different indexes. What gets rationalwiki as high as it is right now is likely the result of Trust Ranking and textual relevance. Trust Ranking assesses the likelihood of being linked from "good" trustworthy sources, versus bad untrustworthy sources. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how an article described it, and you're saying its complicated nowadays so none of us can really do anything significant about it. We have plenty of reliable sources and factual evidence but I still see ourselves commonly below Wikipedia and occasionally above it with subjects like global warming and feminism. It's these things that distinguish us from Wikipedia, where we give the weight where it belongs and not to create balance. We can try to insert a lot of reliable links we feel fit our ideology in the bottom of the page for further reading and that could possibly boosts us up. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This page has over 250 external links & 150 internal links. Bunging in a pile of extra links at the bottom of the page in an experimental grab for SEO doesn't really sound like a well thought out plan. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

This page just happens to have all those links. Not all the pages have these many links. And we also forgot that some the pages link to bullshit websites on purpose for evidence on our original research. So the plan sounds better than we think. Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, shit, my world crumbles. It has to be with all pages, not just this one! It'll take us forever! Dandtiks69 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Redid lede

I rewrote the lead to focus more on how Gamergate is about the /pol/ mindset rather than specifically about the issue of gender in gaming. The issue is there, but as we learned from our "friends" who have been frequenting here, it's not really about gender. It's about SJWs by which I mean it's about reactionaries and conservatives. When I do rewrite something, someone always complains about it, so use this bit down here to raise concerns or just do copyediting as you see fit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In what I consider to be a miracle worthy of disproving Hume you've actually improved it considerably. My only quibble is the use of the word conservative which is perhaps a little vague and US-centric. Do you mean politically conservative (or Republican for you Americans), economically conservative, socially conservative or just conservative in respect to change? Happy to bow to others expertise on this but I didn't think that there was a powerful politically conservative streak in the movement? Tielec01 (talk)

I concur - "reactionary" is more accurate. I'd just change "conservative" there to "reactionary" - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the article locally is conservative rather than right-wing.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Switched to "reactionary" and tacked on a bit more, but now I don't know if "whom" should be used instead of "who".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing that I've written in a passive voice and that needs to be fixed as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate is a young neo-conservative ideological movement, according to this guy [10]. I believe "reactionary" is a little too broad for it to accurately describe the movement, for feminist values in games are themselves by definition reactionary (just Gamergate happened to be a lot stronger backlash). It actually is about the ideology of keeping gaming values the same, from what I've read (gender roles, antiprogressivism, seeing games as software rather than art), but Gamergate initially was a lot more about females and what it foolishly thought was their over representation and their abuse towards men and their manipulation of the media. It all fits: misogyny, racism, staticity (this one explains their pedophilia).

As for the term SJW, that is so much of a straw man we much use caution when using it. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, it fits the definition of social and economically conservative. I've noticed Gamergate is a narrow consumer revolt advocating for real hard-core games and conservative journalism. Dandtiks69 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I think reactionary fits just nicely. From what I've seen, GG rhetoric isn't as much about keeping gaming unchanged as it is about taking it back to some kind of imagined golden era of 80s and 90s before those goshdarned SJWs with their story-driven games and controlled media ruined everything and brought icky girls to the clubhouse. (Just don't mention that adventure games were big back then. And that they were popular among female gamers. And, in the case of Sierra, often designed by women too.) Vulpius (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's definitively reactionary, but like I said that's broad. Maybe they aren't trying to bring back whatever true gaming values from back then but they've definitively got those values [11]. So we can have at the top of the page that it's reactionary but later that Gamergate is neo-conservative. Dandtiks69 (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That's a particularly American word Dandtiks, and as far as I was aware entails a whole bunch of political positions that I'm not sure GG has. In what way are they Neocons? Tielec01 (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reactionary as a word is useful in the context of proving a label about GG; of course we can declare it is a mix of reactionary and ultraconservative movements but I repeat myself. --Aile Dhoo (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

They all claim to be libertarian though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Quite a lot claim to be "liberal" too, which is mostly evidence that they don't understand words - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

But all I know of libertarianism is bitcoin vaping atheist fedora bronies. And the Pauls.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This vicious stereotyping must be ended - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

All I know about libertarianism is I'm a software engineer and dear god save me from my coworkers. Please help! ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 14:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm convinced now that "reactionary" fits the group better than "conservative," since that word is purely American in context. As for this group not knowing the difference between "liberal" and "libertarian," that says something. They probably haven't been to school if they're not going to know what an independent press is or what their political stances are, or if they're not going to understand what a consumer revolt is. Those are literally social science terms discussed in the classroom. Dandtiks69 (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

That's because they've taken the red pill and understand that "words" having "meanings" is just SJW BS - David Gerard (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Lol, Gamergate ignoring facts and subjectivities. When will they learn? Dandtiks69 (talk) 17:13, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

______________

We're almost dead here... Dandtiks69 (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing new is happening.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Essays?

Are there any videos online or articles describing the history of videogame tendencies regarding their portrayal of morality, violence, chivalry, or life in general? I know some will be dense because they should be at least academic, but if there is anything else then I would appreciate it. Dandtiks69 (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

You could try these. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Dandtiks69 (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________

I guess its true, Ryulong, nothing new is happening here. Gamergate is finally dying its ass off. Dandtiks69 (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, Cernovich is offering $2.5K for dirt on Gawker writers, $5K if it's a crime. --Castaigne (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Throw this in. Somewhere.

I think the general consensus is that I have a calm demeanor. Heck, I'm calm right now. I can't ever get mad at anything. But this post from me probably looks a little rage-y. That's how bad it is. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 08:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

ReviewTechUSA

You all should look at the videos made by YouTube commentator ReviewTechUSA. He's had very impressive talks about the video game industry as a whole, against censorship, against the video games cause violence claim, and son. However, he's had a few to say about GamerGate. While not a rabid Gator, he's had quite a bit to say against Anita Sarkeesian and against the Law & Order: SVU episode, saying that gamers are being smeared. You all should watch his videos, and use it in the article to improve it.

The Law & Order episode comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPJLbeUpj-U

His YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC__Oy3QdB3d9_FHO_XG1PZg/videos?feature=hovercard

^{— Unsigned, by: 174.61.10.19 / talk / contribs} 20:31, 30 July 2015‎

Why? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Yawn. Another YouTube desk jockey complaining about the evils of a feminist. How long is his video? Twenty minutes?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

An episode long of BSery. The whole irony. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Conveniences

Somewhere on this wiki we should keep an index of Gamergate terms, considering ironic terms like SWJ, GG, #Burgersandfries, and #notyourshield invade their underdeveloped vocabulary. Then again, it could just be me who's confused. Dandtiks69 (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

They're touched upon throughout this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

KiA says: "The Jews did it."

Cultural Marxism redirects on Wikipedia (Did they just now get up in arms over it?). KiA's not happy, including this guy. Best case scenario: They're saying that the "gosh darn SJWs" took a few moments out of their Christmas celebration to rig stuff up, or all those up-voters took it as such. Worst case scenario: The Jews did it. Narky Sawtooth (Floof!~) 11:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Loooool. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 12:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

If evidence was ever needed of their conspiracy-minded thinking... αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 12:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

This article makes my dick hard

10/10 Absolutely Fantastic. An article this amazing is to be expected from the legendary Ryulong.^{— Unsigned, by: 76.127.143.151 / talk / contribs}

That sounds like a personal problem. WalkerWalkerWalker 21:14, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There's probably an Aurini video to deal with that problem - David Gerard (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)